On 17 August 2020, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in FCT v Fortunatow [2020] FCAFC 139 allowing the Commissioner’s appeal from the decision of Griffiths J of the Federal Court and finding Griffiths J had erred in his construction of section 87-20(1)(b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 97).

When in a dispute with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), attention needs to be given on how to respond to, and engage with, the ATO during a review or audit.

On 16 October 2019, the High Court handed down its decision in FCT v Sharpcan Pty Ltd unanimously allowing the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision.

When involved in a dispute with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), dealing with the interest and penalties that may be imposed by the ATO in relation to a tax liability by seeking remission of those amounts, objecting, or having a reasonably arguable position opinion can be an important part of any dispute resolution strategy.

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 [2018] FCAFC 79 (Pintarich) and the unsuccessful application for special leave to the High Court.

Previously we reported here and here, legislation was introduced to the Parliament in October 2017 (then dropped) and again in February 2018 regarding proposed changes to the CGT main residence exemption as that exemption applies to foreign residents.

We previously reported here in relation to the Full Federal Court decision in the residency case of Harding v COT [2019] FCAFC 29 (Harding) which found in favour of Mr Harding, reversing the Federal Court’s decision at first instance.

The Full Federal Court has now handed down its decision in the residency case of Harding v COT [2019] FCAFC 29 (Harding), reversing the Federal Court’s decision at first instance, and finding in favour of Mr Harding. 

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has determined that land, used to store tools and materials for the purposes of operating a business, constituted an “active asset” for the purposes of the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions.

The High Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Tomaras & Ors (2018) HCA 62 (Tomaras) has confirmed the Federal Circuit Court had jurisdiction to make orders altering the property interests of parties to a marriage substituting one party for the other party as sole debtor to the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) in respect of income tax liabilities owed by the first party.

As previously reported in February 2018 (see here), the Commonwealth Government introduced into Parliament legislation that would require purchasers of taxable supplies of new residential premises or new subdivisions of potential residential land to pay either 1/11, or 7% if the margin scheme applies, of the purchase price to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) at settlement.

As previously reported in November 2017 (see here), the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017 introduced to the Parliament in October of that year dropped, without notice or explanation, reference to the proposed change to the CGT main residence exemption as that exemption applies to foreign residents.

On 7 February 2018 the Commonwealth Government introduced into Parliament legislation which if enacted will, subject to a transitional rule (discussed further below), require from 1 July 2018 that purchasers of taxable supplies of new residential premises or new subdivisions of potential residential land pay either 1/11, or 7% if the margin scheme applies, of the purchase price to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) at settlement (the Legislation). 

In the 2016-2017 Economic and Fiscal Outlook (http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/myefo/download/09-Appendix-A-Revenue.pdf), the Government announced that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) would be allowed to report to credit reporting agencies the tax debt information of entities that don’t effectively engage with the ATO to manage those tax debts.

Following an announcement in the 2017 Budget (see our article here), the Government on 6 November 2017 released exposure draft legislation which if enacted will, subject to a transitional rule (below), require from 1 July 2018 that purchasers of taxable supplies of new residential premises or new subdivisions of potential residential land pay 1/11 of the purchase price directly to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) at settlement. The 1/11 of the purchase price is irrespective of whether the margin scheme or otherwise applies to calculate the actual GST liability.

The strength of the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) hand in raising taxation assessments, and the difficulties taxpayers face in challenging a taxation assessment other than under Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Administration Act) has again been illustrated in the Federal Court decision of Chhua v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 1127 (Chhua).

On 25 January 2017, the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) released Taxation Determination, TD 2017/1 (Determination) concerning whether intangible capital improvements made to a pre-CGT asset can be a separate asset for the purpose of subsections 108-70(2) or (3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

Reporting entities must prepare a report setting out the required information about transactions in a specified period, such as an income year or other period. 

In the April 2016 Edition of the Taxation Institute’s journal ‘Taxation in Australia’, appeared an article entitled ‘Disclaimer of an interest in a trust – can this be tax effective?’