Analysis Of Prososed Changes In Managed Investment Schemes-australian Tax Office Tax Ruling Tr 2007/d2

2 . Critically Analyse the Argument that Investor s Contributions to Such frame of ruless argon Capital or of a Capital constitution and argon therefore Not Deductible on a lower floor fragment 8 of the ITAA 1997The deductibility of the contributions under secondment 8 of the ITAA 1997 depends upon the determination of the record of the expenses whether they ar of great function or of a revenue constitution macrocosm a melodic line expense . In this attentiveness 2 sets of arguments can be attempted to arrive at a conclusion about the deductibility of the investors contributionsArguments in Favour of Changes Suggested under TR 2007 /D2 (Investments Not-DeductibleThe necessity of Sec 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 for the purpose of deductibility is that the amount expended should be open(a) of producing some assessable income b y means of some subscriber line activity existence carried out with the amount invested . Capital expenses or expenses in the temperament of capital ar specifically excluded by sec 8 . As has been decided in Vincent V Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCAFC 291 at [60] the investments in the agricultural Managed Investment Scheme can be categorized as capital usance and hence cannot be deductedIt is also appropriate to determine the nature of the interest being acquired by the investors by becoming a member of a registered managed investment scheme , as to whether much(prenominal)(prenominal) interest represents capital or not and also whether the income derived from the investments is to be treated as income from the business carried out by the investors themselvesFor considering the capital nature of the investors interests , the germane(predicate) provision are chapter 5C of the Corporations dally traffic with registration and regulation of the management schemes and co mponent 9 of the Corporations Act that defin! es the `managed investment Scheme . While atom 601 FA defines the `responsible entity Clauses (a ) to (e ) of Section 9 defines `scheme propertyThe decision in the case of Enviro Systems renewable Resources Pty Ltd v .

Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2001] SASC 11 is also relevant in that the concept of `responsible entity is complete and the success of other of the scheme is dependent on the performance of the `responsible entity without the participants having to direct any business skills other than investments and such investors are to be treated as passive investorsA subjugate of other decisions in cases like Waldron v . Auer [1977] VR 236 and ASIC v . initiative Solutions 2000 Pty Limited (2000 ) QCA 452 Crocombe v . Pine Forests of Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 151 ASIC v Pegasus Leveraged Options Group Pty Ltd (2002 ) 41 ACSR 561 added further dimensions to this viewSimilarly decisions in the case of Investa Properties Ltd anor [2001] NSWSC 1089 ASIC v . Knightsbridge Managed Funds Ltd anor [2001] WASC 339 In Southern booze Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq ) v . Frankland River Olive Co Ltd anor [2005] WASC 236 determined the nature of the scheme property to be cover under section 9 of the Corporations ActFrom a consideration of the concepts of...If you emergency to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper