Reducing The Burden Of Student Debt - 1526 Words

Student debt has been growing over the years rapidly, not just because the majority of people attending college but also because the prices of college have gone up. One of the reasons is that parents don’t really look into making a college fund. Most parents haven t saved a penny for education or for anything else in recent years. There has been so many students today that are in major debt and don’t know how to get out of the hole they have made. Student debt is still going up here recently in 2013. Graduating seniors at public and private nonprofit colleges have had student loans. Most of the students owe about the average of $28,400 in federal and private loans combined, there are at least around two percent compared to their peers.†¦show more content†¦Need to look for colleges that help users rely less on loans and if students do pay off their debt than there are a few more problems that start to come up. Help and make it easier for students to identify and also avoid colleges that tend to overload students with debt they tend to go to. Student loan payments are very expensive, and if most users have expensive payment with a job that doesn’t pay well and will start to slip financially. This will mainly cause a problem for more than just the people who give out the loans. If people don’t have money to spend on items that means a loss of jobs. This is because people wouldn’t buy items causing a surplus, will be leading to people getting laid off once again. With more people getting laid off from their jobs the unemployment rate g oes up, and more people would need help from the government to help pay for food and living. If the government has to help more people live than the national debt would go up possibly causing another depression. At the very least there would be a financial crisis that could lower the economic power of the United States. †Student loan debt is the highest kind of debt in the United States† The Project on Student Debt found that two-thirds of 2011 college graduates had an average student loan debt of

The Impact Of Social Security On The Elderly Population

Social Security Name: Institution: Social Security Introduction 14th August 2015 marked the 80th anniversary after President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in the year 1935. The program has been important in alleviating poverty amongst the elderly population. However, the system has started to how its age. The OASID (Social Security and Disability Insurance Trust Funds) is presently running on cash deficit as the baby boomers retire. The DI (Disability Insurance) program has been running on deficits for several uses and has been predicted to exhausts the trust fund. The social security provides important income security to millions of the beneficiaries but is on towards insolvency. Presently, the Social Security program pays more in benefits that it is collecting in revenue and has been projected that the trusts funds will run out in the year 2033 (Bernan Press, 204). At this instance, all the beneficiaries regardless of income and age will face an immediate twenty-three percent benefits cut. The longer term OASI would need mo re than a 4 percent point rise in the payroll tax so as to close the gap in funding over the next 75 years or benefits would have to be reduced below the promised 27 percent level by the year 2090 (Bernan Press, 2014). The focus of the paper is on the issue of solvency of social security fund The Social Security run a seventy-one billion deficit in the year 2013 and this closed out four years of consecutiveShow MoreRelatedRetirement Is A Transitional Phase Associated With An Aging Population1692 Words   |  7 Pagestransitional phase associated with an aging population, along with unplanned changes such as disease, disability, and widowhood. Retirement is anticipated and planned for years in advance, however this does not happen as often anymore. Currently, in the United States, there is a portion of the elderly that is forced to work well past the age of retirement. In reality, most elderly cannot work, and those who can work, live in or near poverty. Such social issues can be attributed to the government.Read MoreSocial Security and African Americans Essay574 Words   |  3 Pagesgroup has as much at stake in the debate over Social Security reform as African Americans. Elderly African Americans are much more likely than their white counterparts to be dependent on Soc ial Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. Yet Social Security benefits are inadequate to provide for the retirement needs of the elderly poor, which leaves nearly 30 percent of African-American seniors in poverty. As the debate over Social Security reform heats up, several questions have beenRead MoreEssay On Social Security1655 Words   |  7 PagesThat’s why America created a system called social security in 1935, this system is to help those who are older and have disabilities. (see staff.) Social security has three main part: first is the objective and comprehensive introduction to the American social security system; the second is the information authority, novel, the policies and data are from the US government and the legislature; third is the academic and practical combination of the US social security system Of the policy practice at theRead MoreSocial Policies : A Policy s Success Or Failures1286 Words   |  6 Pages There are different approaches and methods used to evaluate social policies. Social policies can be evaluated for many reasons including: tracking a policy’s progression or tracing a policy’s successes or failures. There is limited research concerning any significant differences in how social policies are evaluated in terms of method, compared to other policies such health or public