Explain why the payment to the taxpayer in FCT v Dixon (1952) 86 CLR 540 was assessable income but the payment in Scott v FCT (1966) 117 CLR 514 was not. In your answer you should include (but not necessarily be limited to) the following: A brief statement in your own words of the facts of the cases. Identify the issues raised and the relevant legislation in the context of ITAA97. Identify any cases and other sources of information relevant to the issues and legislation. Apply the law to the facts stating clearly why one taxpayer was assessable and the other was not. Part B [Approx 50%] Nigel is a professional percussionist and performs with a number of bands and orchestras. In order to practice, he set aside a special room in his house that is soundproof and contains a variety of electronic sound equipment. The room is used only for practice or performance related purposes. He pays council rates, interest on the house mortgage, repairs and maintenance, electricity and telephone expenses in connection with the house. He believes he should be able to claim tax deductions for all these costs together with depreciation on the room and equipment. Explain the tax position to Nigel. In you answer you should: Identify the tax issues that are raised and the relevant sections of the legislation. Identify any cases and other sources of law or information that apply. Apply the law to the facts. Express a conclusion in regard to the issues identified and indicate any other information required. View Less >>
Till 12th July, 1940, a shipping agents firm had Dixon as an employee. He worked there as a clerk. In 1939, a notification had been shared with the employees that in case any staff members are recruited in the army, the firm will undertake making up the payment that they receive in military to the identical level as would their civilian payment would be. On 12th July 1940, Dixon got himself enlisted voluntarily in the army of Australia. As per the notification that was issued to the employees previously, the firm of shipping agents, his former employer, brought up the payment to be made to him to its previous level. In 1945, Dixon got a discharge from the army. He made a return to his previous employment with the firm of shipping agents, even though there was no commitment on either side for him to do this. The question that was required to be given decision on was if the extra payment that was given to Dixon by his previous employers should be taken as gross income (Gupta, 2009). Get solution

Place a new order
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -