|
此文章由 VVVV 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 VVVV 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
解释一下,我说的那段话是有上下文的,是参照LZ的情况说的, 就像 Ruling 18 段所说:
“What will be decisive in cases of this nature will be the characterization of the arrangements”
不能片面单拉出“低于市场价.....就可以不报税”来推理, 那可不是我的意思,我只是不想讲的太复杂
18. What will be decisive in cases of this nature will be the characterization of the arrangements, i.e., do they produce assessable income. Situations arise where the owner of a residence permits persons to share the residence on the basis that all the occupants, including the owner, bear an appropriate proportion of the costs actually incurred on food, electricity, etc. Arrangements of this nature are not considered to confer any benefit on the owner. There is no assessable income and the question of allowable deductions does not arise.
19. Care should be taken to ensure, however, that what may be termed ordinary tenancy arrangements are not dressed up in the form represented by the above heading. If the owner were not party to the sharing arrangements or if the occupants made a fixed contribution to the owner for household costs, there would be a presumption that the payments made by the occupants contained an element of reward to the owner for the occupancy of the residence. Enquiries will be necessary in these cases to establish the extent of the benefit to the owner which should be included in his assessable income. Income tax deductions for losses and outgoings attributable to the residence would be determined on the same basis as applies under the heading "arms length letting of an identified part of a residence, e.g. a bedroom, with access to general living areas of the residence". |
|