Legal Case: Uber And The Australian Tax Office

Uber is defending their position, stating that they screen potential Uber drivers in accordance with the rules that the state of California put in place, and that these rules were softened by legislators to allow for rehabilitation of ex-offenders.

On October 22nd, 2001, the Industrial dispute between QANTAS and its employees was initiated with the offering of a new Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. This proposed an 18-month wage freeze for employees plus a sliding scale profit share scheme. Ten out of twelve unions under QANTAS accepted the terms of the agreement, barring the unions of manufacturing employees (AWU and AMWU). They were holding out for a 4-6% pay rise. On the 8th May 2002, some ten months later, the dispute was resolved when QANTAS agreed to an across the board 6% pay increase. This essay provides an in-depth analysis into the dispute, including causes, the resolution process, the role of stakeholders, and costs and benefits for all concerned.

Although Uber notifies their customers of the increased pricing structure when ordering a car service during these premium rate spikes a notification will pop up and the customer must acknowledge and accept price increase before moving on to the order screen which then connects you to a driver. This surge pricing has made many customers upset but it is something that has been done in many industries to compensate for slow demand, the airline and hotel industries have been doing this for years an yet they do not receive the outcry of complaints that Uber has received.

In order to deduct her moving expenses, she must meet certain conditions outlined in Reg. 1.217-2 (c). Helen meets the first two requirements (relevance to work test and distance test) without any issue. The third requirement has not yet been met yet though. This requirement is a minimum period of employment. Since she is a full-time employee, she must work full-time in this general location for at least 39 weeks during the 12 month period after the move. This does not mean she is not required to remain employed at her current place of work to meet this test. Even though she does not meet this requirement yet, she can deduct these expenses on the current years return or the year the reimbursement is paid to her by her employer. If she recognizes the expenses on this year’s return and does not end up meeting the requirement, she will have to include the deductions she took on this year’s return in next year’s gross income.

I appreciate the opportunity to advise you regarding the tax treatment for your loss of $25,406 in 2015 from your dog breeding activities. I understand that you decided to start breeding purebred terriers to keep yourself busy after your divorce with your husband in January. There are two possible ways to treat the loss under rulings in the Internal Revenue Code. One option is to treat your dog breeding activity as a business and deduct the losses on Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, of your individual income tax return. The second option is to treat your dog breeding as an activity not engaged in for profit, which does not allow you to deduct the

An offeror will have made an offer where it appears to a reasonable person in the position of the offeree that an offer was intended.

In Australia, whilst the professions are divided between lawyers and attorneys, the obligations are not very different.

Uber as a business have conducted and implemented many harmful tactics and policies. The primary issue that Uber has been deemed harmful are Uber taking and requiring all drivers to accept the percentage cuts. In addition, the higher percentage cuts will be deduct from each earned revenue the driver obtain while driver for Uber. This is a very harmful tactics

UBER is a recent startup tech company providing a service equivalent to regular taxi with better rates and faster service. The case illustrates that UBER has been using some less than direct approaches to stealing the effectiveness of the competition and limiting their overall profitability. The greater question that is born out of an understanding of this particular case is whether or not it is ok to take short rides from a competing taxi company or call for a ride and cancel afterward, something that is contractually within the rights of the customer, or whether or not this is ethically wrong. In terms of seeking to answer this, the following analysis will leverage my own ethical approach; the consequentialist perspective. This will be done as a means of ascertaining whether or not UBER is in the wrong or whether or not the practices that have been discussed thus far are acceptable.

The air taxi industry is very different from the original airline industry. For Linear air at least, they handle bookings on a per plane, per hour basis. This scheduling model helps to eliminate the problem that commercial airlines have because there will be no planes flying for little to no reason. By this, I mean that a lot of commercial flights end up flying with several empty seats or seats sold at a discounted rate. With the high cost of flying a larger plane, when seats are empty or sold for less it is almost not worth it to have that flight in the first place. For Linear air, charging on a per plane basis allows them to ensure that no plane is flown without need. Along with this, the air taxi industry works around customer need, and customers have the ability to book flights with shorter notice. This in turn, however, means that a flight may not always be available but, does help to assist with overcapacity issues. Specifically, for Herp and Linear Air, they are expanding their air taxi Capacity watchfully, with only 960 revenue hours, per plane, per

Australian Oil Refining Pty Ltd ('AOR') and Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd ('Caltex') were gatherings for managing harmony according to which AOR refined unrefined petroleum that was delivered to its refinery on the southern shore of Botany Bay by Caltex, and after that dispatched the refined item back to Caltex's oil terminal on the northern shore of Botany Bay by means of a pipeline that kept streaming under bay. AOR was the title-holder of the pipeline. Under the terms of the agreement Caltex held accountability for oil in its different structures, and AOR was answerable for the hazard of destruction or depletion to the oil as it streamed through its pipeline.

In a Summary Opinion, the Tax Court has determined that a taxpayer could deduct the costs of obtaining a master of business administration (MBA) as unreimbursed employee expenses. The Court found that the MBA didn't qualify him for a new profession but rather refined his existing business and investment skills that he used in his former managerial position, and it further concluded that the taxpayer remained in the same trade or business before and after attaining the degree.

Broadly skilled finance professional with over 3 years experience in both accounting and taxation. Thorough understanding of Australian tax compliance and laws for individuals and companies. Excellent financial reporting skills, building meaningful financial information and reports that can be presented to financial and non-financial members. Benefits from Chartered and Commercial environments, whilst quickly demonstrating the versatility to adapt to both. Pro-active communicator, confidently developing relationships both internally and externally, and liaising with all levels of staff.

However, the Gillard government has instituted one fairly radical and controversial policy: the new imposed carbon tax which took effect on July 1, 2012. The tax requires 500 of Australia's top polluting companies to "pay a fixed price, starting at Aus$23 per tonne, for their carbon dioxide emissions for the first three years. The mechanism would then shift

Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg., Justice N. L. Untwalia, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice P. S. Kailasam, Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud.