Legal news
In the recent decision of Geelong Turf Company Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2023] AATA 1718, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) upheld super guarantee charge (SGC) assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and refused to remit the 100% SGC Part 7 penalties.
The oft-debated question as to whether the development, subdivision and sale of land constitutes the mere realisation of a capital asset in an enterprising way has once again been considered in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) case of Ian Mark Collins & Mieneke Mianno Collins ATF The Collins Retirement Fund and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2022] AATA 628 (Collins)
In the recent decision of FYYB v FC of T 2021 ATC 10-592; [2021] AATA 3567, 5 October 2021, the Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) decision to disallow an objection by the taxpayer to an administrative penalty of $7,500 imposed on a self managed superannuation fund (Fund) under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (SIS Act).
In the recent decision of Allen and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2021] AATA 2768 (6 August 2021), the Australian Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) overturned a private ruling of the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and found that an individual taxpayer was personally carrying on a business of managing rental properties.
In Miley and Commissioner of Taxation, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) held that, for the purposes of the maximum net asset value (MNAV) test in s 152-15 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the market value of the taxpayer’s shares was not his share of the sales proceeds ($5.9 million), but the actual market value of his shareholding in the company just before the share sale.
The Full Federal Court dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal in Commissioner of Taxation v Devuba Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 168, confirming the earlier Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision that the existence of a dividend access share (DAS) arrangement did not affect the taxpayer’s ability to apply the capital gains tax (CGT) small business concessions to a capital gain arising from the disposal of ordinary shares in the applicant company.
The primary issue considered in that case was whether the existence of the DAS caused the taxpayer to fail to meet the small business participation percentage (SBPP) of 90%.
![Sladen Snippet - Active Asset Test – land used for storage: Eichmann v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] AATA 162](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/516cccdae4b0bacecd415c77/1550800383431-H7RONZRVYCF73VGD8R4T/Federal_Taxes.jpg)
