In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Pedley (No 2) (2018) FCA 2015 (Pedley), the Federal Court confirmed the wide discretion available to the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) to allocate payments made to it for tax debts especially where the taxpayer has not provided explicit direction as to what payments should be applied to which debts.
A recent ATO post on its social media channels may signal the Commissioner of Taxation’s focus on the GST obligations of taxpayers involved in the development of property for sale at a profit and whether they are required to register for GST.
The application of the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (CGT Concessions) is an area of interest for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
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).
The recent Federal Court decision of Harding v FCT  FCA 837 illustrates the difficulties of an Australian expatriate arguing they were resident of a foreign country, and thereby not an Australian tax resident.
With seven sitting days left in the current financial year, the Tax Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017 (the Bill), that proposes to deny the lower 27.5% corporate tax rate to corporate tax entities with less than $25 million of turnover that derive predominantly (80% or more) passive income has not been debated by the Parliament since 12 February 2018. This Bill, if passed and assented to, will apply from 1 July 2017. That is, for the current income year.
On 17 May 2018, the ATO updated its practice statement (PS LA 2008/6) providing for a more robust and comprehensive process before the Commissioner can form an opinion there has been fraud or evasion. Where the Commissioner forms an opinion there has been fraud or evasion by a taxpayer in a particular income year, he then has an unlimited amendment period in which to raise an amended assessment outside of the usual 2 or 4-year time limits.
The recent Federal Court decision of Rowntree v FCT  FCA 182, (Rowntree) dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal, considered whether amounts received by the taxpayer were income rather than loan receipts.
The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) has power pursuant to section 255-15(1) of Schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to permit a taxpayer to pay its tax-related liability by instalments in accordance with a payment arrangement. The recent Federal Court decision of Stojic v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation  FCA 483 (Stojic) dismissed an application by the sole director and shareholder of a company to review a decision by the Commissioner to decline to exercise that power illustrates two major points.