When involved in a dispute with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the possibility of resolving that dispute by way of settlement should always be carefully considered including what approach should be taken in negotiating with the ATO to get the best outcome for taxpayers.
When involved in a dispute with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), it is always in a clients’ best interest to seek to either resolve or narrow and define the relevant issues in dispute as quickly and efficiently as possible. We will always advise a client to seek to engage with the ATO to resolve a tax dispute, when possible.
We previously reported here and here on the Full Federal Court decision of Pintarich v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation  FCAFC 79 (Pintarich) and the unsuccessful application for special leave to the High Court.
On 11 October 2018, the Full Federal Court in Satyam Computer Services Limited v CoT (2018) held the ‘source’ rule in Article 23 of the Australia–India Double Taxation Agreement (Indian DTA) prevailed over the domestic definition such that payments from Australia to a company in India for work performed in India was taxable in Australia.
On 9 July 2018, in a Media Release, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP, announced the release of the self-initiated Board of Taxation report, dated August 2017, on a new tax residency model for individuals. Minister O’Dwyer requested further analysis and consideration on the key recommendations before the Government takes a position on this matter.
The recent Full Federal Court decision of Pintarich v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation  FCAFC 79 dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, considered whether a letter (the ATO Letter) from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) purportedly remitting the taxpayer’s general Interest charge (GIC) amounted to a ‘decision’ by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner).