Law Assignment

Case Study One:

Part A:

Issue:

Whether Elizabeth is a resident of Australia for the year ended 30th June 2012 or not?

Law:

Section 6-5 ITAA 1997

Section 6-1 ITAA 1936

FCT v Applegate (1979) 9 ART 899

FCT v Jenkins (1982) 12 ATR 745

Application:

The definition of resident is given in S6(1) under four types of test.

The Domicile Test.

The 183 Day Rule.

The Supper Fund Rule.

The common Law Test.

Satisfaction of any one of these test will give a result that the person is said to be Australia's resident of. It is clear from the case that Elizabeth is not an employee of the Commonwealth of Australia and thus not a member of a Super fund for the purpose of the Superannuation Act 1986 and accordingly not the resident under super fun rule. It doesn't either satisfy the 183 rule because physically she is not been in Australia for 183 days of the income year. However Elizabeth is consider as a resent under domicile test because two conditions are satisfied (www.ato.gov.au/):

Domicile of the taxpayer

The existence of a Permanent Place of Adobe overseas.

Her family is in Australia and she is coming back to see family member in every three months for two weeks holiday. FCT v Applegate (1979) 9 ART 899and FCT v Jenkins (1982) 12 ATR 745case can be applied.

The definition of resident is given in S6(1) under four types of test.

The Domicile Test.

The 183 Day Rule.

The Supper Fund Rule.

The common Law Test.

Satisfaction of any one of these test will give a result that the person is Australian. It is clear from the case that Elizabeth is not an employee of the Commonwealth of Australia and thus not a member of a Super fund for the purpose of the Superannuation Act 1986 and accordingly not the resident under super fun rule. It doesn't either satisfy the 183 rule because physically she is not been in Australia for 183 days of the income year. However Elizabeth is consider as a resent under domicile test because two conditions are satisfied:

Domicile of the taxpayer

The existence of a Permanent Place of Adobe overseas.

Her family is in Australia and she is coming back to see family member in every three months for two weeks holiday. FCT v Applegate (1979) 9 ART 899and FCT v Jenkins (1982) 12 ATR 745case can be applied.

Conclusion:

Elizabeth is a resident of Australia for income tax purpose under Domicile Rule.

Part B:

Issue:

Whether Key is a resident of Australia for tax purposes and whether the income earned in Australia and outside of Australia is taxable in Australia?

Law:

Section 6(1) (b)

Taxation Ruling TR 2004/15

De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd v Howe[1906] AC 455

Malayan Shipping Company Ltd v FCT(1946) 71 CLR 156

Application:

Under S6 (1) (b) of the ITAA to be an Australian resident company, it should be incorporated as part of the country of Australia or have said to be carrying on the business in the reigon of Australia either its control in Australia or its voting power is controlled by shareholders who are residents of ...