Continuing Her Work As Demanded By Company â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Continuing Her Work As Demanded By Company? Answer: Introduction: The evaluation of case of Jenny mainly helps in determining her Residential condition in Australia, as she started from April 2016 and was expected to stay there for more than 9 months.However, the stay arrangements were firstly in motels, whereas after 3 months she rented a place in Australia for continuing her work as demanded by the company. This mainly indicates that there were two income tax years that needs to be evaluated for Jenny to determine whether she is liable to pay tax in Australia. The determination o the lump sum amount is also conducted in the assessment, which could help in deriving the assessable income of the individual. Identifying whether Jenny is resident of Australia or not There are relevant issues that needs to be evaluated before considering whether Jenny's a resident of Australia or not, which directly in identifies whether she is liable to pay income tax in Australia. It is also identified Business Jenny has teeth onto different fiscal years on which her residential condition in Australia needs to be evaluated. Under section 995-1 of ITAA 1997 Australian residents is considered the individuals who resides in Australia and earns relative income in the country[1]. There are different types of rules that need to be considered while testing me residential status of an individual. Under Residency test section 6(1) of ITAA 1936, relevant test that needs to be used for identifying residential condition of an individual are depicted. There are relevant facts that need to be identified from the evaluation of Jennys case study. These factors are depicted as follows. Jenny was originally working in Hong Kong She is single and has no dependent She lives with our parents in Hong Kong as assumed She is temporary travel to Australia for 3 months She has entered Australia on 25th April 2016 She is travelling from one City to another and staying in hotels and have no permanent residence She accepts off for the 9 month job in Sydney From July she leases an apartment near your workplace Current home base is Sydney She should all the relevant personal belongings to Australia Limit travel is being conducted once a week where she goes out of Sydney Residential Test of first three months or for fiscal year 2015-2016 Ordinary residence test:- This is the primary stress that is conducted by individuals to identify its condition in Australia and determine whether he/she is liable to pay income tax in Australia. If any individual reside in Australia then he/she is considered to be an Australian resident and no further test are needed to be conducted. In the current situation Jenny is not considered to be a resident of Australia, as she was residing in Singapore before entering into Australia. The first three months Jenny was only travelling from one place to another and living in motel, which indicated no residential condition[2].Therefore, the first three months cannot be considered to be a residential phase, where Jenny needs not to pay any kind of tax to the Australian government. 183-day rule: The 183 day rule family States that if an individual is present in Australia for more than half then come here weather continuously in breaks, then he/she is considered to be a resident of Australia. Once the person is a resident of Australia then he is liable to pay the income tax for that current year to the Australian government.This 183 day test is mainly conducted to identify for an individual who frequently come to Australia for business purposes and calculate the income that is being generated from this stay in Australia. The first three months of journey in Australia was mainly spent in motels all around Different cities. this mainly reduces the chance of journey for being the residence of Australia in the fiscal year 2015-2016[3]. Therefore, the 183 day test does not identify residential condition of journey in Australia for the physically 2015-2016. Domicile Test: The third test is mainly identified as domicile test, where an individual needs to have adequate place in Australia for identifying him/ her as a resident country. Any kind of property that is being owned by an individual in Australia economy who is travelling outside for business purposes need to conduct a domicile test.This test directly allows the individual to identify whether he/ she is liable to pay relevant tax in Australia for the income generated in the fiscal year. in the current condition Jenny does not have any kind of fixed living place in Australia for the first 3 months, which directly nullifies the domicile test[4]. Superannuation Test: The last test that is used by Australian government is the superannuation test, which is mainly used to identify the relevant taxes of individual work for the Australian government in abroad. The superannuation test is calculated based on the income generated from individuals working in Australian government. These identified superannuation incomes are then used for pinpointing the relevant individuals who are liable to pay tax in Australia. However, Jenny does not come under any kind employee of Australian government working in abroad. Hence, superannuation test is also not considered for determining the residential status of journey for the first 3 months[5]. Therefore, it could be identified from the evaluation of the first three months, which is the fiscal year of 2015-2016 journey is not a resident in Australia, as maximum of holidays in the country is spent in hotels without any kind of residential test been qualified. The second residential test is mainly conducted for the fiscal year 2016-2017, where adequate presidential condition of Jenny needs to be identified for detecting the viability of her paying the income tax. The following test could be identified as the relevant residential test that needs to be conducted for Jenny to identify her current residential condition. Residential Test of next nine months or for fiscal year 2016-2017 Ordinary residence test: The first of the test is the ordinary residential test could be conducted to identify the relevant residential status of Jenny. However, Jenny is not a permanent resident of Australia, as she staying in the country due to official reasons. Therefore, the ordinary residential touch cannot be conducted to determine whether journey is a resident in the country or not. Hence, other residential calculating test needs to be conducted on Jenny to identify her current residential condition[6]. The Australian taxation office in the TR 98/17 directly States the overall factors that needs to be identified to determine residential condition of an individual. There are relevant cases such as IRC v Lysaght [1928] AC 234 and Levene v IRC[1928] AC 217 that could be used in identifying the relevant residential condition of journey in Australia. These cases directly help in directing the relevant residential test that needs to be conducted for data mining Jennys current residential position. 183-day rule: The 183 day rule mainly states that an individual needs to stay in the country for continuous of 183 days, which could enable him/her to be liable for paying tax in Australia.However, Jenny is currently involved in a 9 month contract in Australia, which is relatively more than 183 days. This mainly makes Jenny resident of Australia where she is liable to pay income tax to the Australian government. In addition, relevant cases such as Dempsey and Commissioner of Taxation (2014) AATA 335 and the Engineering Manager and Commissioner of Taxation (2014) AATA 969 could be used in identifying the actual position of Jenny in Australia. Furthermore, the 183 day test also has some exemption that needs to be evaluated before considering the residential position of an individual. Is the tax pay has an unusual please of adobe outside Australia he is exempted from the 183 day test. in addition if he did do does not intend to take up residence in Australia he is also exempted from the 183 day test[ 7]. However, there is no relevant information about journey that she is taking up residence in Australia or not, as for the job requirement she needs to stay for 9 months in a specific position in Australia. Therefore, under the 183 day test Jenny is considered to be a resident of Australia and needs to pay the relevant taxes to the Australian authorities. Domicile Test: As depicted in the domicile test Individual needs to have a relevant residence in Australia for the domicile test, as intention to stay in Australia is been portrayed by the interview. Jenny has rented a place for 9 months near her office, which directly satisfies the domicile test as it provides relevant information regarding her Residency condition[8]. Superannuation Test: Jenny does not fall under the superannuation test, as she is not working for the Australian government on payroll outside the Australian premises. Therefore, from the evaluation of Jenny's residential condition it could be identified that for the first year she is not liable to pay any tax to the Australian government, as she is staying only for 3 months, which does not comply with any kind of rules that is laid down by the Australian tax office.However, the next 9 months contract that is being conducted on 1st July will mainly satisfy two of the residential test, which is 183 day test and domicile test[9].This satisfaction of the two residential tests mainly indicates that Jenny becomes the relevant residence of Australia where she needs to pay tax to the Australian government. Discussing whether both the $400,000 and the $100,000 receipts are assessable income The evaluation of the main issue whether the receipt of the lump sum amount and annual salary amount was considered to be under the assessable income. However, under s 6-5 of ITAA97 relevant income is identified under ordinary income, which could be used in identifying the actual Income Tax that needs to be paid by an individual. Moreover, under FCTv Woite(1982) 13 ATR 579 the relevant receipt that is conducted by Individual could be identified with the help of the above case. URL salary of 100,000 is clearly assessable in under the ordinary income tax. The annual salary is a regular income that needs to be considered by individuals, as an assessable income under the Income Tax Act depicted by the Australian government[10]. However, the receipt of 400,000 is mainly identified, as the main issue that needs to be identified whether it comes under assessable income or not. The receipt could be compared with the decisions that have been made in previous cases such as Woite and Jarrold v Boustead (1963) 41 TC 701. Moreover, some services provided then it is considered under ordinary income, as depicted in Brent v FCT (1971) 125 CLR 418.Therefore on the overall fact that needs to be considered whether the income is assessable not could be identified from the above cases. the amount is mainly paid for the services that needs to be conveyed in near future, thus establishing an ordinary income. Under section 6.30, 6.180 and 6.220 relevant measures that could be used by individuals for identifying their assessable income[11]. Moreover the taxpayer has not given up any kind of valuable rights for accepting the contract, which directly make the pain about something of ordinary income that is received by the individual. Therefore, the lump sum amount of Payment that is being conducted payment that is being conducted please be considered under Income Tax amount. Hence, the income of $400,000 is mainly considered to be statutory income under section 15-2. Moreover, the Smith v FCT(1987) 19 ATR 274 mainly helps in identifying the relevant suggestion, which could be used in Finding the relevant test that identifies viability of the assessable income. Therefore, under section 6-5 relevant assessable income could be identified for both annual salary and lump sum amount[12]. Conclusion: The use of Domicile test and 183-day test is mainly used in identifying the residual condition of Jenny for the second fiscal year. On the other hand, relevant case study is been used in deriving the needs to add the lump sum amount as the assessable income of the individual. References: "Australian Tax Residency: A Rare Win For The Taxpayer` | Mytaxresidency.Com."Mytaxresidency.com. N. p., 2015. Web. 11 Sept. 2017. "Residency - The Resides Test."Ato.gov.au. N. p., 2017. Web. 11 Sept. 2017. Graham, Melissa, et al. "Womens reproductive choices in Australia: Mapping federal and state/territory policy instruments governing choice."Gender issues33.4 (2016): 335-349. Jagroep, Sherani R. "222. An Evaluation of Physicians for Reproductive Health's Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health (ARSH) E-Learning Course With Feedback From Learners and Residency Coordinators."Journal of Adolescent Healthcare 56.2 (2015): S113-S114. Knoch, Ute, Tim McNamara, and Cathie Elder. "Submission to the Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection on the discussion paper Strengthening the test for the Australian Citizenship." (2017). Knoch, Ute. "Research in language assessment."Language Teaching50.1 (2017): 138-142. McKinley, Danette W., et al. "Changes in certification requirements and examinee characteristics are likely to influence the validity of the evidence associated with interpretations made based on test data. We examined whether changes in Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) certification requirements over time were associated with changes in internal medicine (IM) residency program director ratings and..."Advances in Health Sciences Education19.1 (2014): 129-142. McMillan, Kate. "Affective integrationand access to the rights of permanent residency: New Zealanders resident in Australia post-2001."Ethnicities17.1 (2017): 103-127. McNamara, Tim, Kamran Khan, and Kellie Frost. "Language tests for residency and citizenship and the conferring of individuality."Challenges for language education and policy: marketing space for people(2015): 11-22. Sanders, Mia. "457 visas and citizenship test reveal Australia's barbed wire borders."Green Left Weekly1134 (2017): 7. Wei, Bingying. "The Determination of Chinese Graduate Entrepreneurship in Australia." (2016). Zanardo, Nikki, Guido J. Parra, and Luciana M. Mller. "Site fidelity, residency, and abundance of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Adelaide's coastal waters, South Australia."Marine Mammal Science32.4 (2016): 1381-1401 [1] "Residency - The Resides Test."Ato.gov.au. N. p., 2017. Web. 11 Sept. 2017. [2] "Australian Tax Residency: A Rare Win For The Taxpayer` | Mytaxresidency.Com."Mytaxresidency.com. finance., 2015. Web. 11 Sept. 2017. [3] Knoch, Ute, Tim McNamara, and Cathie Elder. "Submission to the Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection on the discussion paper Strengthening the test for the Australian Citizenship." (2017). [4] Graham, Melissa, et al. "Womens reproductive choices in Australia: Mapping federal and state/territory policy instruments governing choice."Gender issues33.4 (2016): 335-349. [5] Wei, Bingying. "The Determination of Chinese Graduate Entrepreneurship in Australia." (2016). [6] McMillan, Kate. "Affective integrationand access to the rights of management residency: New Zealanders resident in Australia post-2001."Ethnicities17.1 (2017): 103-127. [7] Jagroep, Sherani R. "222. An Evaluation of Physicians for Reproductive Health's Adolescent Reproductive and Sexual Health (ARSH) E-Learning Course With Feedback From Learners and Residency Coordinators."Journal of Adolescent Health56.2 (2015): S113-S114. [8] Knoch, Ute. "Research in language assessment."Language Teaching50.1 (2017): 138-142. [9] Sanders, Mia. "457 visas and citizenship test reveal Australia's barbed wire borders."Green Left Weekly1134 (2017): 7. [10] McNamara, Tim, Kamran Khan, and Kellie Frost. "Language tests for residency and citizenship and the conferring of individuality."Challenges for language education and policy: Making space for people(2015): 11-22. [11] McKinley, Danette W., et al. "Changes in certification requirements and examinee characteristics are likely to influence the validity of the evidence associated with interpretations made based on test data. We examined whether changes in Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) certification requirements over time were associated with changes in internal medicine (IM) residency program director ratings and..."Advances in Health Sciences Education19.1 (2014): 129-142. [12] Zanardo, Nikki, Guido J. Parra, and Luciana M. Mller. "Site fidelity, residency, and abundance of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Adelaide's coastal waters, South Australia."Marine Mammal Science32.4 (2016): 1381-1401.