Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVillios, Sylviaen_US
dc.contributor.authorXynas, Lidiaen_US
dc.contributor.authorKenny, Paulen_US
dc.contributor.authorBlissenden, Michaelen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-15T04:52:39Z
dc.date.available2019-02-15T04:52:39Z
dc.date.issued2014-12
dc.identifier.citationResidency and Australians working overseas: can be an expensive lesson in tax law (2015) 2(9-10) TAX 188en_US
dc.identifier.issn2203-9481
dc.identifier.urihttps://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/8c2a9c12- a0f7-4498-b9ed-f4c647680d07/? context=1201008&federationidp=SFHJ6R50981
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2328/38976
dc.descriptionCopyright © 2015 LexisNexis. This article is made available per the publisher's Content Sharing policy.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe Australia’s Future Tax System Review,1 commonly referred to as the Henry Tax Review (the Review) has been “one of the most comprehensive reviews of the tax and transfer system” ever undertaken in Australia.2 The overall aim of the Review was to restructure the way in which the government collects taxes so as to place the nation in a position where it could effectively deal with “its social, economic and environmental challenges and enhance economic, social and environmental well-being”.3 As a product of the review, Recommendations 27 and 45 have gained political and economic attention, suggesting a reduction of the company tax rate coupled with improved arrangements for charging for the use of non-renewable resources via a “uniform resource rent tax”.4 The first part of this paper will evaluate the Review’s Recommendation 27 that “the company income tax rate should be reduced to 25%,”5 by first discussing the proposed reform, then examining what impact it may have on the current tax system and evaluating the purported benefits of implementing the Recommendation. The second part of this paper will consider the second limb of Recommendation 27, which sets out that “[i]mproved arrangements for charging for the use of non-renewable resources should be introduced at the same time”6 together with Recommendation 45 which advocates the introduction of a “uniform resource rent tax”. Particular focus will be given to the Australian experience in relation to its failed attempt to introduce the Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT).en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherLexisNexisen_US
dc.rightsCopyright © 2015 LexisNexis.en_US
dc.subjectFuture Tax System Reviewen_US
dc.subjectHenry reviewen_US
dc.subjectTax lawen_US
dc.subjectMining taxen_US
dc.subjectuniform resource rent taxen_US
dc.subjectMineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT)en_US
dc.titleReducing the company tax rate and abolishing the MRRT: a step forward or back?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holderLexisNexis.en_US
dc.rights.licenseIn Copyright


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record