Urgenthomework logo
Live chat


HI6028 Taxation Theory, Practice and Law T2 2020

Trimester 	T2 2020
Unit Code 	HI6028
Unit Title 	Taxation Theory, Practice & Law
Assessment Type 	Individual Assignment
Assessment Title 	  Case Studies of Fringe Benefits Tax and Capital Gain Tax
Holmes Institute

Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)

Students are required to follow the instructions by your lecturer to confirm any relevant information. You also need to follow any relevant announcement on Blackboard to confirm the due date and time of the assignment.

The individual assignment will assess students on the following learning outcomes:

  1. Demonstrate an understanding of the Australian income tax system, the concept of FBT, Ordinary Income, general anti-avoidance provisions and income tax administration. (ULO 1).
  2. Identify and critically analyse taxation issues. (ULO 2).
  3. Interpret the relevant taxation legislations and case law. (ULO 3).
  4. Apply taxation principles to real life problems. (ULO 4).

Assignments’ Instructions and Requirements

Question 1 (10 Marks)

Perisher Pty Ltd (Perisher) is a Ski equipment manufacturer that operates around Mt Hotham in Victoria. On 1 May 2019, Perisher provided Nikita (one of its employees) with a car as Nikita does a lot of travelling for work purposes. However, Nikita’s usage of the car is not restricted to work only. Perisher purchased the car on that date for $44,000 (including GST) plus $2,000 (including GST) dealer delivery charges.

For the period of 1 May 2019 to 31 March 2020, Nikita travelled 12,000 kilometers in the car and incurred expenses of $770 on minor repairs that have been reimbursed by Perisher. The car was not used for 10 days when Nikita was interstate and was parked at the airport and for another five days when the car was scheduled for annual repairs.

Calculate the Fringe Benefits Tax Liability for Perisher, please have a look at the matrix below on how to answer the question

QUESTION 1: Calculate the FBT liability for Perisher Pty Ltd


Identification of material facts (issues) regarding fringe benefits provided to Nikita

1 %

Identification and analysis of legal issues / legal question and relevant taxation law in regards to fringe benefits (e.g. FBTAA 1986).

1 %

Thorough application of tax law (e.g. ITAA 1936 and ITAA 1997) to material facts in Perisher’s case.

1 %

Accurate conclusion of the FBT calculation.

5 %

Correct information and taxation law have been used and properly cited. A detailed analysis has been performed.

2 %


10 %


Taryn would like to open a new business as an interior designer, to funds her ambition she sold some of the following assets:

  1. Antique Painting that was given to Taryn by her father 5 years ago. Taryn’s father bought it on 20 August 1984 for $2,500. Taryn sold it on 1’st June 2020 for $25,000
  2. Taryn sold her car (Toyota Corolla) for the amount of $12,000 on 20’th May 2020, she bought on 1’st January 2015 for the amount of $20,000
  3. Taryn sold her Harry Potter’s collection for the amount of $1,500 on 4’th January 2020, she bought it second hand on 10’th October 2018 for $350.
  4. Taryn sold her gold necklace for $2,000 on 20’th March 2020, she bought it for $1,200 on 8’th August 2018
  5. Taryn sold a sculpture for $6,000 on 1 January 2020, she bought it on December 1994 for $1,500

Advise the Capital Gain Tax Consequences for the above transactions, please have a look at the matrix below on how to answer the question

QUESTION 2: Capital gain tax consequences


Identification of material facts on regard to each case

2 %

Identification and analysis of legal issues / legal question and relevant taxation law for each case.

2 %

Thorough application of ITAA 1997 to material facts.

2 %

Accurate conclusions are reached from each case.

6 %

Correct information and taxation law have been used and properly cited. A detailed analysis has been performed.

3 %


15 %

Academic Integrity

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Sills link on Blackboard.

Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Table 1: Six categories of Academic Integrity breaches


Reproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.


Working with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorised.


Reproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.


Falsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.

Contract cheating

Contracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.

Data fabrication



Manipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.

Holmes University Assignment

Copyright © 2009-2023 UrgentHomework.com, All right reserved.