research essay written on the following research question.
In 1990 Hill J in FCT v Cooling (1990) 90 ATC 4472 at 4488 commented:
?[The capital gains provisions] are drafted with such obscurity that even those used to interpreting the utterances of the Delphic oracle might falter in seeking to elicit a sensible meaning from its terms.?
?[The capital gains provisions] are drafted with such obscurity that even those used to interpreting the utterances of the Delphic oracle might falter in seeking to elicit a sensible meaning from its terms.?
In 1991, Mason CJ in Hepples v FCT (1991) 173 CLR 492; (1991) 91 ATC 4808 at 497 and 4810 followed this sentiment: ?[These provisions] must be obscure, if not bewildering, both to the taxpayer who seeks to determine his or her liability by reference to them and to the lawyer called upon to interpret them.?
Have subsequent amendments to the relevant CGT provisions in question addressed the issues of complexity and issues of interpretation adequately where taxpayers today are no longer faced with potentially harsh outcomes?
This essay needs to be fully referenced according to the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC).
I paper must use Australian legislation and Australian Cases. It must refer to the Australian Capital Gains provisions from 1936 to the amended 1997 version. It must explicitly refer to the two cases mentioned in the research question. The research paper must look at that case and find out which Capital Gains provisions they were referring to that were so obscure.
Click Here To Get More On This Paper!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment