Legal news
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 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.
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).
The primary production land tax exemption remains an important concession for farmers and the owners of farm land. The Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales has added to the list of recent land tax cases offering insight into the application of the primary production land tax exemption.
In the recent Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) decision of Trustee for Virdis Family Trust t/a Rickard Heating Pty Ltd v FC of T [2022] AATA 3, the AAT relied on the decision in Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (Moffet) to find that a plumber who was engaged as a contractor was an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).
We have previously discussed Addy v FCT [2021] HCA 34 here. In this case, the High Court unanimously allowed Ms Addy’s appeal and found that a UK working holiday visa holder, who was a tax resident of Australia, was entitled to the tax-free threshold and taxation at the rate that applied to Australian resident nationals.
As discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, land tax is a state and territory tax levied on the total taxable value of land held by taxpayers in particular jurisdictions. In the case of foreign owners who are deemed to be absent from their properties, additional land tax may be levied on the taxable value of such properties. In Victoria, the foreign person land tax surcharge is known as the absentee owner surcharge regime.
