The Full Federal Court case of Commissioner of Taxation v Liang [2025] FCAFC 4 serves as a reminder that when challenging an ATO decision at a court or tribunal, it is the taxpayer who carries the burden of proving that an assessment is excessive and what the assessment should have been.

Employers and business entities must pay payroll tax in relation to wages paid to its employees. In addition, such entities must pay payroll tax in relation to contractors engaged under “relevant contracts”.

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 our previous article, we discuss Revenue NSW’s announcement that it has determined that NSW surcharge purchaser duty and surcharge land tax are inconsistent with international tax treaties entered into by the Australian Federal Government and certain countries (Treaty Countries).

On 29 May 2023, Revenue NSW has updated its list of Treaty Countries to now include India, Japan, Norway and Switzerland.

On 21 February 2023 Revenue NSW announced that it has been determined that NSW surcharge purchaser duty and surcharge land tax (Surcharge Provisions) are inconsistent with international tax treaties entered into by the Australian Federal Government with New Zealand, Finland, Germany, and South Africa (Treaty Countries).

The NSW Supreme Court’s (NSWSC) decision in Godolphin Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] NSWSC 430 (Godolphin Case) is instructive as it provides guidance into the ambit and scope of the land tax primary production exemption particularly in relation to the breeding of horses.

We wrote that 2022 is the ‘Year of 100A’ after the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released three guidance products, two in draft, on section 100A and the ATO’s appeal to the Full Federal Court from the decision of Logan J in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 on section 100A.

In one sense, the High Court judgment in FCT v Carter [2022] HCA 10 (Carter) will come as welcome relief for tax advisors. That is, after dealing with the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) view of the ‘lore’ in the form of practical compliance guidelines, Carter turns minds back to the ‘law.’ Unfortunately, the law in Carter can result in unpleasant tax outcomes for certain trust beneficiaries.

Quoting Winston Churchill, we said that the Federal Court decision in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 (Guardian AIT) concerning section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is perhaps the “end of the beginning” of what may become increased clarity on the judicial and administrative approach to that section.

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.

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.

After six years the ATO has released draft guidance on section 100A. Keeping with the draft theme, the ATO also released (updated) draft views on when an unpaid present entitlement held on sub-trust becomes financial accommodation for purposes of Division 7A.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (VCAT) decision in Hartman v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 28 (Hartman Case) is a rare decision on the application of the sub-sale “double duty” provisions in the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) (Act).

Winston Churchill famously said “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

16 December 2021 may, or may not, become the day from which the allocation of professional firm profits fundamentally changed.

As discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, land tax is levied on the total taxable value of land held by a taxpayer in a particular jurisdiction. Land tax is then levied on a progressive graduated scale. That is, the higher the value of land that you own the higher the rate of land tax you pay.

As discussed in this Land Tax Series, land tax is a state and territory tax levied on the total taxable value of land held by taxpayers in particular jurisdictions. Land tax is assessed on a calendar year basis on the land you own at midnight on 31 December.

In this Part 6 in our series of articles on land tax we examine the principal place of residence (PPR) exemption and the requirements to satisfy the exemption under the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic) (LTA).

In line with the 2021/22 Victorian Budget announcements and following targeted consultations with various stakeholders, the Victorian Government has recently tabled a Bill to introduce the windfall gains tax - Windfall Gains Tax and State Taxation and Other Acts Further Amendment Bill 2021 (Bill).

Legal professional privilege (LPP) has once again become a topic of significant interest following the recent Full Federal Court decision of CUB Australia Holding Pty Ltd v FCT [2021] FCAFC 171 (CUB Decision) and the release of the draft LPP protocol from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).