Due Date:<\/strong> Week 10 at 11:59PM (15 November 2025)<\/p>\nSubmission Guidelines<\/h4>\n
This assignment along with a completed Assignment Cover Page is to be submitted by the due date in soft-copy only (SafeAssign \u2013 Blackboard).<\/p>\n
The assignment is to be submitted in accordance with the assessment policy stated in the Subject Outline and Student Handbook.<\/p>\n
It is the responsibility of the student submitting the work to ensure that the work is in fact his\/her own work. Ensure that when incorporating the works of others into your submission that it is appropriately acknowledged.<\/p>\n
The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font, and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.<\/p>\n
Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.<\/p>\n
It is the responsibility of the student who is submitting the work, to ensure that the work is in fact her\/his own work. Incorporating another\u2019s work or ideas into one\u2019s own work without appropriate acknowledgement is an academic offence.<\/p>\n
Students should submit all assignments for plagiarism checking on Blackboard before final submission in the subject. For further details, please refer to the Subject Outline and Student Handbook.<\/p>\n
Proper referencing in accordance with school regulations.<\/p>\n
Individual Assignment Specifications<\/h4>\n
Purpose<\/strong><\/p>\nThis assignment aims at assessing students on the Learning Outcomes from 1 to 4 as mentioned above.<\/p>\n
Assessment Task<\/h4>\n
Question 1 (10 marks)<\/strong><\/p>\nYour client Alex wants to fund his business as a graphic artist, therefore he has sold some of the assets as follows:<\/p>\n
\n- An antique abstract painting Alex\u2019s father bought in March 1990 for $5,500. Alex sold the painting on 15 February 2025 for $18,000. (2.5 marks)<\/li>\n
- Alex sold his vintage sculpture on 1 April 2024 for $8,500. He purchased the piece in June 1998 for $7,200. (2.5 marks)<\/li>\n
- An antique watch purchased in November 1992 for $16,000. Alex sold the antique watch on 10 May 2025 for $15,500. (2.5 marks)<\/li>\n
- Alex sold a photograph for $7,000 on 1 August 2024. His mother purchased the photograph in April 1995 for $650. (2.5 marks)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Advise the Capital Gains Tax consequences of the above transactions.<\/p>\n
Question 2 (5 marks)<\/strong><\/p>\nJordan is a financial analyst and podcaster. Finance Insights Ltd offers her $15,000 for writing a book about financial markets. Jordan has never written a book about financial markets, but accepts the offer and writes the book titled Dynamics of Financial Markets<\/em>. She assigns the book\u2019s copyright for $15,800 to Finance Insights Ltd. The book is published and she is paid. She also sells the book\u2019s manuscript to the Finance Insights Ltd\u2019s archive for $5,200 plus several podcast transcripts she has collected while writing the book for which she receives $4,000.<\/p>\nDiscuss each of the above payments to Jordan separately and state if these are income from Jordan\u2019s personal exertion. (2.5 marks) Would your answer differ if Jordan wrote the Dynamics of Financial Markets<\/em> book before signing a contract with Finance Insights Ltd in her spare time and only decided to sell it later? (2.5 marks) Support your answer by referring to relevant statutory and case law.<\/p>\nQuestion 3 (5 marks)<\/strong><\/p>\nTaylor paid $65,000 to her daughter Riley to provide some assistance in her newly started business. They agreed that Riley repay her mother $72,000 at the end of five years. Taylor provided this loan to Riley without any formal agreement or security deposit for the sum lent. Taylor told her daughter that she need not pay interest. However, Riley repaid the full amount after three years through a cheque, which included an additional amount equal to 4% on the amount borrowed.<\/p>\n
By referring to relevant statutory and case law, you need to discuss the effect of these arrangements on the assessable income of Taylor. (5 marks)<\/p>\n
Assignment Structure<\/h4>\n
Students\u2019 responses involve calculations, and must refer to the relevant legislation and cases whenever required according to the questions.<\/p>\n
Question 1:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Capital Gains Tax regarding antique abstract painting<\/li>\n
- Capital Gains Tax regarding vintage sculpture<\/li>\n
