Australia’s denial of depreciation deductions for second-hand assets used in residential rental properties rationales appear obscure Dale Bocabellla
By: Boccabella, Dale A
.
Material type: 
ArticleSubject(s): AMORTIZACION | DEDUCCIONES | DEPRECIACIÓN | ACTIVO | VIVIENDA | IMPUESTO SOBRE LAS RENTAS DEL CAPITAL | ARRENDAMIENTO | AUSTRALIA
In:
Australian Tax Forum: a journal of Taxation Policy, Law and Reform v. 32 (2), 2022, p. 227-251Summary: From July 2017, decline in value deductions (depreciation) will not be available for second-hand assets deployed in residential rental properties and nor will such deployment followed by disposal of the asset be subject to the balancing adjustment aspect of the depreciating asset regime. Instead, the denied deductions and denied balancing adjustment amount may be recognised as a capital loss under the capital gains tax regime. Amongst other claims, official statements justifying the reform point to taxpayers refreshing the cost base of second-hand assets deployed to the rental property and successive owners of an asset claiming depreciation in excess of value. This article tests these rationales and others provided for the reform against the substantive income tax rules. The conclusion of the article is that the statements concerning refreshing cost bases, etc, cannot be correct as a matter of substantive income tax law; although they are very likely correct in terms of taxpayers illegally stepping-up cost bases.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 1867/2022/2-2 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 1867/2022/2-2 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
Resumen.
Incluye referencias bibliográficas.
From July 2017, decline in value deductions (depreciation) will not be available for second-hand assets deployed in residential rental properties and nor will such deployment followed by disposal of the asset be subject to the balancing adjustment aspect of the depreciating asset regime. Instead, the denied deductions and denied balancing adjustment amount may be recognised as a capital loss under the capital gains tax regime. Amongst other claims, official statements justifying the reform point to taxpayers refreshing the cost base of second-hand assets deployed to the rental property and successive owners of an asset claiming depreciation in excess of value. This article tests these rationales and others provided for the reform against the substantive income tax rules. The conclusion of the article is that the statements concerning refreshing cost bases, etc, cannot be correct as a matter of substantive income tax law; although they are very likely correct in terms of taxpayers illegally stepping-up cost bases.
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.