Australian tax pays laws to govern the kit which is related to the citizenship. Australian citizen Kit, must pay the income tax in Australia. However, this individual is an American company’s worker, but as per the taxation laws, the individual is under the tax consideration in Australia. For this reason, he is planning for a permanent job in Australia. Due to this issue, he is forced to find a job in Australia. Even though he has assets in Chile, his spouse as well as kids are residing in Australia. Now he is a citizen and also an employee in Australia. Kit dwells in Australia with his spouse and his kids. In an Australian Bank, Kit has open a joint account with his spouse. According to the taxation rules and as per the residential address of his wife and children it is clear that Kit can be a citizen of Australia (Arup, 2006). As per the law of Australia tax will be charged for the package because he has the investment in the Australia. If any person gathers in any country for a trip, then he has to pay the tax as per the laws of Australia. If the individual is employed in Australia on a regular basis, it shows that he is interested to live permanently in Australia. As per the taxation law of the country Australia, the person who is giving the tax is needed to understand and eligible for the legislation of the country. The tax department of the Australia treat the residential and the non-residential taxes differently. If any person is the citizen of Australian country then he has to give tax, it doesn't matter from which country his profession belongs to. In the law of Australia, the resident's taxes are better than the taxes of non-residents (Carter, 2013). Their tax depends on the worldwide income, so to be an Australia Kit has to pay taxes which are decided for him. If a person is a bank account holder any country, or he is a citizen of that country, then he has to pay their taxes. On the other hand, if any person is interested in any kinds of business in any country and he is not the citizen of that country still he has to follow the taxation laws. If he becomes unable to pay the tax bill, then he will be punished as per the legal rules. The bank interest rates are normal not depends on the universal income. The taxation department also has their goals; due to the problem of the economic sector, they become unable to pay the appropriate taxes. In case of the non-residents tax, the individual need not to pay the tax for Medicare (Dauber, 2005). Their taxes are based on their income rates. In the case of Kit, his wife and children are the citizens of Australia since three years, so he has to pay taxes. Alternatively, in an Australian Bank, Kit has open a joint account with his spouse. In fact, Kit also tries to settle a business by investment in Australia. Finally, Kit searches a job in Australia and lives with his wife and children in Australia which force him to pay the tax bills.
Depends on some basic concept of the citizenship of a person then there some few tests are needed to be very specially conducted for verifying some housing and nationality of each of the person are the subsequent factors-
- If there some incidence of the returning of the person of the country is uneven then that person will not be considered as non-occupant.
- An Australian individual who has the size of a family that knotted up or commercial pacts then that individual is considered as the resident of Australia.
- On diverse types of journeys or not by any method of the person is not go along with by any household members of Australia (Donaghey, 2013).
- On an average basis in Australia, the employees are not recreated as some of the makings to that citizenship.
- If in the country there are kept belonging in lasting for the personal ways in Australia.
- Extents on which bank or some property are maintained in the individual country.
- Establishment of business in Australia has commenced with some variables of the drifter.
In some of the residency, test varies from the different importance that makes certain in the fact if some of the person in a residence of the country.
In some of the residents than they have to paid according to their Chilean rules. So the kit is very much appropriate to pay the taxes in Australia due to some of the occupier of the country. In some of the cases of equipment in any of the country the person is residing for several times, so kit's family for the extended time they are living in the country for more than three or many years, as been as the citizen. In some of the residents, there is some particular purpose for the deal of the company income by selling the land because of some land was in comely in futurable for depending on some banks incident of tax payers business and profitable in nature (Gibson and Fraser, 2013). Determined to some land revenue on constructs roads and infrastructure of the area and it becomes on obtained by selling some land. Establishment or some appropriate with that bank for citizenship in Australia kit and his family are the members for an extended period. Some of the social citizenship has also paid the taxpayers in that city which being varies from different other countries to assurance of property which residing with some of the countries.
Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd v Harris (Surveyor of Taxes) (1904) 5 TC 159
At this point the main purpose of the firm was receiving a section under its mechanism that confined copper. The company though didn't extract the copper in the land. The property was then sold to some other similar organization by the officials of the former organization. The former company expected shares from the latter as a part of the consideration. The court gave the decision that the former company's objective was earning income in the future. This was because the company's ultimate intention was earning more income as well as revenue, from selling the property (girdi, 2010). Thus it was a common occurrence in the business of taxpayers and their profits.