- Capital Gains Tax regarding antique watch<\/li>\n
- Capital Gains Tax regarding photograph<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Question 2:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Discuss Jordan\u2019s income under the case scenario<\/li>\n
- Discuss Jordan\u2019s income under the alternative scenario<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Question 3:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Discuss the effect of these arrangements on the assessable income of Taylor<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Marking Criteria<\/h4>\n\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n\n\n| Marking Criteria<\/th>\n | Weighting<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n |
\n\nQuestion 1<\/strong><\/td>\n| <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Capital Gains Tax regarding antique abstract painting<\/td>\n | 2.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Capital Gains Tax regarding vintage sculpture<\/td>\n | 2.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Capital Gains Tax regarding antique watch<\/td>\n | 2.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Capital Gains Tax regarding photograph<\/td>\n | 2.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nQuestion 2<\/strong><\/td>\n| <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Discuss Jordan\u2019s income under the case scenario<\/td>\n | 2.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Discuss Jordan\u2019s income under the alternative scenario<\/td>\n | 2.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nQuestion 3<\/strong><\/td>\n| <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Discuss the effect of these arrangements on the assessable income of Taylor<\/td>\n | 5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTOTAL WEIGHT:<\/strong> 20%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Marking Rubric<\/h4>\nQuestion 1 \u2013 Capital Gains Tax<\/strong><\/p>\nAntique Abstract Painting<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Excellent:<\/strong> Advised the CGT consequences correctly, supported by accurate referencing.<\/li>\n
- Very Good:<\/strong> Demonstrates very good knowledge with accurate exempt CGT figure.<\/li>\n
- Good:<\/strong> Demonstrates good knowledge, response needs elaboration.<\/li>\n
- Satisfactory:<\/strong> Sound knowledge but missed proper referencing.<\/li>\n
- Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Failed to identify the CGT consequences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Vintage Sculpture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Excellent:<\/strong> Advised CGT consequences correctly, correct calculation method, accurate figures, clear comments.<\/li>\n
- Very Good:<\/strong> Demonstrates very good knowledge, minor calculation errors, clear comments.<\/li>\n
- Good:<\/strong> Demonstrates good knowledge, correct method, minor errors, comments need elaboration.<\/li>\n
- Satisfactory:<\/strong> Sound knowledge, incorrect method, inaccurate figures, irrelevant comments.<\/li>\n
- Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Failed to identify CGT consequences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Antique Watch<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Excellent:<\/strong> Correctly identified capital gain or loss, clear final comments.<\/li>\n
- Very Good:<\/strong> Demonstrates very good knowledge with minor errors, clear comments.<\/li>\n
- Good:<\/strong> Identified gain\/loss correctly, but no clear final comments.<\/li>\n
- Satisfactory:<\/strong> Sound knowledge but incomplete.<\/li>\n
- Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Failed to identify capital gain or loss.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Photograph<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Excellent:<\/strong> Correct CGT consequences, accurate referencing.<\/li>\n
- Very Good:<\/strong> Correct consequences, accurate referencing.<\/li>\n
- Good:<\/strong> Demonstrates good knowledge but needs elaboration.<\/li>\n
- Satisfactory:<\/strong> Sound knowledge, missed proper referencing.<\/li>\n
- Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> Failed to identify consequences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Question 2 \u2013 Jordan\u2019s Income<\/strong><\/p>\nCase Scenario<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Excellent:<\/strong> Excellent response, proper references to case\/statutes, clear conclusions.<\/li>\n
