<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
If GST is payable on the sale of a strata lot, can a dissenting owner recover GST in respect of the sale of its lot having regard to Part 10 of the Strata Schemes Development Bill 2015? 
The short answer is yes, GST will most likely be recoverable as part of the “compensation value” received by a dissenting owner.
Who is a “dissenting owner”?
A dissenting owner is an owner of a lot which does not support a strata renewal plan prepared in accordance with Part 10 of the Strata Schemes Development Bill 2015. 
What is the “compensation value”?
The “compensation value” is the value of a lot determined:
• pursuant to s55 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) (Acquisition Act) subject to any modifications prescribed by the regulations; or  • by any different valuation method prescribed by the regulations.
The regulations are yet to be published, so it is unclear whether the regulations will specifically regulate (or modify) the manner in which the “compensation value” is calculated, and in particular whether or not  GST will be recoverable by a dissenting owner as part of the market value of the dissenting lot.
However, if the “compensation value” is to be determined solely pursuant to the Acquisition Act, then it is most likely that any GST paid (or payable) on the sale of the dissenting lot would form part of the market value of that lot, meaning that a dissenting lot owner would then recover GST as part of the overall value it receives. 
Is a dissenting owner entitled to “compensation value” for its lot?
Yes, at a minimum.
When making an order to effect to a strata renewal plan, a court must be satisfied in relation to the compensation being received by lot owners that:
• in the event of the sale of the entire strata scheme (a “collective sale”), each lot owner must receive not less than the “compensation value”; and • in the event of a “redevelopment”, the amount to be paid to a dissenting owner must be the greater of the “compensation value” of the dissenting owner’s lot and the amount which the dissenting owner would have been entitled to had they supported the strata renewal plan.
Leisha de Aboitiz, partner at William James Law and Ole Mitrevski, solicitor at William James Law. They can be contacted <a href="https://www.williamjameslaw.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Property 101: GST and strata

<html><body>
From 1 July 2018 the Government will require purchasers of new residential premises to remit the GST directly to the ATO as part of settlement.
KPMG's Indirect Tax Partner Kate Law says this announcement comes as a surprise.
"It is a significant divergence from the way the GST system currently operates , where GST is collected from the supplier (developers).
"The Government has announced this change as a tax integrity measure," she noted.
Around four years ago, ATO compliance programs targeted illegal “phoenix” activity, purportedly from a number of property developers who repeatedly placed companies in liquidation with outstanding GST obligations, despite having claimed input tax credits on construction costs.
However, KPMG indicated it was not aware of industry consultation on this issue more recently.
"We question the practicality and administrative cost of imposing GST on unregistered ‘mum and dad’ purchasers.
"Where developers use the margin scheme to calculate the GST liability, the purchaser is unlikely to be aware of the amount of GST included in the purchase price.
"This measure will therefore require developers to change the way they disclose the price to ensure the GST liability is disclosed as a separate line item," it noted
The Budget papers state that this measure is estimated to increase GST revenue by $660 million and associated payments to the States and Territories, net of administrative costs, by $1.6 billion over the forward estimates period (4 years to 2019-20).
However, the Budget papers state that the difference is due to the timing of when GST is collected and recognised.
"This suggests that it is not a permanent GST difference - which is seemingly at odds with the Government’s statement that some developers are failing to remit the GST to the ATO.”
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

New residential GST surprise policy shift in 2017 Budget 

<html><body>
Close to 100 countries have signed up to a new set of tax principles to govern how goods and services are taxed across borders.
But local retailers are unsure as to what kind of pressure the international consensus will have in Australia, where state and territory governments are yet to reach an agreement about changing the $1000 <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/tax/35217-lowering-the-gst-import-threshold-will-require-careful-political-management" target="_blank">GST threshold for online purchases</a> from offshore suppliers.
Representatives from 86 countries endorsed the guidelines from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Tokyo, Japan, on April 18 as part of the OECD Global Forum on VAT.
The <a href="https://www.oecd.org/ctp/consumption/governments-endorse-new-oecd-guidelines-on-applying-vat-across-borders.htm" target="_blank">guidelines</a>, which represent the first internationally agreed framework for applying value-added tax across national borders, aim to help countries avoid both double-taxation and under-taxation. The guidelines relate to two areas: VAT neutrality and ensuring taxes on business-to-business trade is services are destination-based.
The level at which GST is applied to online purchases from offshore suppliers in Australia is a hotly-contested issue, with many local retailers arguing that lowering the threshold from $1000 to a much smaller amount such as $20 would create a more even playing field.
The Productivity Commission <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/growth/economy/23452-20111209-productivity-commission-shoots-down-online-gst-argument-but-pushes-for-changes-to-postal-costs--trading-hours-and-zoning-laws" target="_blank">examined the issue in 2011</a> but found that the cost of collecting GST on online purchases at a threshold of $20 would far outweigh the benefit.
Australian National Retailers Association executive director Russell Zimmerman told SmartCompany while there has been “robust discussion” on the topic between the federal government and retailers, he is unsure as to how much pressure the OECD guidelines will have added to the local debate.
However, Zimmerman said the endorsement “does show that every country is concerned” about international tax arrangements.
Zimmerman said the OECD guidelines may have more of an impact on multinational companies who use corporate structures across various territories to attempt to avoid their tax obligations.
State and territory ministers were <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/politics/41170-push-to-lower-online-gst-threshold-re-intensifies-as-pm-meets-with-retail-chiefs" target="_blank">due to make a decision about the threshold in March</a> but an agreement was hampered by the elections in Tasmania and South Australia. “It’s fair to say that the issue will go to another cabinet meeting,” says Zimmerman of the next step.
Zimmerman said the ARA hopes the recent elevation to NSW Premier of former treasurer Mike Baird, a strong supporter of lowering the GST threshold, will spur the debate.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.SmartCompany.com.au" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

jake-cSmGT7VXVf

Almost 100 countries sign GST agreement: Pressure mounts on Australian government

