Legal news
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.
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).
In our earlier article, we noted the Federal Court in FCT v Eichmann [2019] FCA 2155 (Eichman) in late 2019 had found in favour of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (appealing a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) and held land used for storage was not an active asset for the purposes of the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997).
On 29 March 2020 the Federal Government announced changes to the foreign investment review regime as Australia continues to deal with the economic implications of COVID-19.
Once the legislation is passed, effective from 29 March 2020, all proposed foreign investment into Australia subject to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 will require approval, regardless of the value of the investment or nature of the foreign investor. This is to be achieved by reducing to $0 the monetary screening thresholds for all foreign investment under the Act.
As we previously reported here, in the decision of Thawley J in Greig v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCA 1084 the taxpayer was unsuccessful in arguing the loss on selling shares was deductible on the basis he was in the business of dealing in shares. The taxpayer appealed this decision.
The Federal Court in FCT v Eichmann [2019] FCA 2155 (Eichmann) held that land used for storage was not an active asset for purposes of the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997).
Recently, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) announced an expansion to its ‘Tax Avoidance Taskforce’, increasing its focus on “supporting and ensuring private groups and high wealth individuals pay the right amount of tax”.
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.
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.
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.
