Investment Taxation And Portfolio Performance: A Case Study

Calculations of Net Capital Gain or Loss

Discuss about the Investment Taxation and Portfolio Performance.

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

As per the case study, it can be said that Fred is a inhabitant of Australia. It has been found that Fred does not control any trading business venture; rather the holiday home that was sold in the recent year was his property. It has also been implicated that Fred did not develop any revenue from the particular property previously.

The calculation of the net capital gain or loss for the individual name Fred has been calculated in the following table for the present fiscal period under both “Discounted Methodology” and “Indexation Methodology” (Wiseman 2016).

Name of Taxpayer : Fred

Type : Individual

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

Calculation of Net Capital Gain/Loss

for the period ending on 30th June,2016

 

Discounted Method

Indexation Method

Particulars

Amount

Amount

Amount

Amount

$

$

$

$

a) Sale of Holiday Home :

Consideration of sales

 

800000

800000

Less : Cost Base of the Asset

100000

148043

Legal Fees on Total sales (Exclusive of GST)

1000

1000

Commission regarding Real Estate Agent

9000

9000

Purchase Stamp Duty

2000

2961

Legal Fees for Purchasing

1000

1480

Construction Cost fo developing Garage

20000

133000

23853

186338

Capital Gain on Sale

667000

613662.3

Less : 50% exclusion on Capital Gain

333500

 Capital Gain that is taxable (A)

333500

613662

Less : Capital Loss of Prior Year

10000

10000

Total Capital Gain that is taxable

323500

603662

  • It has been found from the case study that Fred occupied the property after September 20 in the year 1985, thus, it is counted as CGT assets and falls under taxable capital gain or loss calculation (Kaldor 2014).
  • The particular property was attained prior to the period September 21st in the year 1999 (Davidson and Evans 2015). Thus, the various costs along with cost base that occurred during the time period in order to buy the property can be estimated under the methodology of indexation.
  • Fred also constructed garage on the particular asset and thus it is counted as an extensive development. Thus, the cost for constructing the garage should also be occupied within the removable costs (Bryan 2012). The garage was constructed ahead of September 21st in the year 1999 and this can be assessed under the procedure of indexation.
  • Opined to the regulations of Australian taxation, Fred can pertain any of the two procedures i.e. the methodology of indexation and the discounted procedure for the calculation of capital loss or gain (Sikes 2014). The reason behind this is that the particular property was attained prior to September 21st in the year 1999.
  • The costs that took place for selling the assets should be exempted from the total sales deliberation in order to identify the net capital loss or gain.
  • As per the discounted methodology, the tax provider gets an exemption of 50% on the total capital gain only if the property was purchased by the tax provider himself or herself only, for over 12 months (Yinger, Bloom and Boersch-Supan 2016). Here Fred attained the particular holiday home for long 19 years, thus, Fred can claim an exemption of 50% under the process of discounted methodology.
  • The stocks are considered as other properties (for instance, real estate property). Thus, the total capital loss on sale of stocks in earlier period is adjustable in the present year with the total capital gain by selling the house property.

It can be said from the above calculation that Fred’s total capital gain for the recent year would be $323500 as per discounted methodology and it would be $603662 as per the indexation methodology. Fred has to pay relatively lesser amount of tax on capital gain under discounted methodology, thus, he should consider this particular process for calculating the net capital gain.

As per the regulations of Australian Taxation, total capital loss by selling any collectables is eligible for adjustment with the amount of capital gain from the collectables (Woellner et al. 2016). As per the case study, the antique vase is the collectable.

Therefore, if the total capital loss of prior year might arise by selling the particular vase, then the amount is in adjustable to the total capital gain by selling the house property (Hines 2015). In this particular situation, the total capital gain of Fred is $333500.

As per the case study, the organization Periwinkle Pty. Ltd is considered as a company of Australia. Thus, this firm will not be permitted for tax benefits, given to smaller businesses. The specified firm has given various benefits to its staff named Emma, who is also supposed to be a resident of Australia. Therefore, the firm is permitted to provide benefits of Fringe tax. The consequences of FBT for such different benefits are as follows:

Emma utilizes the car for both private and official purpose, thus, the car benefit should be involved as benefit of car fringe (Ato.gov.au 2016).

Additionally, at the period of visiting foreign, Emma had parked her car at the airport instead of parking it in the location of the company. For annual maintenance, the particular car was kept in garage and not for unprepared repairing. Thus, the total numbers of days for which the car was kept unused should be involved for the calculation of FBT (Yagan 2015).

Significant Observations

The fringe benefit of the car for the firm has been calculated for Emma as per the statutory method.

Calculation Of Car Fringe Benefit:-

Particulars

Details

Total Kms. Travelled during the FBT year

A

10000

No. of Days in the FBT year

B

366

No. of Days of Travel

C

336

Annualized Kilometers

(A x B/C)

10892.857

Statutory Rate as per Annualized Km.

E

20.00%

Cost Base

F

$33,000

No. of Days obtainable for Private Use

C

336

No. of days in FBT Year

B

366

Total  Taxable Value

(FxExC)/B

$6,059.02

The interest that is provided on loan to the staff by the employer should be counted as the benefit for fringe tax (Dowd, McClelland and Muthitacharoen 2012). The loan interest is 4.45% that is lower than 5.95%, the benchmark interest of loan. Thus, FBT should be measured based on actual rate of interest (Ato.gov.au. 2016).

The FBT for loan interest that is given to the staffs has been calculated as follows:

Calculation of Interest on Loan for FBT:-

Particulars

Details

Loan for Staff

A

$500,000

Benchmark Interest Rate

B

5.95%

Actual Rate of Interest

C

4.45%

Taxable Value Interest on Loan

D = (AXC)

$22,250

The company is eligible for claiming for FBT for rate of special discount that is given to its staffs on its own goods. On the basis of 75% of the selling price (normal), the FBT should be measured (Bergstresser and Pontiff 2013). The calculations are as follows: 

Calculation of Special Discount for FBT:-

Particulars

Amount

Market Price of Bathtub

A

2600

Special Price for Staff

B

1300

Taxable Value of Bathtub

C=A x 75%

1950

Taxable Value of the Benefit

C – B

650

The car costs are comprehensive of GST, thus, all FBTs have been equalized by multiplying the value of FBT with gross increased rates (Engström et al. 2015). The rate of fringe tax benefit is 49% for general organizations. The FBT liability of the said firm is calculated as follows:

Name of Taxpayer : Periwinkle Pty. Ltd.

Type : Company

Calculation of Fringe Benefit Tax

for the period ending on 31st March,2016

GST Inclusive

GST Free

Particulars

Amount

Amount

$

$

Benefit on car

6059.02

Loan Interest

22250

Sale at Special Rate

650

Total of GST Inclusive/Free Benefits

6059.02

22900

A

B

Gross-up Rate

2.1463

1.9608

C

D

Gross-up Value

13004.47

44902.32

E = A x C

F=B X D

Total amount of Taxable Fringe Benefit

57906.79

G = E + F

 Rate of Fringe Benefit Tax

49%

J

Fringe Benefit Tax Liability

28374.33

K = G x J

Emma should purchase the stocks herself and should earn dividend from these. Then this would be permitted to pay tax on this income. Here, the total value of FBT and the liability of the staff would be comparatively lower based on the income amount that is earned by the staff from the loan amount (Slemrod 2013).

Reference

Ato.gov.au. 2016. How to calculate your FBT | Australian Taxation Office. [online] Available at:https://www.ato.gov.au/General/fringe-benefits-tax-(fbt)/how-to-calculate-your-fbt/ [Accessed 30 Aug. 2016].

Ato.gov.au. 2016. Loan and debt waiver fringe benefits | Australian Taxation Office. [online] Available at: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Fringe-benefits-tax-(fbt)/In-detail/Employers-guide/Loan-and-debt-waiver-fringe-benefits/?page=8#8_8_Reduction_in_taxable_value_where_interest_would_have_been_deductible_to_employee [Accessed 30 Aug. 2016].

Ato.gov.au. 2016. Property fringe benefits | Australian Taxation Office. [online] Available at: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Fringe-benefits-tax-(fbt)/In-detail/Employers-guide/Property-fringe-benefits/?page=4#Goods_manufactured_or_produced_by_the_provider [Accessed 30 Aug. 2016].

Bergstresser, D. and Pontiff, J., 2013. Investment taxation and portfolio performance. Journal of Public Economics, 97, pp.245-257.

Bryan, J., 2012. Individual Income Tax Returns, 2010. Statistics of Income Bulletin, 32, pp.5-78.

Davidson, P. and Evans, R., 2015. Fuel on the fire: Negative gearing, capital gains tax & housing affordability. ACOSS Papers, p.29.

Dowd, T., McClelland, R. and Muthitacharoen, A., 2012. New evidence on the tax elasticity of capital gains. Unpublished Paper. June.

Engström, P., Nordblom, K., Ohlsson, H. and Persson, A., 2015. Loss evasion and tax aversion. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7, pp.132-164.

Hines Jr, J.R., 2015. Taxing Sales of Depreciable Assets. Mich. Bus. & Entrepreneurial L. Rev., 5, p.161.

Kaldor, N., 2014. Expenditure tax. Routledge.

Sikes, S.A., 2014. The turn-of-the-year effect and tax-loss-selling by institutional investors. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 57(1), pp.22-42.

Slemrod, J., 2013. Buenas notches: lines and notches in tax system design.eJournal of Tax Research, 11(3), p.259.

Wiseman, S.A., 2016. Property or Currency: The Tax Dilemma behind Bitcoin. Utah L. Rev., p.417.

Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016.Australian Taxation Law 2016. Oxford University Press.

Yagan, D., 2015. Capital tax reform and the real economy: The effects of the 2003 dividend tax cut. The American Economic Review, 105(12), pp.3531-3563.

Yinger, J., Bloom, H.S. and Boersch-Supan, A., 2016. Property taxes and house values: The theory and estimation of intrajurisdictional property tax capitalization. Elsevier.