英国历史学论文代写:税收法律

金融论文代写
论文通代写作者简介

英国论文代写 论文通

英国论文通 ASSIGNMENT PASS - 论文代写以独特的英国论文代写.英国essay代写和assignment代写专业服务理念,尝试创新的代写形式赢得了英国留学生的口碑.我们代写团队对于代写论文采取多样化的手段.做到了代写论文的原创性和对论文抄袭的杜绝.

16/02/2019

英国历史学论文代写:税收法律

根据第6(1)条的《个人入息审查条例》,任何来自个人工作的入息,均纳入入息课税。在杰克的情况下,公司要求松树,并支付200美元每100直尺的木材。因为,支付给Jack的款项将用于购买Jack拥有的房产上的木材,因此这将被评估为该房产的收入。树或果实的收入属于普通法,因此将进行评估。树被认为是指资本或固定资产。根据澳大利亚普通法,所有固定资产收入均视为1997年第6条ITAA项下的收入。

根据Bective v FCT (1932) 47 CLR 417案;Lees & Leech Pty Ltd诉FCT 97 ATC 4407,所得收入由受领人自行取得(Greg, 2016)。在上述情况下,来自木材的收入也是为了个人利益,因此,伐木公司将收入作为收入,并对该收入进行评估。

英国历史学论文代写:税收法律

以McLaurin v FCT (1961) 104 CLR 381为例。对于几项未清偿索赔的赔偿款项,其接收方式为包含收入和资本成分的未分割的一次性金额,这在本质上是资本,因为收入成分不能与资本“分离”并单独表征(Greg, 2016)。

这种情况清楚地表明,任何作为几次索偿或一次总付的收入都被视为资本收入。这个收入组成部分不能与伐木公司给Jack的收入分开。

英国历史学论文代写:税收法律

Under the ITAA in s6 (1), any income that is from the personal exertion is counted under the income assessment. In case of Jack, pine trees are required by the company and pay $200 for every 100 lineal feet of timber. Since, the payment to Jack will be for the timber on the property owned by Jack, and hence this will be assessed as income from the property. The tree or fruits income comes under the common law and hence will be assessed. The tree is considered as signified capital or fixed assets. Under the Australian common law, all the fixed assets income is considered as the income under sec.6 ITAA 1997.

As per the case Countess of Bective v FCT (1932) 47 CLR 417; Lees & Leech Pty Ltd v FCT 97 ATC 4407, the income was derived by the recipients for his/her own benefits (Greg, 2016). In the above case, as well, the income from the timber is for the personal benefits hence this is the reason the earned recipient’s income by the logging company will be considered as the income and this income will be assessed.

英国历史学论文代写:税收法律

According to case example McLaurin v FCT (1961) 104 CLR 381.A compensation payment for several unliquidated claims which is received as an undissected lump sum amount comprising both income and capital components, is capital in nature because the income component cannot be “severed” from the capital and separately characterized (Greg, 2016).

This case clearly indicates that any income either paid as several claims or as lump sum is considered as capital income. This income component cannot be separate characterized from the income that is given to Jack by the logging company.

相关的论文代写话题 . . .