The Full Federal Court in the BBlood appeal found for the ATO on section 100A and the taxpayer dividend stripping (albeit on a technical, non-substantive basis).

The 100A analysis was limited to ‘tax avoidance purpose’ with the Full Court holding that, in certain circumstances, the purpose of advisors can be relevant.

On 19 September 2022, Justice Thawley of the Federal Court handed down his decision in BBlood Enterprises Pty Ltd v FCT [2022] FCA 1112 (BBlood), the most recent decision on section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) was successful in arguing that section 100A applied.

Does context and purpose narrow the reach of s 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936?

We wrote that 2022 is the ‘Year of 100A’ after the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released three guidance products, two in draft, on section 100A and the ATO’s appeal to the Full Federal Court from the decision of Logan J in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 on section 100A.

Quoting Winston Churchill, we said that the Federal Court decision in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 (Guardian AIT) concerning section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is perhaps the “end of the beginning” of what may become increased clarity on the judicial and administrative approach to that section.

After our semi-serious opening statement on the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) recently released guidance on section 100A and unpaid present entitlements, this is one of a series of deep-dive articles on that guidance. These articles look at each of the ATO guidance products separately and then we discuss what the overall impact may be.

Winston Churchill famously said “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”