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.

We considered the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) recently released guidance on section 100A here and here. Those documents give the clearest public indication to how the ATO interprets section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).

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.

The question of when a taxpayer holds shares or any other investment on capital account or revenue account is fundamental in determining whether gains from the investment are capital in nature or ordinary income.

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.

Amongst all the furore about the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) draft guidance on section 100A, on 23 February 2022, the ATO also issued draft guidance on determining when expenses incurred in establishing and administering an employee share scheme (ESS) are deductible.

What is land tax

Land tax is a state and territory tax. It is an annual tax that is levied by the state authorities of each state and territory based on the total taxable value of land held in the particular jurisdiction.

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).

The Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021 (Bill) passed the Senate on Thursday 10 February 2022.

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.

What is land tax

Land tax is a state and territory tax. It is an annual tax that is levied by the state authorities of each state and territory based on the total taxable value of land held in the particular jurisdiction.

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.”

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.

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 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.