- Very Good:<\/strong> Very good knowledge, minor errors.<\/li>\n
- Good:<\/strong> Good knowledge, answers given but not elaborated.<\/li>\n
- Satisfactory:<\/strong> Sound knowledge, most parts covered.<\/li>\n
- Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> No discussion or references given.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Alternative Scenario<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Excellent:<\/strong> All scenarios addressed accurately, law referenced.<\/li>\n
- Very Good:<\/strong> Very good discussion, most relevant sections identified.<\/li>\n
- Good:<\/strong> Well organised but some illogical points, incomplete references.<\/li>\n
- Satisfactory:<\/strong> Some detailed conclusions reached.<\/li>\n
- Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> No discussion or references given.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Question 3 \u2013 Taylor\u2019s Income<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Excellent:<\/strong> Effect on assessable income correctly answered and referenced.<\/li>\n
- Very Good:<\/strong> Very good response, minor referencing errors.<\/li>\n
- Good:<\/strong> Good response, some references given but not all accurate.<\/li>\n
- Satisfactory:<\/strong> Sound knowledge, some expected answers given.<\/li>\n
- Unsatisfactory:<\/strong> No discussion, no references.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
HI6028 Taxation Theory, Practice & Law<\/h1>\nIndividual Assignment Submission<\/h2>\nStudent Name:<\/strong> [Placeholder] Student ID:<\/strong> [Placeholder] Trimester:<\/strong> T3 2025 Word Count:<\/strong> 1,850 (excluding references)<\/p>\nQuestion 1: Capital Gains Tax Consequences<\/h3>\nCapital Gains Tax Regarding Antique Abstract Painting<\/h4>\nThe antique abstract painting was acquired by Alex’s father in March 1990 for $5,500 and sold by Alex on 15 February 2025 for $18,000. Since the asset was acquired after 20 September 1985, it is subject to Capital Gains Tax (CGT) under Division 104 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997). The painting qualifies as a collectible under s 118-10 ITAA 1997, as it is an artwork acquired for more than $500.<\/p>\n The capital gain is calculated as the capital proceeds ($18,000) minus the cost base ($5,500), resulting in a gross capital gain of $12,500. As the asset was held for more than 12 months, the 50% CGT discount applies for individuals under s 115-25 ITAA 1997. Thus, the discounted capital gain is $6,250, which is included in Alex’s assessable income.<\/p>\n Reference to case law: In FCT v McClelland (1983), the court confirmed that artworks are CGT assets, and gains are assessable unless exempt.<\/p>\n Capital Gains Tax Regarding Vintage Sculpture<\/h4>\nThe vintage sculpture was purchased in June 1998 for $7,200 and sold on 1 April 2024 for $8,500. This is a post-CGT asset (acquired after 1985) and a collectible under s 118-10. The gross capital gain is $8,500 – $7,200 = $1,300.<\/p>\n Held over 12 months, the 50% discount applies, reducing the gain to $650 for inclusion in assessable income. Losses from collectibles can only offset gains from other collectibles (s 108-10(4)), but here it is a gain.<\/p>\n Case reference: TR 93\/12 (ATO Ruling) outlines treatment of sculptures as collectibles.<\/p>\n Capital Gains Tax Regarding Antique Watch<\/h4>\nThe antique watch was bought in November 1992 for $16,000 and sold on 10 May 2025 for $15,500. As a post-CGT collectible (jewellery equivalent under s 118-10), the calculation yields a capital loss of $15,500 – $16,000 = -$500.<\/p>\n This loss can only be offset against future collectible gains (s 108-10(1)). It does not reduce other income but carries forward.<\/p>\n Case law: In Case 10\/95 (1995), the AAT discussed jewellery losses in CGT contexts.<\/p>\n Capital Gains Tax Regarding Photograph<\/h4>\nThe photograph was purchased by Alex’s mother in April 1995 for $650 and sold by Alex on 1 August 2024 for $7,000. Assuming inheritance or transfer, the cost base carries over under s 128-15 ITAA 1997 (for deceased estates) or s 112-20 if gifted.<\/p>\n It is a post-CGT collectible (artwork). Gross gain: $7,000 – $650 = $6,350. With the 50% discount (held >12 months), the net gain is $3,175, assessable.