Tax Complexity and Tax Compliance

Question: Discuss about the Tax Complexity and Tax Compliance. Answer: Introduction: From the considered case study, it was gathered that Hillary is famous for mountain climbing and is a taxpayer. Based on Section 393-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 it is gathered that presence of service delivery is important for a certain agreement. From the case study, it was evident that the photographs that consisted of stry manuscript as sold by Hillary. It was evident from the case study that Hillary sold few photographs that is aligned with overall story manuscript. For such reasons, certain depicted items were considered being adjudged the personal assets of Hillary. Brent v FCT (1971) 125 CLR 418 case study explained that, for attaining normal income treatment adequate sales goal must be accomplished. Due to this reason, sale of adequate assets must be ensured as Capital Gains Tax (CGT). If personal life story was narrated by Hillary, that will explain the transfer of ownership related with copyright and can be taken into account as CGT conducts. Considering the same, S-15-2 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 explained that income could not be gathered from any agreement (Saad 2014). Along with the interest charges, the total loan amount is expected to be paid within two years. For this reason, the overall amount paid to the consumers is $4,000 ($40,000 x 5% per year x 2 years).Within such situation, it can be mentioned that there has been a great demand from the part of the parent for the interest amount payment. The consumer considered forfeiting the amount of loan that assumes the need for trading the additional interest income payment. An amount of $4,000 can be collected from assessable income with tax considerations as per the Section 6 subsection (5) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 in the form of interest income. Considering the same, Section 6 Subsection 5 explained that ordinary income includes a great amount of money (Tran-Nam, Evans and Lignier 2014). The capital gain or loss, which becomes available from sale of building, is gauged in consideration to point that takes place from the building sale is calculated relied on the points are mentioned under: Land acquisition date: Case study about Hillary explained that on 20th September 1985 was the date on which purchase of a property took place. Considering the same, such property sale falls under CGT asset category that considers property sale accountable to CGT taxation (Eccleston and Warren 2015). The calculation of CST was conducted on proper selling of any residential property. Due to the fact, a residential place expected selling price is computed as $320,000 [$800,000 x $60,000/ ($60,000 + $90,000)]. Along with the similar case, Scott has considered CGT calculation with increased help gathered from two important techniques. This also needs to select among the two techniques that can help in reducing payment of tax (Brown, Handley and O'Day 2015).The above points explained that total capital loss or gain from the sale of rental property is explained below: From the aforementioned table, it might be gathered that Scott requires to deal with lower tax payments if the tax payments to experience the discounted method. For such reason, recognition from rental property selling for the tax period will be $130,000 (Daley and Coates 2015). Hillary case study explained that property-selling auction takes place along with carrying out selling of assets. Moreover, the auctions sale price might be deemed as the assets market price. In such scenario, total capital gain can be found out from property sale to its daughter (Richardson, Taylor and Lanis 2013). As per the offered circumstance, it has been anticipated that a company serves as the property owner. For such reasons, capital gain calculation can be carried out by means of indexation technique. In such circumstances, total capital gain can be found after rental property can be $222,945. References: Brown, C., Handley, J. and O'Day, J., 2015. The dividend substitution hypothesis: Australian evidence.Abacus,51(1), pp.37-62. Daley, J. and Coates, B., 2015.Property taxes. Grattan Institute. Eccleston, R. and Warren, N., 2015. The devil is in the detail: the distributional consequences of personal income tax sharing in the Australian federation. Faccio, M. and Xu, J., 2015. Taxes and capital structure.Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,50(03), pp.277-300. Gutman, H.L., 2016. The Saga of Unfulfilled Business Income Tax Reform.Temp. L. Rev.,89, p.267. Richardson, G., Taylor, G. and Lanis, R., 2013. The impact of board of director oversight characteristics on corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,32(3), pp.68-88. Richardson, G., Taylor, G. and Lanis, R., 2013. The impact of board of director oversight characteristics on corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,32(3), pp.68-88. Rimmer, X., Smith, J. and Wende, S., 2014. The incidence of company tax in Australia.Economic Round-up, (1), p.33. Saad, N., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers view.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,109, pp.1069-1075. Tran-Nam, B., Evans, C. and Lignier, P., 2014. Personal taxpayer compliance costs: Recent evidence from Australia.Austl. Tax F.,29, p.137.