policy. Yet the approach to designing of a particularly can subjective during an evaluation in terms of what exactlyRead MoreThe Economic Problem of Population Ageing Essay1323 Words   |  6 Pagesproblem of population ageing caused is revealing gradually. UNESCO provides a standard that a single country or region in the population over 60 years is more than 10% of the total population, which is into the aging of the population. Both of developed and developing countries in recent years have to face more serious aging impacts for economic progress. According to population prospects (2009), the whole world will accelerate the pace of ageing after 2010. More precisely, share of elderly people isRead MoreThe Increase Life Expectancy Has Created A Larger Population Of The Elderly972 Words   |  4 Pagesincreased life expectancy has created a larger population of the elderly, which is a significant demographic change that the U.S. has begun to experience. It is projected that the increase in the life expectancy will continue to impact the amplified growth of the elderly population in the future. The increased elderly population, has created a need for the U.S. to implement policies that support and meet the developing number of diverse needs the elderly population will require in order to age well. TheRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Pension Disbursement1645 Words   |  7 PagesGradually, the Social Security Administration has grappled to accommodate a host of novel demographic trends, namely those impacting the retirement sector of the American population. Continuously, with advances in the medical realm, the senior population is steadily extending its lifespan, and thus, retirement altogether, introducing a wealth of new economic considerations. As human longevity increases, the Social Security system proves increasingly unsustainable, specifically in the pension department-amongRead MoreIncrease in Elderly Population Report826 Words   |  3 Pageslongevity. This increase in the elderly population can be seen around the world and will have a significant impact on medical institutions, society, and the economy. As we grow older, our immune system begins to deteriorate in one of two ways. It can become negligent, allowing abnormal cells such as cancer cells to multiply/grow unchecked. Or it may become overzealous; attacking our normal tissues much like an autoimmune disease. This deterioration is what causes the elderly to become more pronged toRead MoreAssessment Of Gerontology Paper1364 Words   |  6 PagesIn searching for resources for this assignment, most of the articles written have at least one thing in common. The baby boomers are getting older, as a result, they will represent 20% of the total population from now until 2030. The number of persons who are 65 years and older is 12% of the population, the life expectancy of 77.9 years has caused this increase. The older people over age 85 is at about 40%, and the number of centenarians is on the rise (Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Read MoreSocial Security a Challenge to Public Finance1824 Words   |  7 PagesThe 1935 Franklin D. Roosevelt created the foundation for what today is Social Security. The bill entitled the Economic Security Bill and was the starting point for Social security. (ssa.gov) Social Security was enacted as part of the New Deal. Its purpose was to provide a safety net for the elderly and their direct survivors, as well, temporary unemployment benefits. The funding was a compulsory taxation of the employed workforce in shared responsibility with the employers (Hyman 2010 p. 312). The

Case against the Death Penalty Free Essays

string(56) " The sentencing phase almost amounts to a second trial\." When the then United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was presented with a petition containing 3. 2 million signatures from 146 countries for a worldwide moratorium on the death sentence, he had commented: â€Å"The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process. And I believe that future generations, throughout the world, will come to agree. We will write a custom essay sample on Case against the Death Penalty or any similar topic only for you Order Now † (Gettings) The words of the former UN Secretary General were in fact an echo of the sentiments of the millions of signatories to the petition that was presented to him. The death sentence strikes at the core of human sensitivity and sensibility. The world is divided into almost two equal camps – one passionately in support and the other equally passionately against this extreme measure of censure in human history. Forty-seven percent Americans support the death penalty, while 48% would rather prefer life without payrole (Death Penalty Information Centre). Both the camps present practical, logical and convincing arguments favoring their stand. Those who are against the death penalty believe that this extreme measure has minimum deterrent effect, violates the most fundamental of human rights, i. e. the right to life, is completely out of sync with civilized society and should be abolished outright and forthwith. Those who support the death penalty, on the other hand, do so because they hold that it acts as a major deterrent to heinous crimes, crimes committed by criminals who, according to them, not only do not deserve a place in society, but also lose the right to life. They have to die so that any chance of them repeating their crime and adding others to their list of victims is eliminated forever. The state, it is reasoned, takes the life to accord protection to future victims of the convicted. An objective analysis of the arguments for and against the death penalty however can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that the death penalty has no place in civilized society. Two very undeniable and universal facts override all arguments in support of the death penalty: the fundamental human right to life along with all its critical implications to the individual and to society, and the irrevocability and finality of the death sentence that takes away all probability of redemption or reconsideration at the face of the human nature to err. The Deterrent Factor Those who support the death penalty do so on the basis of the belief that it acts as a strong deterrent to crimes similar to those committed by the condemned. The facts and figures, however, tell a different story. In the United States, the south accounts for 80% of the total executions, yet it has the highest murder rate. However, the northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, also has the lowest murder rate (Death Penalty Information Centre). The figures lend themselves to very straight forward interpretations: either the death penalty is failing miserably to act as a deterrent in the south or it has to be accepted that the citizenry of the south is inherently more murderous in nature or is simply more susceptible to murder. There are other figures that corroborate the fact that the death penalty does not actually result in a decrease in murder rates. In Canada, the death penalty was abolished in 1976. The homicide rate in the country started declining since 1975, and in 1999 the homicide rate was the lowest since 1967. An analysis by the New York Times in 2000 found that the homicide rates in the US states with the death penalty have been 48% to 101% higher than in states without the death penalty (John Howard Society of Ontario). An overwhelming 84% of the top criminologists of the United States have rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder (Radelet Akers). The Amnesty International has also failed to find conclusive evidence that the death penalty has any unique capacity to deter others from committing similar crimes. In its survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates conducted in 1998 and updated in 2002, it concluded that it was â€Å"not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment. † (Hood 230) If deterrence implies that the condemned is rendered unable to repeat the crime and claim more victim, then it will also have to imply that the condemned would have repeated the crime if allowed to escape the death penalty. That can however be an assumption and an assumption only. And even if we assume that the condemned person would have indeed tried to repeat the crime, it would be possible only if the person is allowed the liberty and the opportunity to do so. Life imprisonment without parole would be a preferred alternative to the death penalty in such a case. Critics would however be quick to point out the financial implications of life imprisonment. Alternative means to incapacitate In practice, however, numerous studies have found that the cost of implementing a death penalty is much higher than the cost of maintaining a prisoner for life. There are many reasons why the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (Capital Punishment Project): i. A much higher percentage of cases go to trial in case of death penalties. ii. Murder trials generally take longer when the death penalty is at issue. A capital murder trial lasts over 3. 5 time longer than non-capital murder trials (Cook Slawson). Certain constitutional safeguards have to be taken in the case of death penalty trials leading to greater time requirement. The Jury selection procedure is also more complex and tedious and takes more time. iii. Death penalty trials require more intense pretrial preparations and more elaborate proceedings. The sentencing phase almost amounts to a second trial. You read "Case against the Death Penalty" in category "Papers" All litigation costs, more often than not, have to be borne by the tax payer. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature has concluded that â€Å"elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis. † (Budget Committee) It is therefore amply clear the life imprisonment without parole is a comparatively cheaper and equally effective alternative to the death penalty, but imposed the same degree of incapacitation on the condemned on the individual level. The May 2006 Gallup Poll (in the United States) found that overall support for the death penalty was 65% (down from 80% in 1994). The same poll revealed that when respondents are given the choice of life without parole as an alternate sentencing option, more choose life without parole (48%) than the death penalty (47%). (John Howard Society of Ontario) Irreversibility of the Death Penalty The intrinsic weakness of the death penalty as a justifiable measure lies in the fact that it is irreversible and irrevocable. Numerous examples bear testimony to the fact that even the highest judicial system of any country can make mistakes, that innocent persons have been dealt the death penalty time and again, that persons on the death row had been granted last minute reprieve when their innocence had been proved. Studies reveal that more than 200 people have been wrongfully convicted of serious crimes such as murder and rape in California alone since 1989 (Martin). In the United States, 123 persons have been exonerated and released from death row since 1973 (Death Penalty Information Center). A 1980s study in the United States identified 353 cases since the turn of the century of wrongful convictions for offences punishable by death and 25 innocent persons were actually executed (John Howard Society of Ontario). The death penalty leaves no scope for errors in judgment. If a person is found to be innocent after the sentence has been carried out, there is no way in which the wrong can be undone. Unlike in other cases, the option for