Over the course of the last year, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has repeatedly indicated in various forums that advisors are in the ATO’s sights.

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.

In the absence of a comprehensive definition of ‘foreign currency’ in the Australia tax legislation the ATO and Australian courts have interpreted ‘foreign currency’ to be currency issued or recognised by an overseas sovereign state.

Taxpayers using cryptocurrency in their businesses, including as a means of paying expenses such as staff or contractors or as a means of deriving income through investments, mining or trading, is becoming more common. After a particularly volatile year for the values of cryptocurrency many taxpayers may have significant gains or losses associated with their cryptocurrency transactions.

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)

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.

Overview

• Revenue losses and application of PCG 2016/16

Whether an employee has genuine restrictions on disposing of an option/right or share issued under an employee share scheme (ESS) can determine whether tax can be deferred, and until when, under the ESS.

The legislative and regulatory complexity of Employee Share Schemes has once again inspired recommended reforms, this time by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, in a recent report.

A recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision re-emphasizes that taxpayers who purchase, subdivide, and sell land within a short timeframe may have entered into an isolated profit-making transaction, with any gains assessed on revenue account.

Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 sets out the obligations, liabilities and rights of agents and trustees. An agent or trustee is answerable as taxpayer for things required to be done by the tax Acts in respect of income, or any profits or gains of a capital nature, derived by the agent or trustee in his/her representative capacity or derived by the principal by virtue of the agency.

As the public and Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) interest in cryptocurrency continues to increase further guidance has been released by the ATO in relation to the tax treatment of staking rewards and airdrops.

Attracting and retaining high performing employees can be key to ensuring the long-term success and growth of a business – a significant challenge for many Australian businesses navigating through COVID-19. Implementing an employee share scheme (ESS) or incentive plan can be an effective means by which businesses can attract, motivate, and retain valued employees.

The Federal Budget 2021-2022 is big on spending and small on major structural change to tax however there are a number of tax measures within the Budget to be aware of.

Individuals cannot currently claim a tax deduction under s 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 for education and training expenses unless the expense leads to, or is likely to lead to, an increase in the individual’s income from current income-earning activities.

AAT denies deductions for work-related expenses: Lambourne v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] AATA 4562

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) recently agreed with the Commissioner in disallowing certain deductions for work-related expenses.

The Full Federal Court in FCT v Healius [2020] FCAFC 173 has upheld the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) appeal of the Federal Court decision in Healius v COT [2019] FCA 2011 which considered whether lump sum payments made by a medical centre to its doctors were assessable on revenue or capital account.

Over the last 18 months several decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Federal and Full Federal Courts considered the application of Australian tax residency laws including Harding v FCT [2019] FCAFC 29, FCT v Addy [2020] FCAFC 135, Stockton v FCT [2019] FCA 1679, Handsley v FCT [2019] AATA 917 and Coelho v FCT [2020] AATA 2474.

In our earlier articles we discussed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and Federal Court decisions in Eichmann v FCT [2019] AATA 162 and FCT v Eichmann [2019] FCA 2155. The Full Federal Court in Eichmann v FCT [2020] FCAFC 155 recently allowed the taxpayer’s appeal of the Federal Court decision.

As the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt across Australia, federal and state governments continue to take measures to stimulate the economy and provide financial assistance to taxpayers.