<html><body>
Modern governments believe that during budget framing, it is politically savvy to parade the pain. We saw it with Labor and the Coalition is doing the same.
There are scary scenarios of what would happen without remediation, with warnings about problem areas. Some surprises will be held for the night, but other measures will be strategically “leaked” beforehand.
Tony Abbott, in Perth campaigning for the West Australian Senate election, let it be known he was chairing Wednesday’s meeting of cabinet’s expenditure review committee.
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen declared it was the first time in Australian history a PM had chaired the ERC, claiming it showed dysfunction at the highest level.
This was nonsense. The government could quickly counter that Bob Hawke, John Howard and Kevin Rudd had also done so.
But it was surprising Abbott gave such a high profile to this “razor gang” meeting.
The ERC is all about nasties and, after all, Labor is making the prospect of deep budget cuts a centrepiece of its WA Senate campaigning. Abbott seemed to be providing ammunition. On the other hand, he could take the view Labor had the bullets anyway so he might as well play the longer game.
Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson publicly chimed into the pre- budget debate with a speech reinforcing the government’s lines about spending growth in the big areas.
But Parkinson also sent a public message to the government for later about what it should do on taxation.
With Hockey shining attention on health and pension costs, Parkinson documented the escalation.
Total Commonwealth spending on health is set to rise from $64.7 billion in nominal terms in 2013-14 to $74.6 billion in 2016-17, and to $116 billion in 2023-24.
The Commonwealth’s three main pension payments - for the aged, those on disability support and carers – will grow at an annual 6% in nominal terms over the forward estimates, adding $13 billion to annual payments by 2016-17, and another $39 billion by 2023-24. “Of this nearly $52 billion in additional payments in 2023-24, compared to 2013-14, over half is a result of indexation with the remainder due to increases in the number of recipients.”
That seems a fair hint that both drivers are being looked at. It should be remembered that successive governments have been trying to curtail the numbers on the disability pension but it has seemed a losing battle. It’s never as easy as it looks in theory.
Parkinson then turned to the tax side. His argument, aimed well beyond this budget and directed squarely at the political masters he will leave in December, is crystal clear. Australia needs a tax system it relies more on indirect tax, less on direct tax. The king of indirect taxes is, of course, the GST.
Parkinson pointed to one rather surprising fact, given the tax debates we’ve been through over many years. “Despite reforms that broaden the tax base (such as the GST), and decisions that have lowered corporate and personal tax rates across the decades, the share of direct and indirect taxes (as well as Australia’s reliance on income taxes) has changed little since the 1950s.”
Australia had relatively high reliance on direct taxes as a proportion of revenue raised compared with other OECD countries, he noted, before observing that: “Research consistently says that reduced reliance on income taxes and increased reliance on other, more efficient sources of revenue, including indirect taxes, can support higher growth and higher living standards by increasing workforce participation and lifting productivity.”
The problem is that “without conscious change, Australia’s tax mix will move in the opposite direction as personal income tax increases through fiscal drag”.
“We will move even further in this direction if, as we anticipate, the relative share of total indirect taxes (including GST) continues its long-term decline. Contributing to this decline is the non-indexation of fuel excise (unlike other excise rates) and a rising proportion of consumption outside the GST net, for example, in increased health expenditure.”
Parkinson warned that “continued increases in the personal income tax burden will hit lower and middle income earners with higher marginal and average tax rates. This will have adverse labour force participation impacts, while sharpening incentives for tax minimisation by higher income earners”.
The globalised economy meant Australia would be under pressure to cut the company tax rate.
“Given the pressure to return fiscal drag and to reduce the burden of corporate income tax, it will be a challenge to maintain the current levels of revenue over the medium term, let alone the increases required to achieve the budget projections.”
In the past, Parkinson said, tax reform had largely been pursued through broadening tax bases as an offset for lowering tax rates.
“However, a key challenge for the upcoming White Paper on Taxation will be to consider the mix of taxes, including whether there is a role for a greater contribution from indirect taxes.”
The opportunity were there to plot a path to a better tax system and the dangers clear if it was not done.
“If we do not start making these changes and simply keep drifting along we will be increasingly vulnerable to the next global crisis and will also lose out on the opportunities presented by the rising Asian middle class. The exceptionalism of this ‘lucky country’ will become just a distant, ironic memory and our children may really end up ‘doing it tough’”.
So there you have it. Parkinson, axed by the government (though extended until year’s end) won’t be around for the battles after the white paper, which has a long time table.
But he has signposted another lot of unpalatable truths. In terms of painful decisions ahead, this budget is only the start of it for the Abbott government, which hates the idea of tax increases, fears the politics of a robust debate about needing a higher, broader GST and has promised to take any major tax changes to the election.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/25161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
Michelle Grattan is professorial fellow at the <a href="https://www.canberra.edu.au/" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">University of Canberra</a>.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Treasury boss hints at the need for a broader GST

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
One of biggest issues to be addressed in last weekend’s WA Senate poll - and perhaps one of the most complex, too - was how best to maintain the state’s growth trajectory through the forthcoming period of transition.
Western Australia has undeniably seen the benefits from sustained economic growth over the course of the resources boom, with the state’s per capita gross income rising to around 50% above national levels in little over a decade.
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/45584/width668/2z8jq8pc-1396569575.jpg" alt="">
Real per capita Gross State Income: WA and Australia, 1992 to 2013
However, the latest economic data does support the view that the WA economy has passed the peak of the construction phase of the commodities boom (characterised by growth in productive capacity, high employment and real wage growth). It is now moving to a production phase in which the state’s productive capacity is “put to work” in driving resource volume and export growth.
Early signs of this transition can be seen in reduced capital investment growth, lower participation and rising unemployment. WA’s unemployment rate has almost always been below the national rate, but there are signs that the unemployment and participation gaps are narrowing.
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/45580/width668/pkb3vxgg-1396569393.jpg" alt="">
Unemployment and labour force participation: WA and Australia, 1991–2013
Relatedly, the changing workforce and skills requirements for WA require careful thought. Skilled migration, whether from interstate or from overseas, can only do so much to meet the changing demand for labour in the state. The shifting industrial composition also requires an education and training system flexible enough to retrain WA workers to match the needs of industry.
Housing policy was also an important battleground in this weekend’s elections.
Industry group affordability indicators published recently suggest that WA isn’t significantly out of line with other states and territories. However, most of these measures dwell on cost burdens for the “typical” family and house, disguising some big economic and social issues facing policymakers.
The Perth housing market has a real problem providing affordable rentals to low income families, or the right types of properties in the right locations. The housing sector points to high construction, regulation and approvals costs as the main impediment to the efficient supply of affordable housing. Whatever the cause, these issues are common topics of conversation for West Australians.
Australia raises proportionately more in direct taxation than the OECD average (around 60%, two thirds of which is personal income taxation) but significantly less from indirect taxes (mainly GST) - 13% against an OECD average of around 19%.
Federal Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson this week rehearsed the positive arguments for shifting the balance of income taxation and GST more towards the latter, but the context is not textbook. If you had to raise more revenue as a government to honour public spending commitments on NDIS, health and schools reform, support the ageing baby boomer population, and defend against falling terms of trade, which would you choose?
<blockquote>
Housing policy was also an important battleground in this weekend’s elections.
</blockquote>
The subtle increases in direct tax revenues through fiscal drag can stretch only so far, and more overt increases in company or personal income taxation face strong political headwinds. It does seem unnecessarily restrictive for the Federal government to deliver effective tax policy in more challenging economic times with its GST hand tied behind its back. However, consumption taxes may be more efficient, but they’re more regressive too.
WA households have experienced significant real incomes growth over the course of the resources boom, not just in absolute terms but relative to the national trend. But this growth hasn’t been distributed evenly, and the impact of an increase in GST tends to fall regressively on lower income earners who are less able to substitute away from consumption.
With the falling allocation of the GST wealth share to WA - down to 4.2% - placing more pressure on the state’s spending program, there is a need to ensure that economic policy responses don’t contribute to further increases in inequality beyond those already seen.
When it comes to GST shares, it’s hard to argue that WA gets out what it puts in. However, whether the GST return to WA is “fair” (or at least reasonable) depends on the position one takes on the redistributive philosophy underlying the allocation of GST shares across states and territories.
Alan Duncan is director of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and Bankwest Research Chair in Economic Policy at Curtin University.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/25135/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is an independent economic and social research organisation located within Curtin Business School at Curtin University. The Centre was established in 2012 with support from Bankwest (a division of Commonwealth Bank of Australia) and Curtin University. The views in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates.
The views in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Enough talk: the economic policies that WA needs now

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A company claiming to carry on a land development business in Victoria has been unsuccessful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in claiming GST input tax credits (ITCs) for acquisitions it had made.
The case illustrates the need for proper documentation in making tax claims and also, in this particular matter, the need for something more than just an intention to conduct a business in order to be able to <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/tax/43664-over-claimed-gst-credits-good-intentions-just-don-t-cut-it" target="_blank">claim GST input tax credits</a>.
The taxpayer company was registered for GST in August 2010. It claimed it had purchased property in Victoria for land development and subdivision. For the periods 1 October 2010 to 31 March 2011, the company claimed a total of $226,128 in ITCs for what are known as creditable acquisitions; however, throughout the period, no sales were reported.
Following an audit by the ATO, the commissioner found the company was not carrying on an enterprise for the purposes of the GST Act, was not entitled to ABN and GST registration, was not entitled to the ITCs, and was liable to an administrative penalty at the rate of 50% for "recklessness". Before the AAT, the taxpayer clarified it was only seeking to claim $1128 in ITCs for the tax period ended 31 October 2010.
The company had the burden of proving its case, that the commissioner's assessments were excessive and that the commissioner's decision to cancel its GST and ABN registration should not have been made or should have been made differently.
The AAT held the taxpayer had not discharged the burden of proof that, on the balance of probabilities, the ITCs claimed for the periods 1 October 2010 to 31 March 2011 for $226,128 should be allowed. Although the taxpayer had subsequently claimed to have withdrawn some of the BASs leaving only its ITC claim for $1128 for the tax period ended 31 October 2010, the AAT said the taxpayer was not entitled to the claim because of its finding that the taxpayer was not carrying on an enterprise at that time, which meant there were no acquisition for a creditable purpose and therefore no creditable acquisition.
A key issue was the lack of documentation proving that the taxpayer was indeed the owner of the land it claimed to have purchased. Among other things, the AAT concluded the taxpayer did not have the funds required to purchase the land. It further noted the taxpayer "has never become the registered proprietor of that land". It said that until such time as the land was in fact conveyed to the taxpayer, "it could not possibly have commenced an enterprise involving the subdivision of that land".
The AAT said that the carrying on of an enterprise may encompass a wide range of activities or even a single activity at any point in time between the commencement and termination of the enterprise. The tribunal then examined the company's purported land development project in some detail.
The AAT said while the company may have had the intention to carry out a business of land development and subdivision, the steps it took in obtaining a planning permit and a market valuation could not "properly be described as being steps taken in the course of commencement of an enterprise".
In the AAT's view, until such time as the company acquired the right to deal with the land in such a way that subdivision and sale could occur, it was "artificial to suggest it was conducting the enterprise involving the subdivision and sale of land". The steps taken were clearly precursors or preparatory to the possible commencement of business, whether that be subdivision of the land or a quick sale to a syndicate of buyers, the AAT said.
The tribunal was critical of the <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/tax/29844-tax-experts-warn-documentation-critical-after-property-investor-loses-attempt-to-split-tax-burden" target="_blank">level of documentation provided by the company</a>. It said the documents provided were unsatisfactory. Some were incomplete, some were simply absent and some appeared to be inconsistent with statements made to the ATO in the course of discussions following assessment. The purchase price of the land in question was just over $2 million. However, the AAT said there was not in evidence an executed contract, nor was there any objective evidence that the parties had agreed to enter into this contract.
Accordingly, it held the company was not carrying on an enterprise in accordance with the GST Act at the relevant times, and therefore, it was not entitled to the ITCs for the claimed expenditure in any of the months in question.
The AAT also affirmed the company was not entitled to ABN and GST registration, again, because it was not carrying on an enterprise at the relevant times. It also affirmed the penalty decision and refused remission of the penalty in the circumstances as it found the company was reckless in lodging the ITC claims.
Terry Hayes is the editor-in-chief of tax news reporting at <a href="https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/">Thomson Reuters</a>, a leading Australian provider of tax, accounting and legal information solutions.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

thayes-XhNcNKLNWa

Intention to carry on a business not enough for GST claim: Terry Hayes

<html><body>
The property developer, Peter Icklow, chief executive of Monarch Investments, said real estate would be adversely affected by any GST hike.
"It's going to whack another $50,000 on every new home," he told The Australian Financial Review.
It follows debate over lifting the GST to 15%.
NSW Premier Mike Baird says he was willing to talk about the issue. 
Under the current rules, new homes are subject to the GST, which adds roughly 10% to the price, but buyers of established homes pay nothing.
The Urban Development Institute of Australia says at the current GST rate of 10%, a new home sold at Australia's median dwelling price of $571,500 included a GST component of $51,955.
A white paper on tax reform will be released by the end of the year.
</body></html>

$50,000 whack on home buyers if GST rises: Peter Icklow

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
If you look at the efficiency of the GST – in other words, the amount of economic activity that is destroyed for every dollar you raise – the Government’s latest tax discussion paper says it is just as inefficient a tax as the income tax. It’s much less equitable though. The income tax is paid disproportionately by those further up the distribution and the GST hits those down the bottom. – Andrew Leigh, Shadow Assistant Treasurer, <a href="https://www.andrewleigh.com/the_gst_is_inefficient_and_inequitable_so_why_raise_it_rn_drive" target="_blank">interview</a> with Patricia Karvelas on RN Drive, July 20, 2015.
There are two parts to the Shadow Assistant Treasurer’s statement. In the first part, he simply cites a Treasury report that shows that the GST is as efficient – or inefficient – as the income tax. The second part states that the GST is less equitable as “the income tax is paid disproportionately by those further up the distribution and the GST hits those down the bottom.”
A spokesperson for Dr Leigh said:
In terms of data supporting the statement, I’d refer you to p.25, chart 2.9 of the government’s <a href="https://bettertax.gov.au/files/2015/03/TWP_combined-online.pdf" target="_blank">Re:think tax discussion paper</a>. This shows that the GST and flat rate labour income tax have an equivalent marginal excess burden, according to Treasury modelling.
What do economists mean by an efficient tax?
There are both direct and indirect costs associated with raising taxes. Direct costs include those that are incurred in the collection of the tax. While direct costs are not insignificant (the Australian Taxation Office employs over 20,000 people), economists consider the indirect costs of taxation to be more relevant. These relate to the distortions that a tax creates.
For example, a tax on apples raises the price of apples to consumers and importantly makes apples relatively more expensive than say oranges. This will lead to consumers buying fewer apples and perhaps more oranges. While the government raises revenue in this process, the tax distorts the behaviour of consumers with possible impacts on the production of oranges and apples.
The efficiency loss is the reduction in welfare, usually measured in dollars, from a consumer buying fewer apples than what she would like to because of the tax, and also any distortions in production.
Is the GST as efficient (or inefficient) as the income tax?
To apply this idea in the current context, an income tax will reduce the remuneration of a worker, relative for example to other non-remunerated activities such as leisure.
Thus, in theory, an income tax could impact on one’s decision of how much to work (or whether to work at all). The GST, however, raises all prices except for goods and services not subject to it.
There lies the conceptual reason for the GST to have a similar impact than an income tax; individuals care not about the dollar amount they receive as wages but rather about the goods and services that they can purchase from their wages over their lifetimes, including savings and bequests.
Let me illustrate this with an example. Here I assume that there is no borrowing or saving, a flat income tax of 10% and a broad-based GST of 11.11%. Consider an individual on a $50,000 income. After paying taxes, she has $45,000 left to spend on goods and services. In this case, $50,000 expenditure on goods and services would include GST of $5,000. That is, both taxes would allow the consumption of $45,000 of goods and services and, as a result, should lead to similar behavioural impact and distortions.
This theoretical argument is borne out by <a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2015/Working%20Paper%202015%2001/Documents/PDF/TWP2015-01.ashx" target="_blank">Treasury modelling</a>. Chart 33 from the report is reproduced below. It estimates the “marginal excess burden” (MEB) of different taxes.
The MEB is measure of efficiency loss that captures the decrease in the future ability to spend across the economy per dollar of revenue raised from a tax. These estimates are derived using a long-run economic (computable general equilibrium or CGE) model where households are captured by a representative economic unit.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89446/area14mp/image-20150723-22849-1anubmx.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89446/area14mp/image-20150723-22849-1anubmx.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89446/width668/image-20150723-22849-1anubmx.png" alt=""></a>
The chart reports the marginal excess burden of a number of taxes including a stylised personal income tax (represented by a flat rate), a stylised tax on labour income only and the GST. An out-of-model calculation for a marginal tax rate of 25% is presented as an illustration of an average taxpayer in 2011-12. As it can be seen in the chart above, the MEB estimates for the GST and the stylised income tax are nearly identical.
Is the GST less equitable than the income tax?
To answer this question, I need to define a couple of simple terms.
A tax system is regressive if the tax paid, as a fraction of income, decreases with income. A common view of the GST, reflected in the Shadow Treasurer’s statement, is that poorer households pay proportionally more than do richer households. Conversely, a tax system is progressive if the tax paid, as a fraction of income, increases with income. By design, the income tax rate faced by individuals in Australia increases with their income.
The table below uses a survey of households undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to shed light on this question. It shows the average amount of GST, taxes and net income per income quantile for the 2009-2010 financial year. Net income includes pensions, family tax payments, and other benefits, and excludes tax paid on income. As expected, the income tax is clearly progressive. The amount of GST as a fraction of gross income varies considerably less across most of the income distribution, although it is overall decreasing, with the exception of the lowest quintile who pays a much higher fraction of their gross income as GST. Taxes and GST paid as a percentage of average weekly household gross income per income quantile (2009-2010).
However, looking at the fraction of GST paid and income may be misleading as incomes are volatile and spending can be smoothed via borrowing and savings. To take this into account, I report below the amount of GST paid as a fraction of total expenditures, which is likely a better measure of the level of spending that households can sustain. Once again, the lowest quintile pays substantially more GST as a fraction of expenditures, but there is a small variation for the other groups.
Verdict
The Assistant Shadow Treasurer is correct that the efficiency of the GST as a tax is similar to that of income tax. He is also correct that the income tax is more progressive than the GST and that the GST hits disproportionally those in the bottom of the income distribution.
However, while technically the data above suggests that the GST is a regressive tax, the difference between the fraction of income or expenditures paid in the form of GST is small amongst the various quantiles of the income distribution, with the exception of the poorest.
Review
I concur with the comparative distribution effects of the GST and personal income tax.
In the case of relative efficiency effects, because the income tax in practice falls on capital income as well as labour income and because it has a progressive rate schedule, it has additional distortion costs to those assessed with a flat rate tax on labour income considered in the FactCheck.
First, income tax applies to <a href="https://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-capital-income.htm">capital income</a> (for example, stock dividends) as well as to labour income. Capital income tax distorts aggregate saving versus current expenditure decisions. The hybrid Australian capital income taxation of different saving options distorts the composition of savings between one’s home, other property, bank deposits, superannuation and so forth.
Second, while the GST has a flat rate of 10%, the income tax rate schedule is a progressive one with marginal rates from zero to 49%. With efficiency costs increasing more than proportionately with the tax rate, a progressive tax rate generates larger distortions on average than a flat rate tax.
Accepting the comparative efficiency and distribution effects of the GST and income taxes, most sensible suggestions for taxation reform which involve a more comprehensive base and/or higher rate GST to reap efficiency gains from a tax mix change also propose that some of the GST revenue gain be recycled as higher social security rates and a lower but more progressive income tax rate schedule to maintain the effective purchasing power of the poor.
John Freebairn is professor, Department of Economics at University of Melbourne and an author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-freebairn-90" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Is the GST as efficient but less equitable than income tax? Factcheck