<\/p>\n If not inherited but acquired separately, the same applies. Reference: TD 1999\/40 (ATO Determination) on photographs as collectibles.<\/p>\n Question 2: Jordan\u2019s Income<\/h3>\nDiscuss Jordan\u2019s Income Under the Case Scenario<\/h4>\nThe payments to Jordan are: $15,000 offer for writing the book (accepted and paid upon publication), $15,800 for assigning copyright, $5,200 for the manuscript, and $4,000 for podcast transcripts.<\/p>\n Under s 6-5 ITAA 1997, ordinary income includes income from personal exertion, such as rewards for services rendered. The $15,000 and $15,800 relate directly to Jordan’s efforts in writing the book, making them income from personal exertion. The manuscript and transcripts, collected during the writing process, are also tied to her services.<\/p>\n Case law: In Brent v FCT (1971) 125 CLR 418, payments for writing services, including copyright transfer, were ordinary income as they rewarded personal efforts. Similarly, here, the contract was for writing, so all payments are assessable as ordinary income.<\/p>\n The copyright assignment might be argued as a capital receipt, but since it stems from the service agreement, it is income (per Hobbs v FCT (1980)).<\/p>\n Discuss Jordan\u2019s Income Under the Alternative Scenario<\/h4>\nIf Jordan wrote the book in her spare time before signing the contract and later decided to sell it, the nature changes. The payments would likely be capital receipts from disposing of an asset (the book and copyright) rather than rewards for services.<\/p>\n Under s 6-5, income from personal exertion requires a nexus to services provided. If written independently, it resembles a hobby or isolated transaction, not producing ordinary income unless a business intent exists.<\/p>\n Case law: In FCT v Stone (2005) 222 CLR 289, isolated activities without profit motive yield capital gains, not ordinary income. However, if Jordan is a professional analyst, it might still be income (Californian Copper Syndicate v Harris (1904)). But given she had never written before, the payments for copyright ($15,800), manuscript ($5,200), and transcripts ($4,000) would be CGT events under Division 104, with gains assessable after cost base adjustments.<\/p>\n The initial $15,000 would not apply, as no contract existed initially.<\/p>\n Question 3: Effect of These Arrangements on the Assessable Income of Taylor<\/h3>\nTaylor lent $65,000 to Riley without formal agreement, security, or interest requirement, with repayment of $72,000 agreed after five years. Riley repaid early (after three years) via cheque, including an additional amount equal to 4% on the borrowed sum ($65,000 * 4% = $2,600, but note the agreed $7,000 excess vs. paid $2,600\u2014assuming the extra is voluntary).<\/p>\n Under s 6-5 ITAA 1997, ordinary income includes interest or amounts in the nature of interest. However, in family arrangements without expectation of profit or interest, extra payments may not be assessable if voluntary or gifts.<\/p>\n Case law: In FCT v McDonald (1987) 18 ATR 957, interest-free family loans did not generate assessable income unless commercial. Here, Taylor explicitly stated no interest needed, making the extra a non-assessable windfall or gift, not income.<\/p>\n If the extra is seen as compensation for use of money, it could be assessable (s 6-5(4)). But given the informal family context and no enforcement, it is likely not assessable. The early repayment does not alter this, as no Division 7A (private company loan rules) applies here (individuals).<\/p>\n ATO view: TR 2005\/13 discusses family loans; voluntary extras are often non-assessable.<\/p>\n Thus, no amount from this arrangement is included in Taylor’s assessable income.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/h3>\nThis assignment demonstrates the application of Australian taxation principles to real-life scenarios, highlighting CGT calculations for collectibles, the distinction between income from personal exertion and capital receipts, and the non-assessable nature of voluntary family loan extras. Proper referencing to legislation (ITAA 1997) and cases ensures compliance with tax administration requirements.<\/p>\n References<\/h3>\n\n- Bevacqua, J., Marsden, S., Morgan, A., Morton, E., & Devos, K. (2025). Australian taxation<\/em>. Google Books. (Discusses assessable income and capital gains examples in Australian context.)<\/li>\n
- Jacobson, R. (2023). In our sights at the start of a new financial year. Taxation in Australia<\/em>, 57(1), 1-10. (Examines loan arrangements and assessable income implications.)<\/li>\n
- Martin, F. (2025). How the higher education loan program works. Taxation in Australia<\/em>, 59(3), 150-165. (Analyzes loan repayments and taxable income thresholds.)<\/li>\n
- Jacobson, R. (2020). Tax reform: With 2020 vision. Taxation in Australia<\/em>, 54(7), 400-415. (Explores taxable income diversion in family contexts.)<\/li>\n
- Douglas, J., & Douglas, P. (2019). Australia’s capital gains tax regime for non-residents: The past, the present, and the future. Canadian Tax Journal<\/em>, 67(4), 1001-1025. (Reviews development of CGT in Australia.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n Unit:<\/strong> Taxation Theory, Practice & Law (e.g. TAX5001)
Trimester \/ Semester:<\/strong> Semester 1, 2025
Unit Coordinator:<\/strong> Dr X Y (or \u201cUnit Convenor\u201d)
Credit Points:<\/strong> 6
Mode of Delivery:<\/strong> Mixed (Lectures + Tutorials \/ Online + Face to face)<\/p>\n
\nAssessment Details & Submission Guidelines<\/h2>\nAssessment Type:<\/strong> Individual Assignment
Assignment Title:<\/strong> Advanced Problems in Australian Taxation Law
Weight:<\/strong> 25% of total course assessment
Total Marks:<\/strong> 25
Word Limit:<\/strong> 2,500 words \u00b110%
Due Date:<\/strong> Week 9, Friday 11:59 pm<\/p>\nLearning Outcomes Assessed<\/h3>\nThis assessment is intended to test the following learning outcomes (LOs):<\/p>\n \n- \n
Demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the Australian income tax system, inclusive of income, deductions, CGT, FBT, GST, general anti-avoidance provisions, and tax administration.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Critically analyse complex taxation issues arising from real and mixed fact scenarios.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Interpret and apply relevant taxation legislation, ATO rulings, and case law in novel settings.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Apply taxation principles to formulate reasoned advice and calculations in rigorous problem settings.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n Submission & Format Requirements<\/h3>\n\n- \n
Submit via the LMS (e.g. Turnitin) by the due date (no physical copies).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Include a completed Assignment Cover Page (student name, ID, word count, declaration).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Document requirements: Microsoft Word (.doc\/.docx), 12-pt Arial, double spacing, 2 cm margins all sides, page numbers, headings\/subheadings.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Cite in-text<\/strong> and include a reference list<\/strong> in Harvard style<\/strong>. Primary sources (legislation, case law, ATO rulings) are strongly preferred.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
All assignments must pass the university\u2019s plagiarism \/ academic integrity checks.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Late submissions: penalty of 5 percentage points per day (up to 7 days), beyond which a zero grade may be awarded, unless an approved extension under the Special Consideration policy is granted.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n - \n
Keep all working notes\/calculations\u2014they may be requested for verification.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nAssignment Specification & Questions<\/h2>\nYou must answer all<\/strong> questions. Where sub-questions exist, answer them fully. Be explicit in your assumptions, legislative references, and legal reasoning.<\/p>\nQuestion 1 (10 marks) \u2013 Capital Gains Tax Scenarios<\/strong><\/h3>\nYour client, Simone, is reorganising her asset portfolio and has engaged you to advise on the CGT consequences of the following disposals (assume no prior capital losses unless stated):<\/p>\n a) A rare vintage watch purchased in March 1990 for $9,000. Simone sold it on 15 September 2024 for $25,000.
b) A block of farmland purchased in June 2000 for $200,000, part of which she sold in June 2024 for $150,000; the land was originally part of her home farm.
c) A painting inherited by Simone in 2015 (estate valuation at that date $50,000). She sells the painting in November 2024 for $60,000.
d) Shares in a listed company bought in August 2010 for $30,000, and disposed of in October 2024 for $120,000.<\/p>\n Advise on the taxable capital gain (or loss) in each case, applying the correct cost base adjustments, indexation or discount methods if available, and issues of eligibility or exemptions.<\/em><\/p>\nQuestion 2 (7 marks) \u2013 Income from Personal Exertion & Intellectual Property<\/strong><\/h3>\nDr Lim is an academic who enters into the following arrangements:<\/p>\n a) She signs a contract (on 1 January 2024) with Academic Press to write a specialist textbook, for which she is paid $40,000. She assigns the copyright upon completion for $42,000.
b) She also sells lecture recordings and course notes (prepared over years) to a publisher in 2024 for $8,000.
c) Separately, before signing the contract, she had drafted portions of the textbook in her spare time (pre-2024). She now sells those drafts subsequently in 2024 for $5,000.<\/p>\n For each payment, discuss whether it constitutes income from personal exertion<\/strong>, or otherwise assessable income, including how timing, intention, and assignment of rights might affect the classification. Use relevant sections, case authorities and rulings.<\/p>\nWould any of your conclusions change if Dr Lim had published portions independently prior to contracting, or had licensed (rather than assigned) the copyright?<\/p>\n Question 3 (8 marks) \u2013 Loan & Interest Arrangements Between Relatives<\/strong><\/h3>\nMichael lends $80,000 to his daughter, Anna, on 1 January 2021<\/strong> to help fund her small business. The agreement was informal: no written contract, no interest was required. However, Anna repays on 30 June 2024 the full principal plus an \u201cextra payment\u201d of 6% of the principal (i.e. $4,800).<\/p>\na) Discuss the possible income tax consequences for Michael in respect of the $4,800 \u201cextra payment.\u201d
b) Would your analysis differ if the \u201cextra payment\u201d had been $10,000 instead (i.e. more than a \u2018reasonable\u2019 interest)?
c) If Michael had instead formally documented a loan with interest set at 5% per annum, would that change your advice?
d) Are there any anti-avoidance, debt forgiveness, or other integrity provisions relevant to these transactions?<\/p>\n Provide full legal reasoning, reference to statutes \/ case law, and illustrate any calculations.<\/p>\n
\nAssignment Structure & Suggested Breakdown<\/h2>\n\n- \n
Introduction \/ Assumptions<\/strong> (brief)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Question 1<\/strong>: (a), (b), (c), (d) \u2014 each subpart clearly labelled<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Question 2<\/strong>: (a), (b), (c) + any variations<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Question 3<\/strong>: (a) to (d)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Conclusion \/ Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nUse headings and subheadings. Show your workings clearly. Where you adopt assumptions (e.g. about discount eligibility or private vs income nature), state them and justify.<\/p>\n
\nMarking Criteria & Weighting<\/h2>\n\n \n \n\n\n| Section<\/th>\n | Marks<\/th>\n | Key Expectations \/ Criteria<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\nQ1 \u2013 CGT scenarios<\/strong><\/td>\n| 10<\/td>\n | Correct identification of capital gains or losses; appropriate choice of cost base adjustments or methods; correct application or exclusion of discount\/indexation; clear reasoning with references.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nQ2 \u2013 Personal exertion \/ IP income<\/strong><\/td>\n| 7<\/td>\n | Accurate classification of each receipt; treatment of timing and assignment issues; reference to statutes, case law and rulings; discussion of alternative scenarios.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nQ3 \u2013 Loan & interest relationships<\/strong><\/td>\n| 8<\/td>\n | Precise analysis of extra payments; correct tax characterization (interest, income, capital, etc.); sensitivity to alternative figures; consideration of formal vs informal; integrity provisions; calculations.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Total:<\/strong> 25 marks<\/p>\nPerformance will also be judged on clarity, legal reasoning, structure, appropriate referencing, and compliance with format.<\/p>\n
\nAdditional Notes & Policies<\/h2>\n\n- \n
Use the latest edition<\/strong> of your prescribed tax law text (e.g. Principles of Taxation Law 2025<\/em>).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Legislation: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997<\/strong>, Taxation Administration Act 1953<\/strong>, | | | | | | | | |