I have attached the question. Please provide the relevant answers ASAP

MLC 703- PRINCIPLES OF INCOME TAX LAW INSTRUCTIONS Please note that the following will not form part of the word count: References, including statute and cases; Diagrams; Tables; Calculations. You must complete both parts of the assignment. Please complete both parts of the assignment separately. You should allocate approximately 1500 words on both Part A and approximately 1500 words on the policy-based essay question in Part B. There is a strict word limit of 3000 words for this assignment. For both parts of the assignment you will be required to go beyond the study materials for this unit and you will be expected to conduct your own research of cases and other academic material upon which you should base your answer. You are encouraged to use headings for purposes of clarity and presentation of your assignment. It is however essential that your assignment is written in full sentences and not dot point form. If you use any equations in solving the problem question please make sure that you cite the correct sections of the relevant legislation and that you outline your entire working. You must begin each question separately. It is however essential that you place your name and student number and the question number on each question which you complete. Regarding referencing, you will find the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC) style of referencing in the following web site: http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1586203/FinalOnlineP DF-2012Reprint.pdf Please note that this AGLC style is intended for Law students and although it would be great if you followed it, marks will not be deducted for not citing cases etc exactly as described. In other words, whilst you must reference, you can choose to use other referencing styles (ie not necessarily the AGLC style) if you wish. The assignments must be completed individually. DUE DATE: 11:59pm Monday 11 September 2017. PART 1- PROBLEM QUESTIONS PROBLEM QUESTION A- WORTH 5% OF YOUR OVERALL MARK FOR THIS UNIT SO YOU SHOULD ALLOCATE APPROXIMATELY 400 WORDS ON DISCUSSING THIS. PROBLEM QUESTION B- WORTH 15% OF YOUR OVERALL MARK FOR THIS UNIT SO YOU SHOULD ALLOCATE APPROXIMATELY 1100 WORDS ON DISCUSSING THIS. PROBLEM QUESTION 1A- THIS IS WORTH 5% OF YOUR OVERALL MARK FOR THE UNIT (APPROX 400 WORDS) Melissa is a tax accountant at the head office of a major retail store called RetailCo. Melissa's contract entitles her to an annual bonus of up to $15,000 depending on her performance rating. She has worked for RetailCo for 6 years and each year has received annual bonuses of $10,000-$15,000. RetailCo offers Melissa and some other similar employees $50,000 in exchange for her agreeing to modify her contract, so that she no longer has the right to a bonus. In recent months RetailCo has had negative media coverage regarding the fact that it had underpaid some of its employees' wages and superannuation (Melissa had not been underpaid). RetailCo offers to give all of its professional head office employees (including Melissa) $4,000 in exchange for them not saying anything negative to the media about their employer. Required: Ignoring capital gains tax, discuss whether: the $50,000 received by Melissa constitutes ordinary and/or statutory income; and the $4000 constitutes ordinary income. Where appropriate, support your answer with legislative and case authority. PROBLEM QUESTION 1B- THIS IS WORTH 15% OF YOUR OVERALL MARK FOR THE UNIT (APPROX 1100 WORDS) During May 2010 Julie purchased a business that manufactured high quality business suits. Specifically, the purchase consisted of Julie paying $900 000 for the factory premises that manufactured the suits. She also paid $200 000 for the goodwill of this business. She ran this business as a sole trader. In September 2013, the factory premises owned by Julie had some windows broken due to a storm. Julie paid $5000 to have these repaired. She also renovated the staff kitchen on the factory premises. This cost her $30 000 in materials and paying for tradespeople. She also put in 50 hours of her own work to this renovation by doing the tiling herself, which saved her $4000 that she would have otherwise have had to pay the tiler. In May 2016 it became increasingly uneconomical to run the factory due to high labour costs. As a result, Julie, who was 52 at the time, decided to no longer continue running her business. Approximately a year later, she entered into the following contracts on 15 May 2017: Bill would purchase the goodwill of her business for $500 000. However, Bill did not purchase the factory premises as he intended to have the suits sold by the business manufactured in a lower cost country. The factory premises were to be sold to a property developer for $1.5m. The property developer intended to demolish the factory premises and build high rise residential apartments in its place. Bill was to pay Julie $15 000 a year for the next 3 years in return for Julie agreeing to not operate a competing business for that time. For the full period that Julie had owned her business annual revenue was over $3m. In June 2017 Julie wanted a new challenge so purchased all the shares in a company called CLR Pty Ltd for $1m. CLR's assets consisted of: A rural residential rental property valued at $250,000; and A small shoe manufacturing factory worth $750,000. At the time of entering the various contracts on May 2017 Julie's assets also included: Her main residence in Altona worth $1m, which had no mortgage on it. An investment property in Footscray worth $700 000 with a $600 000 mortgage. $200 000 in her superannuation account. A holiday unit on the Gold Coast worth $250 000 (unmortgaged). Julie stayed there every year for a few months. Over the Christmas period she would also rent it out for 3 weeks to friends at $500 per week, which was lower than the typical market value rent of $800 per week. A holiday house in Ballarat worth $300 000 (unmortgaged). Julie used this solely as a weekend getaway for herself. A 42% interest in a company called SHR Pty Ltd. The total net worth of SHR Pty Ltd is $1m, and its only assets are listed shares on the Australian Stock Exchange. Required: Advise Julie on the Capital Gains Tax implications regarding the above transactions- please ensure that your discussion includes advice on whether she can take advantage of the CGT Small Business Concessions to reduce the amount of tax payable on her Capital Gains. Please assume that none of the payments received by Julie regarding the May 2017 agreements constitute ordinary income. PART 2- POLICY BASED ESSAY QUESTION POLICY BASED ESSAY QUESTION THIS IS WORTH 20% OF YOUR OVERALL MARK FOR THE UNIT (APPROX 1,500 WORDS) Some have argued that Australia should raise the rate of GST so as to lower personal income tax rates. Discuss the arguments for and against such a proposal. In your discussion, please consider this in the context of fairness, efficiency, protection of government revenue and any other relevant considerations