喬治是一家養牛公司的老板，他允許史密斯進入土地，砍伐木材，作為回報，每棵樹20美元的報酬，之后史密斯付給喬治10000美元。在這種情況下，10000美元將被視為特許權使用費。這類似于macaulay v fct（1944）69 clr 235，在該案中，高等法院裁定，納稅人收到的款項是與砍伐木材有關的特許權使用費。特許權使用費普通收入，第6-5節，但如果資本收入，則第15-20節將該金額視為法定收入。根據ITAA1997第15-20節，特許權使用費是法定收入，但本節適用于普通收入的特許權使用費。
本案與Stanton v FCT（1995）92 CLR630案有關，在這種情況下，很明顯它不是應評稅收入。這是一個預先確定的付款和資本性質，因為喬治從史密斯那里得到的錢不是版稅。所以我想建議喬治，他必須為他的收入納稅，因為這是資本性質的付款。
Capital gains taxed as assessable income on assets or events from 20 September. Assets acquired prior to this date exempt when later disposed of with a capital gain.
There are three steps in this process.
1. Have you made a capital gain or a capital loss.
2. Work out the amount of capital gain or loss.
3. Work out your net capital gain or loss for the income year.
Brain Accuired the recent premises for $750000 and sold it for $1880000 after 10 years. This is similar to the case Brooks v FCT. Deposit on th4e sale of real property was forfeited. Federal Court held that it was where the seller keeps the deposit and looks for a new buyer. If they sue for specific performance then no deposit paid, no capital gain. In this case an actual contract for the sale of land and not ‘prospective purchaser’. This is the condition of CGT event AI of s.104-10 f ITAA 1997.
Here the capital gain is $1880000-$750000=$1130000
He receives cash consideration of $20000 by signing a contract of not entering into a business for next 5 years within 10km radius. This case is similar to the example of the presentation: many CGT events are concerned with capital receipts and do not involve a CGT asset e.g. You sell a business, but agree with the purchaser not to operate a similar business in the area for a payment of $25000- CGT event but no asset involved. CGT event D1: a person agrees not to compete with another person for a specified period for a specified time. In this case his capital gain is $20000
He will get 50% general discount under sub division 115 A and B of ITAA 1997 as he acquired the premises for more than 12 months ago.He will get the discount after 21st September.
The total capital gain is 50%* $1130000+$20000=$1150000*50%=$575000
As in the case the financial turnover of the shop was $540000 which shows the business as a small type because the turnover is less than $2 million. 50% if capital gain is made by an individual or a individual beneficiary in a trust. He will get small business concession relief of 50% of taxable amount under DIV 152 of ITAA 1997.
Now his capital gain is 50%*$575000=$287500
Brain has to pay tax on capital gain of $287500 because section 152-210 of ITAA will not be applied to him as he has not acquired any replacement active asset for the business asset he sold. He doesn’t have to pay tax for his house valued $1.8 million because that was his main residence.
Having 45% interest and his wife’s 5% interest in a property development company do not give rise to any CGT event. He would need to pay if the company had made payment to brain in respect of his shares.
George is a owner of cattle firm and he allowed smith to enter the land and felling timber in return for payment of $20 per tree and after that smith pays $10000 to George. In this situation this payment $10000 will be consider as royalty payment. This is similar to macaulay v fct (1944) 69 clr 235, where the high court decided this as the payment received by the tax payer was royalty as it payment made in relation to the amount of timber removed. Royalties ordinary income, s 6-5, but if a capital receipt then s 15-20 deems the amount to be statutory income. Under section 15-20 of ITAA 1997 royalties is a statutory income but this section apply to royalties that are ordinary income.
The answer will change if Smith had promised to remove the timber. If George and Smith made a promise, this transaction will be a pre determined payment. Thus this will be a capital because the money georage received from smith is not royalties.
This case is related to the case of Stanton v FCT (1995) 92 CLR630 in this circumstance it is very clear that it is not a assessable income. it is a pre determined payment and capital nature because george received money from smith that is not royalties. So I would like to advice george that he has to pay tax for his income because this payment are capital in nature.
Based on CGT event 104-A1 of ITAA 1997 the amount george will earn that is his capital gain and royalty payment $10 for every tree removed from the land for the next 10 years is consider as ordinary income under section 104- 10 (1) of ITAA 1997.