MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940566018 · doi:10.32721/ctj.2019.67.1.krever

Non-Residents and Capital Gains Tax in Australia

2019· article· en· W2940566018 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Richard Krever, Kerrie Sadiq

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital gains taxTaxable incomeState income taxTax reformEconomicsInternational taxationDouble taxationTax avoidanceWithholding taxCapital (architecture)Income taxAd valorem taxIndirect taxLabour economicsPublic economicsEconomic policyAccountingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of capital gains taxation in Australia parallels that in Canada in many respects. Federal income taxes were adopted in both countries during the First World War, and in both jurisdictions the courts interpreted the term "income," the subject of taxation, using United Kingdom judicial concepts that excluded capital gains from the tax base. In the last quarter of the 20th century, both countries amended their income tax laws to capture capital gains, and in both countries concessional rates apply. Initially, the Australian capital gains tax regime had rules that paralleled those in Canada in respect of the application of capital gains tax measures to non-residents, and the list of assets that might generate a capital gains tax liability for non-residents was similar in both countries. Australia changed course just over a decade ago with a decision to limit the income tax liability of non-residents in respect of capital gains to gains on land and land-rich companies alone, albeit with an extended definition of land to capture directly related interests such as exploration and mining rights. Consequently, until this decade, reform of Australia's regime imposing capital gains tax on non-residents focused on the concept of source as a primary driver, with the categories of taxable assets being gradually reduced. However, after more than a decade of unprecedented increases in housing prices in Australia, reform has moved away from addressing source to integrity matters. In Australia, as in Canada, there has been considerable investment in property, particularly residential property, by non-residents in recent years, and the government has sought ways to enhance the enforcement and integrity of the capital gains tax rules applying to non-residents disposing of Australian real property. Since 2013, Australia has proposed three separate measures to ensure integrity within this regime: removal of a concessional rate, introduction of a withholding tax, and removal of the principal residence exemption for non-residents. This article considers the history and development of Australia's capital gains tax regime as it applies to non-residents and examines the recent shift in focus from what is captured in the capital gains source rules to integrity provisions adopted to achieve both compliance and geopolitical objectives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienneSame topicProperty Rights and Legal DoctrineFrench-language works237,207