<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>China Tax Insights &#187; Australian Tax</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chinataxinsights.com/category/australian-tax/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chinataxinsights.com</link>
	<description>The ramblings of a tax tragic</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:57:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Back at last</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/07/26/back-at-last/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/07/26/back-at-last/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General China Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circular 698]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=1312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My apologies for a long (certainly longer than intended) hiatus from blogging. I have just relocated back to Australia for personal reasons. With the burden of moving and starting a new job (actually not a completely new job as I am back with a firm I used to work for &#8211; Argyle Lawyers &#8211; before [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/07/26/back-at-last/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australia&#8217;s &#8220;super profits&#8221; tax &#8211; is it legal?</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/05/11/australias-super-profits-tax-is-it-legal/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/05/11/australias-super-profits-tax-is-it-legal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 03:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mining super profits tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=1304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Australian government recently announced its intention to impose a 40% tax on the &#8220;super profits&#8221; of mining companies. This is opposed to the general 30% (soon to be reduced to 28%) rate of tax for companies in Australia. This decision has come under some criticism &#8211; both from a policy and legal perspective. In [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/05/11/australias-super-profits-tax-is-it-legal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bamford appeal dismissed</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/03/30/bamford-appeal-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/03/30/bamford-appeal-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bamford]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In November last year I commented, in a post entitled &#8220;Bamford &#8211; special leave granted&#8221; (what an exciting title), on a significant Australian tax case  that was about to go before the High Court of Australia. The High Court today issued its decision in that case &#8211; see Bamford v FCT [2009] FCAFC 66 (3 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/03/30/bamford-appeal-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Theft is not always theft &#8230; at least for tax purposes.</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/02/08/theft-is-not-always-theft-at-least-for-tax-purposes/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/02/08/theft-is-not-always-theft-at-least-for-tax-purposes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax on stolen income]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=1007</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Australian tax law permits a deduction in taxable income where a taxpayer &#8217;s income is stolen. In particular,  section 25-45 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 provides that a taxpayer can deduct a loss in respect of money if:

the taxpayer discovers the loss in the income year,
the loss was caused by theft, stealing, embezzlement, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/02/08/theft-is-not-always-theft-at-least-for-tax-purposes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australian tax residents in China: Will the taxman get you twice?</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/01/04/australian-tax-residents-in-china-will-the-taxman-get-you-twice/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/01/04/australian-tax-residents-in-china-will-the-taxman-get-you-twice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General China Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Individual Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australians living in China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 23AG exemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax on expats]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Much of my practice at Hwuason involves advising clients on the interaction between China’s tax laws and the tax laws of another country. It has often been said that international taxation is one of the few truly international areas of the law. As such, a China tax professional advising on the tax implications of cross-border [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2010/01/04/australian-tax-residents-in-china-will-the-taxman-get-you-twice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quality ATO work</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/12/18/quality-ato-work/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/12/18/quality-ato-work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:13:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bungling tax officials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plagiarism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://blogs.wsj.com/privateequity/2009/12/16/australian-tax-offices-definition-of-pe-comes-from-wikipedia/ 
Here is a post from the Wall Street Journal discussing the Australian Taxation Office&#8217;s slavish use of wikipedia in a tax determination. The ATO, unfortunately, is one Australian public department that struggles to find quality people. I wouldn&#8217;t like to be the person who approved this piece.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/12/18/quality-ato-work/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>End of section 23AG exemption</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/12/01/end-of-section-23ag-exemption/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/12/01/end-of-section-23ag-exemption/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;I wonder whether there is anybody with more insight than I regarding s 23AG(1AA). Well, the legislation is simple enough and I don&#8217;t need anyone to read it for me. I understand that foreign salaries have lost their exempt status which, for most people, surely is easy, unless I am missing something.
But what measures are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/12/01/end-of-section-23ag-exemption/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>China tax articles</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/11/30/china-tax-articles/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/11/30/china-tax-articles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-Avoidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enterprise Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transfer Pricing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.chinataxlawyers.com/pdf/TheEndofSPVsinChina.pdf
http://www.chinataxlawyers.com/pdf/MergersAcquisitionsinChina.pdf
Here are some finalised China tax articles for you to read. One is the final version of a draft I posted last week. The other is a detailed article on Circular 601. Enjoy.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/11/30/china-tax-articles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bamford &#8211; special leave granted</title>
		<link>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/11/02/bamford-special-leave-granted/</link>
		<comments>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/11/02/bamford-special-leave-granted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Australian Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinataxinsights.com/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The High Court has granted special leave in respect of one of the more significant Australian tax cases of the last ten years. The appeal will consider two issues. The meaning of the expression &#8220;income of the trust estate&#8221;  and the meaning of the expression a &#8220;share&#8221; of the income of the trust estate which are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://chinataxinsights.com/2009/11/02/bamford-special-leave-granted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