compensation for a wrong done is also completely ruled out in the case of the death penalty. It is therefore assumed that the state and the judicial mechanism are infallible, that there can be no mistakes. The facts have proved this assumption wrong. The core issue of human rights The most damning case against the death penalty is that it is an infringement on the most fundamental of all human rights – the right to life. A death penalty is imposed in the name of the state. But does the state actually have the right to deprive a person of his or her life? It could be a dangerous proposition even to believe so. Hitler’s Germany believed in the absolute right of the state. The consequences mark a very dark period in the history of humankind. Are we tempting fate again by according the state the right to impose and execute the death penalty? In the December 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nations of the world came together to ensure the fundamental rights of every person. These human rights were not subject to the will of the state, but were declared to be inherent in every human being. It was not the state’s prerogative to grant or withdraw the human rights. The fundamental human rights therefore put limitations on what a state may do to a person. The Universal declaration recognizes each person’s right to life. The death penalty is therefore a fragrant violation of human rights. Human rights preserve the dignity of the individual. There can be no justification inhuman and cruel treatment and punishment that degrades the essence of humanity. The death penalty inflicts the most severe kind of mental and physical torture not only on the condemned, but also on al those who are related to the condemned. Every member of the society also has to own responsibility as a constituent unit of the state. In fact, the broader understanding of human rights issue has been the basis of abolition of the death penalty in many countries. In 1995, Spain abolished the death penalty on the grounds that the death penalty simply could not be fitted into the penal system of advanced and civilized societies, that depriving a person of life was too degrading or afflictive a punishment (Hood 14). The South African Constitutional Court (154) in its historic opinion when banning the death penalty commented that the death penalty violated the right to life and dignity which is the most important of all human rights. And by banning the death penalty, the state was effectively demonstrating the fact. Countries such as Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago have had to deny that the death penalty was a violation of human rights in order to carry on with their practice of the death penalty. However, the fact that the death penalty is a critical human rights issue has gained increasing acceptance at the international level. In 1997, the U. N. High Commission for Human Rights approved a resolution stating that the â€Å"abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and to the progressive development of human rights. † (12) Subsequent resolutions strengthened this resolution by restricting the offences for which the death penalty could be imposed, eventually leading to abolition. The member states of the Council of Europe have established Protocol 6 to the European Council on Human Rights advocating the abolition of the death penalty. On the same grounds, the European Union had made the abolition of the death penalty a precondition for entry into the Union. This had resulted in the halting of executions in many east European countries such as Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey which had applied for membership to the Union. Not an eye for an eye Proponents of the death penalty attempt to justify their stand on the principle of lex talionis or ‘eye-for-an-eye’ which advocates that violence must in some measure be answered by violence or that the punishment should fit the crime. They believe that such retribution serves justice to murder victims and their survivors. Robert Blecker of the New York Law School testified: â€Å"Naturally grateful, we reward those who bring us pleasure. Instinctively resentful, we punish those who cause us pain. Retributively, society intentionally inflicts pain and suffering on criminals because and to the extent that they deserve it. But only to the extent they deserve it†¦. Justice, a moral imperative in itself, requires deserved punishment. † Just as the individual do not have the right to kill, society also should not be empowered to kill. The retribution theory would dictate that the rapist be raped and the house of the arsonist be set on fire. Such a policy would go against the basic tenets of justice. If violence can be justified by violence than it follows that every act of violence whether perpetuated by the state or the individual would be justifiable on some ground or the other. Retribution in kind would bring the state down to the level of the criminal. There would then be no distinction between the dispenser of the law and the one who violates it. Discriminatory Applications The extent of misuse of the death penalty is another reason that calls for its abolition. In the political context, the death penalty has often been used to eliminate opponents and suppress popular uprisings. Here, the question of fairness in making the judgment becomes a very subjective one. What is punishable by death for one political regime could very well be deemed a heroic act of valor for another. The labeling of the act therefore depends very much on the actors and the circumstances and the environment in which they operate. That is the reason why people who are executed are often subsequently turned into martyrs. It happened in Hitler’s Germany, in India and in South Africa. It is happening in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Serbia and in many other places wherever two groups of people look at the world with conflicting perspectives. Take the example of Saddam Hussien. Richard Dicker’s, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program, was a rational voice when he said , â€Å"Saddam Hussein was responsible for massive human rights violations, but that can’t justify giving him the death penalty, which is a cruel and inhuman punishment. † (Human Rights Watch) A November 2006 report by Human Rights Watch pointed out numerous serious flaws in the trial of Saddam Hussein. Among other defects, the report found that Iraqi government actions had all along undermined the Iraqi High Tribunal and threatened its independence and perceived impartiality. Handing Saddam Hussein the death penalty has been viewed by a large section of the world as a measure made necessary by the prevailing political and military situation rather than a quest for justice. There is also a very strong view in the United States that the application of the death sentence is racially discriminatory. Studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between race and death penalty in all the states that where the death penalty is still active. The Capital Punishment Project reports that 96% studies found a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination. Of those executed since 1976, approximately 35% have been black, even though blacks constitute only 12% of the population. It has been found that the odds of receiving a death sentence are almost four times higher if the defendant is black. The Amnesty International has also asserted that races does have an impact on capital punishment, and that the judicial system of the United States have been able to do precious little about it. Amnesty International has attributed this failure of the courts and legislatures of the USA to act decisively at the face of evidence that race has an impact on the death sentence to a collective ‘blind faith’ that America will never waver on the ‘non-negotiable’ demands of human dignity including ‘equal justice. ’ Even if the death penalty was justifiable, there is compelling evidence that its implementation falls far short of the standards of fairness expected. There is a tendency to use this extreme measure as an intimidating factor by the powerful forces of the world to assert themselves and to wrongfully dominate and suppress others. The world is coming around The good news is that the world at large is coming together to prove that the death penalty is an unacceptable proposition. The United Nations has declared itself in favour of abolition. Two-thirds of the countries of the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. In the United States itself, 13 states are now without the death penalty. The latest information from Amnesty International shows that: i. 90 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes; ii. 11 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes; iii. 30 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, iv. a total of 131 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, v. 66 other countries and territories retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller. The debate over capital punishment has raged on long enough. The world is finally showing the door to the death penalty. In doing so, it is stating in no uncertain terms that the sanctity of life of a fellow human being is above the purview of all man-made laws. That only the giver of life has the right to take it back. Works Cited 1. Amnesty international, â€Å"United States of America, Death by discrimination – the continuing role of race in capital cases†, April 24, 2003. Library, Online Documentation Archive. November 10, 2007 http://web. amnesty. org/library/index/engamr510462003 2. Blecker, Robert. Letter to the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission supplementing previous testimony, October 24, 2006. 3. Budget Committee, Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, September 9, 1999. 4. Capital Punishment Project, â€Å"Race and the Death Penalty†, American Civil Liberties Union, November 10, 2007 http://www. aclu. org/death-penalty 5. Capital Punishment Project, â€Å"The High Costs of the Death Penalty. † American Civil Liberties Union, 2003. 6. Death Penalty Information Center, â€Å"Innocence and the Death Penalty†, November 9, 2006. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/article. php? did=412scid=6 7. Death Penalty Information Centre. November 5, 2007 â€Å"Facts about the Death Penalty. † November 8, 2007. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo. org/FactSheet. pdf 8. Gettings, John. â€Å"Death Penalty Update, Here Abroad. † Infoplease, November 8, 2007. http://www. infoplease. com/spot/deathworld1. html 9. Hood, Roger, â€Å"The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective. † 2002. Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002. 10. Human Rights Watch, â€Å"Iraq: Saddam Hussein put to Death. Hanging after flawed trial undermines the rule of law. † December 2006. Human Rights News. November 10, 2007 http://hrw. org/english/docs/2006/12/30/iraq14950. htm 11. John Howard Society of Ontario, â€Å"The Death Penalty: Any Nation’s Shame. † March, 2001, John Howard Society of Ontario publication. November 8, 2007 www. johnhowardphd. ca/PDFs/Fact%20Sheets/death%20penalty. pdf 12. Nina, Martin, â€Å"Innocence Lost†, November 2004, San Francisco Magazine, November 9, 2007, http://www. sanfran. com/archives/view_story/200/ 13. Philip J. Cook Donna B. Slawson, â€Å"The Costs of Prosecuting Murder Cases in North Carolina. † 1993 14. The South African Constitutional Court, â€Å"Makwanyane and Mchunu v. The State†, 16 HRLJ, 1995. 15. United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Resolution, E/CN. 4/1997, April 3, 1997. How to cite Case against the Death Penalty, Papers

According To The Internal Revenue Service â€Myassignmenrthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The According To The Internal Revenue Service? Answer: Introducation According to the Internal Revenue Services (2017) items owned by an individual meant for personal use or for investment purposes can be thought of as capital assets. Capital assets include land, buildings, jewellery, household fixtures and furnishings, securities (bonds, equity, mutual funds, bank deposits, debentures, life insurance) trademarks, vehicles, patents, plants and machinery (Dave, 2017). Upon the sale of a capital asset, the amount realised from the sale less the adjusted basis in the asset is either a capital gain or capital loss (Internal Revenue Service, 2017). When the asset is disposed of at an amount greater than the acquisition cost, then a capital gain is realised, in circumstances where the disposal price is less than the acquisition cost, then a capital loss arises. The Australian Taxation Office (2017a) computes net capital gains and net capital losses as follows Net Capital Gain = Sum of all Capital Gains realised within the fiscal year (amounts arising from managed funds and trusts are added here) Sum of Capital Losses (net capital losses arising from prior periods is added to the current capital losses) Capital Gains arising from discounts in tax and concessions given to small businesses Net Capital Loss = Sum of Capital Losses (including losses realised in prior periods) Sum of Capital Gains When computing capital gains and capital losses some factors are taken into considerations. Capital gains or losses on collectables which include items like paintings and antiques of values equivalent to or less than $500 are disregarded. Capital losses associated with collectables can only be offset by capital gains from collectables. Capital gains or losses on personal use items such as furniture and household items of values of less than 10,001 are disregarded. Asset Purchase Price Sales Price Gain (Loss) Antique Vase $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Antique Chair $ 3,000.00 $1,000.00 $ (2,000.00) Painting $ 9,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ (8,000.00) Home Sound System $ 12,000.00 $11,000.00 $ (1,000.00) Shares $ 5,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Net Loss on Collectables = $1,000 - $2,000 $ 8,000 = $ 9,000 Net Gain = $ 15,000 - $ 1000 = $ 14,000 Fringe benefits are sometimes referred to as employee benefits, perquisites or perks (Klonoski, 2016, p. 52). These benefits consist of non-salary (wage) compensation awarded to employees on top of their stipulated remuneration. Examples of fringe benefits include accommodation provided by the employer (the accommodation could be fully furnished and serviced with all utilities catered for or could simply be in form of rent), insurance coverage (these could include medical and life assurance), income guarantees in case of disability, childcare, school fees, sick leave, vacation allowances, retirement contributions, household staff, profit sharing, amongst others (Ohio University, n.d.). These benefits are often considered to be indirect expenses to the organisation (International Accounting Standards Board, 2015;United States Bureau of Labour Statistic, 2016). According to the Austrian Tax Office (2017b), the taxes on these fringe benefits are paid by the employer. As such the employer withholds tax obligations that arise from benefits conferred to the companys directors, current employees, potential employees, and past employees. An employer for purposes of taxes includes sole traders, partnerships, corporations, unincorporated organisations, governments, non-government organisations, and trustees. The fringe benefits tax is payable irrespective of whether or not the employee is liable to pay other categories of taxes. The term loan encompasses situations whereby the employee owes the employer a given amount and on the day the debt falls due the employee fails to retire the debt. The amount that remains unpaid is considered as a loan. The loan advanced to Brain can be considered as a loan fringe benefit. A loan fringe benefit is defined as a loan provided by the employer to the employee at an interest-free rate or a low-interest rate (this is a rate that is lower than the benchmark rate) [Inland Revenue, 2016]. In Australia, instead of the market rate of interest, the statutory interest rate determined by the Reserve Bank of Australia is used as the benchmark rate. In April 2016, the published rate was 5.65% (Australia Tax Office, 2017b). The value of the loan fringe benefit that is taxable on the loan given to Brain is calculated as follows: Step 1: Computation of value of the loan fringe benefits that is taxable without consideration of the deductible rule Value of Loan Fringe Benefit that is Taxable = Benchmark (Statutory) interest on the Statutory Interest on the Loan = 5.65% x $ 1,000, 000 = $ 56,500 Actual Interest Paid on Loan = 1% x $ 1,000, 000 = $ 10,000 Value of Loan Fringe Benefit that is Taxable = $ 56,500 -$ 10,000 = $ 46,500 Step 2: Computation of Value of Loan Fringe Benefit that is Taxable with consideration of the deductible rule According to taxation laws, the employee is entitled to a deduction on the interest charged on the part of the debt that is used to generate income. Thus Brian gets a deduction for the 40% used for income producing purposes. The computations are given as follows: Income Tax Deductible to Employee at Statutory Rate = (5.65% x $ 1,000, 000) 40% = $ 22,600 Income Tax Deductible to Employee at Actual Interest Rate = (1% x $ 1,000,000)40% = $ 4,000 Value of Loan Fringe Benefit that is Taxable may be reduced by = $ 22, 600 - $ 4,000 = $ 18, 600 Value of Loan Fringe Benefit that is Taxable with consideration of the deductible rule = $ 46,500 - $18,600 = $ 27,900 According to the provisions of tax regulations where an employee under the terms and conditions of the loan is allowed to make interest payments less frequently than every six months, the employee is considered at the end of every six months as having been loaned separately at a nil rate of interest any amount that remains unpaid (Australian Taxation Office, 2017b). Therefore, if Brain pays the interest at the end of three years, it will be assumed that the rate of interest was nil. Therefore, the taxable value of loan fringe benefit will increase. Taxable Value of Debt Waiver Fringe Benefits A debt waiver fringe benefit occurs in situations where the employer releases the employee from the requirement to repay or reimburse the money lent. In situations where the debt is waived for reasons of default and the amount cannot be recovered, there is no debt waiver fringe benefit (Australia Taxation Office, 2017a). In certain situations, the employer can voluntarily release the employee from the obligation to repay the loan. In such a situation, if the employer is able to demonstrate that the release was unrelated to the employment relationship, then a debt waiver fringe benefit does not arise (Australia Taxation Office, 2017b). The taxable value of the debt waiver fringe benefit is the total sum that is waived. If the bank decided not to charge Brain interest on the loan a taxable waiver of fringe benefit would arise. This is computed as follows: Taxable Value of the Debt Waiver Fringe Benefit = 1% x $ 1,000, 000 x 3years = $ 30,000 A joint tenancy occurs where two or more persons pool their resources together and use them to purchase property (Find Law Team, 2017). In a joint tenancy there are no severable shares. For example for a married couple such as Jack and Jill if one person dies, then the remaining spouse will receive all the rights of survivorship. The joint tenancy has four characteristics Joint Ownership every entity in the joint tenancy arrangement has the right to every aspect of the property. There are no individual rights not just individually Joint Interest Every individual in the joint tenancy agreement has similar interest and rights in the property of the same nature and to the same extent. Same Point in Time All the rights and interest of the tenants are vested at the same point in time Unity of Title all the rights and duties are based on the same deed. For taxation purposes in joint tenancy, all the parties in the agreement hold an equal interest in the property (Australia Taxation Office, 2017c). As such the agreement between Jack and Jill to divide the rental income and rental losses in proportions that are not equal has no effect for income tax purposes. Jack and Jill must thus include half of the net loss in their taxable incomes. For purposes of computing capital gains or capital loss tax, the joint tenants are considered to be tenants in common which means that they have an equal interest in the asset. Therefore, both Jack and Jill have an equal share in the capital loss or gain when the capital gains tax is being computed. When the property is sold the capital loss or gain is split equally between them. The case of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of Westminster [1936] commonly referred to as the Duke of Westminster case is often cited as an example of tax avoidance. During the court proceedings, it was established that the Duke of Westminster hired a gardener who was paid from the Dukes immense post-tax income. In order to reduce his tax liability, the Duke instead of paying the gardener a wage wrote a covenant stipulating that he would pay the gardener an amount equal to the wage that he had previously paid. The tax laws and regulations that prevailed at that time allowed the Duke to claim a deduction on his taxable income for the amount paid in the covenant. Overall, the actions of the Duke reduced his income tax and surtax liability. However, the Inland Revenue Commissioner maintained that the computations and acts of the Duke of Westminster were nothing more than tax evasion. The court ruled in the favour of the Duke. In the judgement, Lord Tomlin held that Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds ordering them so as to secure that result, then, however unappreciative Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax (Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of Westminster [1936]) The ruling by Lord Tomlin implies that entities that have tax liabilities may take actions or make arrangement to reduce their tax burden within the perimeters established by the laws. Where an entity succeeds in reducing their tax liability and avoid the tax burden, the revenue authority and the fellow tax payer even thought they feel they are being treated unfairly cannot force the entity to pay an increased tax which might be the original amount (Steven, 2013, p. 17). This case established the principle that an individual is entitled to within the legal statute organise their accounts so as to limit their tax liability (Adams, 2011). Relevance of Tax Evasion Principle in Australia From 1915, the Federal Income Tax laws in Australia have contained a general anti-avoidance provision (Bloom, 2015). The aim of the general anti-avoidance provisions was to ensure an equitable tax regime in which the individual tax payers was unable to avoid the payment of full tax liability by use of superficial or contrived arrangements. The provisions added to the complexity of the tax laws and resulted in increased compliance costs for tax payers. However, some of the provisions were successfully challenged in court (Bloom, 2015). Following the raft of ruling against the commissioner, amendments were made to the general anti-avoidance provisions in 1936 through the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (McLaren, 2008, pp. 144-151). Part IVA was added to the act in 1981 in order to enhance the anti-avoidance provisions. Part IVA allows the Commissioner of Taxation wider discretion on items to include in the taxpayers assessable income (Xynas, 2011, pp. 5-8). The provisions prevented the erosion of the income tax base and did away with gaps that allowed for non-genuine reductions. These provisions were enhanced by the rulings in FCT v. Spotless Services Ltd [1986] commonly referred to as the Spotless Case. In that case, the High Court of Australia held that even if the tax payer is able to prove that a transaction is genuine, that in itself does not provide grounds for tax avoidance (Xynas, 2011, pp. 5-14). According to the court, a transaction has to make sense, where the transaction does not make sense without the tax benefit, then Part IVA applies. The government of Australia has continued to formulate and implement statutes to reduce tax avoidance while balancing the interests of the government and those of the taxpayers. Thus, the principles established in the IRC v the Duke of Westminster [1936] is relevant today but the scope of administration has been reducing. The issue of assessment of taxation for primary production and forestry is given by Taxation Ruling 95/6 (TR95/6). The aim of the ruling is to indicate the tax burden from the business of forest operations and the transaction relating to timber by persons in the business of forest operation and persons not engaged in the business of forest operations but having transactions involving forestry and/ or timber. The ruling expressly indicates which receipts obtained from the sale of timber constitute assessable income, whether or not the tax payers primary business is forestry or not (Australian Taxation Office, 2010). According to the ruling, the disposal of trees by the taxpayer means that the amount realised from the sale of the trees should be added in the taxpayers assessable income as provided for under the Income Tax Act 36(1). Therefore, the receipts by Bill for the timber are assessed as income and as such result in a tax burden. According to section 55 of TR 95/6 the accessible income includes: proceeds from the sale of standing trees, royalties earned in exchange for granting another party the right to fell and remove timber, and profits from isolated transactions. The lump sum amount received by Brian can be considered as a royalty and thus assessable income References Adams, J. (2011). What is the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Tax Insider, Available at https://www.taxinsider.co.uk/680-What_is_The_Difference_Between_Tax_Avoidance_and_Tax_Evasion.html (Accessed 8 September 2017). Australian Tax Office (2010). Taxation ruling: TR 95/6. Available at: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=txr/tr956/nat/ato/00001 (Accessed: 8 September 2017). Australian Tax Office (2017a.) Working out your net capital gain or loss. Available at: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/ (Accessed: 8 September 2017). Australian Tax Office (2017b). Fringe benefit tax a guide for employers. Available at: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?DocID=SAV%2FFBTGEMP%2F00002 (Accessed 8 September 2017). Australian Taxation Office (2017c). Co-ownership of rental properties. Available at: https://www.ato.gov.au/Forms/Rental-properties-2013-14/?page=5 (Accessed 8 September 2017). Bloom D. (2015) Tax avoidance: A view from the dark side, Annual Tax Lecture , Melbourne Law School, 15 August. Dave, R. (2017) How to calculate short-term and long-term capital gains and tax on these, Economic Times, 28 August [Online]. Available at: conomictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/tax/how-to-calculate-short-term-and-long-term-capital-gains-and-tax-on-these/articleshow/60230745.cms (Accessed: 7 September 2017). Id Revenue Commissioner v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1 (19 TC 490). Inland Revenue (2016) Low interest loan and fringe benefit tax. Available at https://www.ird.govt.nz/fringe-benefit-tax/fbt-types/fbt-low-interest-loans/low-interest-loans-fbt.html (Accessed 8 September 2017). International Accounting Standards Board (2015) IAS 19: Employee benefits. Available at: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-19-employee-benefits/ (Accessed 8 September 2017). Internal Revenue Services (2017) Capital gains and losses. Available at: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html (Accessed: 7 September 2017). Klonoski, R. (2016) Defining Employee Benefits: A Managerial Perspective, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 6(2), pp. 5272. Mclaren J. (2008). The distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion has been blurred in Australia. Why has it happened?, Journal of the Australia Tax Teachers Association, 3(2), pp 141-163. Ohio University (n.d.) 10 benefits business offer employees. Available at: https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/10-items-business-offer-infographic/?g=infographicst=mba (Accessed 8 September 2017). FCT v Spotless Services Ltd [1986] 34 ATR 183. Stevens, P. (2013) The changing limits of acceptable tax avoidance, Tax Journal, [Online]. Available at: https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/changing-limits-acceptable-tax-avoidance-11012013 (Accessed 8 September 2017). United States Bureau of Labour Statistics (2016) Glossary. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#B (Accessed 8 September 2017). Xynas, L. (2011) Tax planning, avoidance and evasion in Australia 1970-2010: The regulatory responses and taxpayer compliance, Revenue Law Journal, 20(1), pp. 1-37.