Scottish Australian Mining Co Ltd v FC of T (1950) 81 CLR 188
In the case in deliberation, a firm had ongoing a coal-mining business on the possessions subscribed by it. After a considerable period, the extraction of the coal was carried out. The company then took the decision to sell that property. They were quite determined in their decision. To earn more profit from the sale, the land was subdivided by the company, and several infrastructures including roads were constructed (Harvey, 2009).
FC of T v Whit fords Beach Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR
Rendering to the referral case, a region of not fully formed land was acquired at the Beach of Whit Fords by an individual taxpayer that was one or the other a business or a corporation. A group of people purchased this land for producing a business and since, the area overlooked the beach in front, and the people had the authority to use the beach for fishing purposes (Schroeder, Clark and Cathey, 2011). After a few years, all the problematic share capitals were sold as a payment of tax because of an offer that was so that it could not be resisted. The shares were sold to people who had a sole purpose of selling the property as real estate by dividing it when the tax payment would increase to keep them in profit. The taxpayer did not agree to the fact that the profits thus obtained were usual income when the subdivided land was finally sold (Horngren, 2013). On the other hand, the individual taxpayer was detained by the High Court as per the court the taxpayer establishes a business of land development, besides it was confirmed that the incomes so gained by trade the land were measured as ordinary income. According to the court, the entire objective of the property was altered when the new shareholders took over. Previously what was used for on- commercial investment now had a purpose of developing, subdividing and selling the land. Thus, it was legitimate for the new business holders that selling of land was a common income (Horngren, 2014).
Statham & Anor v FC of T 89 ATC 4070
The above case allows the involvement of income tax. The tax obtained was shown as in the records in a dissimilar manner, and it could clearly be seen that it was adjusted. After that, it was established that the revenue of the lands has been rectified by the commissioner.
Casimaty v FC of T 97 ATC 5135
The case as stated above described the purposes of profit creation plus the deficiency of profit creation. It was apparent to the circumstance that had been revealed that the individual was keen to gain profit by the deal of a certain portion of land. The only argument was that whether the profit thus is drawn was accountable to taxes or not (Jones, 2013).
Moana Sand Pty Ltd v FC of T 88 ATC 4897
The case was about a sand firm holding on the sand collected from a land that it was take out from (Ruppel, 2015). They were holding on the material obtained only to sell it to the taxpayers when the prices hiked, thus attempting to increase the returns from the land renovation. This action held the land for a much longer time than usual making no use out of it. After that, the property was traded, but the fundamental clash that get up was concerning the compensation of the tax. The court gave the verdict that the land is to be sold or made use only for the commercial purposes (McMillan, 2010). The property could only be traded to the family member of the proprietor or somebody who exclusively wants to consume it for any business purpose.
Crow v FC of T 88 ATC 4620
The case at this point pacts with the dispute of an individual measured as a taxpayer who is a rancher. The farmer was found to an intention of letting a stretch of land. The only problem lied in the dispute regarding the property (Oppermann, 2009). Finally, in the end, the land was ultimately handed over to the farmer according to a deal.
McCurry & Anor v FC of T 98 ATC 4487
This case clearly stated that the proprietors of the plot were two sibling brothers. Though there were a few residential houses on the land, they had to be removed for its further renovation. The only conflict that arises was if any tax was payable by the brothers regarding the land (Mott, 2008). The verdict of the court came to the brother who stated that though the owned land had to be renovated, the brothers were not to pay any tax as a result.
Arup, C. (2006). Labour law and labour market regulation. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press.
Carter, J. (2013). Contract law in Australia. Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Dauber, N. (2005). Generally accepted auditing standards. Mason, OH: Texere.
Donaghey, T. (2013). Termination of employment. [Chatswood, N.S.W.]: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Gibson, A. and Fraser, D. (2013). Business law 2013. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Australia.
girdi, A. (2010). Australian income tax legislation. 1st ed. North Ryde, N.S.W.: CCH Australia.
Harvey, C. (2009). Cornerstones of Australian law. Prahran, Vic.: Tilde University Press.
Horngren, C. (2013). Accounting. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Australia.
Horngren, C. (2014). Accounting. Toronto: Pearson Canada.
Jones, M. (2013). Accounting. Chichester: Wiley.
McMillan, E. (2010). Not-for-profit accounting, tax, and reporting requirements. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Mott, G. (2008). Accounting fro Non-Accountants (7th Edition). London, GBR: Kogan Page, Limited.
Oppermann, H. (2009). Accounting standards. Lansdowne: Juta.
Ruppel, W. (2015). Wiley GAAP for Governments 2015. Chichester: Wiley.
Schroeder, R., Clark, M. and Cathey, J. (2011). Financial accounting theory and analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Tracy, J. (2013). Accounting for dummies. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.