<html><body>
A class action seeks to claim up to $100 million over allegations that GST was charged wrongfully on the sale of apartments in the ACT.  
International litigation funder IMF Bentham, which is working with Corrs Chambers Westgarth, announced the law suit to the ASX on Tuesday.
It has lodged a statement of claim with the Federal Court in NSW alleging Belconnen Lakeview, a company in the Hindmarsh Group, charged and collected GST on the sale of 352 units in Altitude Apartments when no GST was payable, The Australian Financial Review reported.
IMF Bentham has also identified 25 residential developments sold by various developers in the ACT that may fit the same criteria.
"Over 3000 unit owners in the ACT across a range of developments have already sent us their contracts, and in many cases it seems the purchaser was wrongly charged GST," IMF Bentham Sydney investment manager Oliver Gayner was quoted as saying by the AFR.
"We have given Belconnen Lakeview every opportunity to explain the conduct alleged in the statement of claim, and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation we have now determined to put the matter before the Federal Court to decide."
Assuming an average unit price of $450,000 and an average GST claim of around $40,000, as much as $100 million might be outstanding. 
The statement of claim says Belconnen Lakeview used its accountant to obtain an ATO private ruling which switched the tax status from 'taxable' to 'input taxed' shortly before sales commenced. But the company did not inform its customers, who continued to be charged GST, according to the claim.
Hindmarsh Group in the ACT did not comment.
The federal government is also worried that some developers have not remitted GST on new apartments. 
This year’s federal budget laid out that as of mid-2018, GST on new homes will be collected directly from home-buyers and not from developers. 
The new remittance arrangement is expected to add $650 million in GST revenue over four years.
 
 
</body></html>

Gst

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Gst