Aligning Income Tax Laws with Rules

Question: Discuss about the Aligning Income Tax Laws with Rules. Answer: Introduction: The current proceeding consists of long and expensive history concerning the GST. The study raises the essential question whether the buyer was bound to disburse, along with the stated procurement cost, a sum inclusive of GST. The dispute sum of $225,000 was deposited into a trust account awaiting resolution of issue. The decision made by the tribunal highlights the significance of drafting GST clauses, which sufficiently portrays the intention of the parties concerned and reflects that not all GST dispute involves the tax commissioner. The tribunal in its decision handed down that the GST clause contained in the contract required that GST should be included in the price, but an order for restructuring the contract price inclusive of GST was made. It was found that Supreme Court allowed the vendor to appeal against the decision and notified that restructuring should not have been necessarily ordered. The Supreme Court agreed to accept the notice concerning contentment of purchaser and discovered that GST clause should be void of uncertainty. The purchaser concerning the case was successful since the procurement was inclusive of GST. Case history: During the year, 2007 hearing was made in the Victorian civil and Appeals Tribunal (VCAT), which took six days and discovers the verdict favouring the buyer. In the following year 2008, the decision of VCAT was appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal and referred the subject to the tribunal for re-hearing. In the year 2011 VCAT re-heard the subject matter for over three days and the tribunal again found in favour of the purchaser VCAT 278. During the year 2012, the vendor required leave to file petition from the decision of VCAT before an Associate Justice of the Supreme court however, the appeal for leave was refused. In the month of July in the same year the vendor hunted a re-hearing of the claim for leave to appeal the verdict of VCAT before a Judge of the supreme court. The hearing was heard for more than 2 days and on September 19 it was found that leave for appeal should be approved and the order passed by VCAT should be replaced by the orders of the court VSC 504. The facts of case: Mr Booth bought a property in Sorrento from City rose. Key and Burton conducted the auction on behalf of City rose. The land was not sold in the auction and later in that day, Mr Booth, who had attended the auction, made an offer of $2,250,000 and signed the agreement consisting of the offer made. The agreement consisted of the special conditions which was directed at Goods and Service Tax. The special condition concerning the contract consisted of the following; GST represents GST within the denotation of the Act; GST Act represents A New system of tax ( Goods and service Tax) Act 1999; Expression used in this context is defined in the GST act offers the equivalent definition in relation to the GST Act. It is noteworthy to denote that the consideration for making any supply of taxable commodity offered under this contract represents the amount of taxable supply concerning the payment made. It should be noted that the whenever a taxable supply is made within the context of the agreement for consideration it symbolizes value. The party to the contract must disburse for the taxable supply at the same time and in such manner, as the value is otherwise payable with the sum of any GST payable in context to the taxable supply. The tribunal concerning this case laid down following facts, which are as follows; Neither Mr booth not the agent realised during the time of agreement that Special Condition 7 arguably made the charge GST exclusive. The solicitors of Mr Booth was handed a copy of the draft contract prior to the action day along with the copy was given to Mr Booth. Mr Booth was however negligent towards the special condition 7 The agents did not specify anything regarding the GST during the auction and nobody else said anything regarding GST. Seven days prior to the settlement, the advocates for the trader highlighted the first sign that Mr Booth was appreciative to pay a supplementary sum under the agreement of GST. The claim before the Tribunal (first decision): Mr Booth claim before the tribunal can be summarised in the following manner: The agreement required Mr Booth to pay not more than $2.25 million and special condition 7 did not have any application. This highlights that the purchase price was inclusive of GST or was very uncertain to be pointless. Rectification of the agreement Elimination of special condition 7 from the agreement represented an outcome of Cityroses misleading or deceptive conduct, which constituted of breach of Fair Trading Act 1999. Damages resulted in the sum of $225,000 along with the additional stamp duty of $12.375 on account of misleading and deceptive conduct of city rose. The tribunal noticed that the Special condition contained in the contract required the buyer to pay a supplement amount on account of GST. The rectification of the contract was ordered to eliminate the special consideration in order to specify the purchase price in the contract of sale was the price, which was stipulated in the contract. The first appeal to the Supreme Court: City rose filed a petition for appeal in the supreme court and Justice Whelan turned down to develop a final view on the creation of special condition and referred the subject matter back to the tribunal for re-hearing. However, the observation precisely demonstrated the difficulties in constructing the clause. Clause 21 of the special condition says that expression used should convey the meaning in the GST act. Whatever was intended concerned the purpose of the special condition and the consideration falling the within the contract should be regarded as the value under the GST act. This would not be regarded as consistent within the provision of the act as the defined expression in the GST act represents the same meaning in the special condition. The difficulty in determination of considerations represents the value which is exacerbated by the fact if the term consideration falls within the meaning of the GST act. This represents that any such value which is payable under special co ndition 7 should be a part of the consideration since it would reflect an amount in connection with, in reply to, or for the enticement of the supply. The difficulties continue when the clause provides that a taxable supply be made for consideration, which represents its value. The question arises that if the consideration represents value due to the first part of clause 7.2 it may be difficult to understand why the second part is qualified in such a manner. The second part of the clause 7.2 also adds that the concerned party is accountable to disburse for the taxable supply and must be paid at the same time and in the similar way the value, which is otherwise payable along with GST. If the value falls within the meaning of the GST act then this represent that, the person should pay whatever be the obligation concerning the imposition of special condition 7 at the equal time and in the equivalent manner as the charge payable. The re-hearing before the Tribunal: On re-hearing the case, the tribunal eventually arrived at the conclusion that the sufficient construction of the special condition was that the price in the contract was exclusive of the GST. As observed by the tribunal that Mr Booth obliged to pay an additional sum regarding GST. It was ruled that whatever view one takes the drafting of the special condition is completely unsatisfactory. If contra referentum rule is taken into the consideration, it tends to push one away from a construction for which city rose argued. The court also discovered that the conduct of the city rose and the agents was misleading and deceptive which was within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act. However, it should be noted that no such penalty was imposed on the due the loss suffered by Mr Booth and damage was completely rested on City rose. The tribunal also discovered that if the contract could not be corrected, the contract must be varied upon the elimination of special condition 7 or instead award the damage of $225,000 to compensate Mr Booth for loss and damage suffered. The appeal to Supreme Court: City rose filed an appeal on numerous grounds but the tribunal directed them to three parts of decision; The contract pertaining to sale can be rectified City rose indulged itself in misleading and deceptive conduct and consequently Mr Booth suffered loss and damage. No such liability should be apportioned upon the agents. Mr booth bought a notice of contention which stated that the tribunal should have found that the special condition 7 was so uncertain and meaningless that it should be served from the contract of sale. The court at the initial stages undertook the circumstances of whether the tribunal erred in finding that the special condition 7 required any extra amount of GST to be paid by Mr Booth. The court referred to the difficulties by outlining the condition that in earlier appeal and rejected the commercial or practical approach of the tribunal on the re-hearing. As noted by the court that the commercial objective of the special condition was to allocate the responsibility for the liability of GST. It is understood that the commercial or practical reason identified by the tribunal does not assist in providing the meaning to the word special condition 7. Thus, the word and their context does not provide any resolution to the question whether it was objective oriented of the parties to impose a liability upon the buyer along with the purchase price. It was concluded by the court that the special condition was meaningless and should be detache. The court stated that the words used in the special condition 7 is incomprehensible and is in capable of any specific or exact meaning which the court is incapable of attributing to the parties any kind of contractual intention. The court stated that it is not capable by lawful means to presume what the parties to the contract should be taken to have proposed as whether special consideration 7 provides the procurement cost GST-inclusive or GST-exclusive. Conclusion: The court did not found any kind of error from the side of tribunal reasoning that city rose indulged itself in misleading or deceptive conduct, which constituted a breach in contract. The tribunal also ruled that no liability should be apportioned upon the agent for the loss and damages suffered by Mr Booth. The decision passed on severance represented that there was no such necessity of addressing the appeal by city rose. Nonetheless, the court also discovered that the tribunal made error in indentifying that the contract must be rectified. The reason behind such rectification is that while the tribunal was satisfied both the parties were holding the same opinion in regard to the amount payable under the agreement during the time of execution that was inclusive of GST. The tribunal made error by failing to take into the consideration the question of communication or disclosure of the common intention. In the given casa even though the parties concluded to bargain for the sale of th e property for a certain charge and they did not conclude a bargain for the payment of GST. A careful attention was paid to the principle when faced with the issues relating to uncertainty and incompleteness the strived to uphold the validity of bargains. The vitality of upholding negotiations is reinforced where the party to the contract here have acted on the agreement. Reference List: Ayres, Ian.Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press, 2012. Handelman, Albert G., and James B. Ellis. "Overview of Tax Laws Affecting the Disposition of Estates."California Wills Trusts1 (2015). Kasipillai, Jeyapalan. "Goods and services tax impacting the retailing sector."Australian GST Journal [P]15.3 (2015): 68-78. Keen, Michael. "Targeting, cascading and indirect tax design."Indian Growth and Development Review7.2 (2014): 181-201. Kenny, Paul Laurence. "Aligning Income Tax Laws with Accounting Rules: A Simplified Tax System Case Study."Available at SSRN 2340888(2013). Liu, Benjamin, and Allen Huang.The impact of the Goods and Services Tax on mortgage costs of Australian credit unions. No. finance: 201301. Griffith University, Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics, 2013. May, Stephen. "Applying the GST to imported digital products and services: Problems and solutions."Tax Specialist19.3 (2016): 110. Nguyen, HKhiem. "Consumption taxes: Another look at the Henry review and GST recommendations."Tax Specialist19.3 (2016): 106. Ramli, Rosiati, et al. "Compliance costs of goods and services tax (GST) among small and medium enterprises."Jurnal Pengurusan45 (2015): 1-15. Sawyer, A. J. "GST Reform: Can New Zealand Offer Constructive Guidance to Inform the Australian Debate?." (2014). Tang, Chris. "Australian GST update2015."World Journal of VAT/GST Law5.1 (2016): 32-41. Tucker, John. "The case for changing state tax laws."Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia)35.3 (2013): 32. Vegh, Carlos A., and Guillermo Vuletin. "How is tax policy conducted over the business cycle?."American Economic Journal: Economic Policy7.3 (2015): 327-370. von Weizscker, Ernst Ulrich, and Jochen Jesinghaus. "Ecological tax reform."Ernst Ulrich von Weizscker. Springer International Publishing, 2014. 99-118. Woellner, Robin, et al.Australian Taxation Law 2016. Oxford University Press, 2016. Yong, S. E., and Maggie Ma. "A comparative study of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) implications on real property transactions in Australia and New Zealand." (2015).