Legal news
The NSW Court of Appeal has affirmed on-demand loan repayments to shadow directors were reasonable where the company was solvent and the payments caused no detriment and as such do not constitute a breach of the unreasonable director related transaction provisions in section 588FDA of the Corporations Act.
The Full Court of the Federal Court’s decision in Bakers Delight Holdings Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2025] FCAFC 144 provides insight into the interaction between franchisor liability and ‘reverse onus’ mechanisms in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Specifically, the Federal Court confirmed that franchisors can be held legally responsible for workplace contraventions by franchisees, even where the case against the franchisee relies on a ‘reverse onus of proof’. Franchisors are recommended to implement proactive compliance systems across their networks to avoid liability.
Many will be familiar with the use of bare trusts by SMSFs as part of a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA), but there are other ways in which an SMSF might invest via a bare trust, providing different structuring opportunities. This article considers the use of ‘non LRBA bare trusts’ by SMSFs and the superannuation law implications.
The article explains the arguments contained in the parties’ submissions to the High Court in the appeal by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) from the Full Federal Court’s (Full Court) decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel).
On 12 June 2025, the High Court granted the Commissioner special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Full Court Decision) that we wrote about here.
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.
On 19 February 2025, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15. On 18 March 2025, the ATO applied for special leave and, on 19 March 2025, the ATO updated its interim decision statement (DIS) on the case.
We review the updated DIS below.
#Division 7A, #UPE, #Unpaid present entitlements, #Tax, #Trusts, #TD2022/11, #Bendel, #109D #Special leave #Decision Impact Statement
On 19 February 2025, the Full Federal Court, in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel), held that an unpaid present entitlement (UPE) with a corporate beneficiary is not a loan under subsection 109D(3) of Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).
The ATO has finalised its practical compliance guidance Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/3 (Guideline) to clarify how the ATO will apply its compliance resources in relation to the application of section 99B when Australian residents receive payments or benefits from non-resident trusts. The guideline outlines common scenarios, record-keeping expectations, and low-risk arrangements.
The Federal Court of Australia’s judgment in ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd highlights that if a corporation honestly relies on advice from their lawyers that may provide reasonable grounds to defend the making of a representation that concerns the present state of affairs.
The Federal Court found that representations made by Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (REST) regarding their rules and practice were opinions expressed as to the law based on reasonable grounds due to reliance on advice received from their lawyers and other trusted sources. Therefore, the representations made could not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct.
On 28 August 2024, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) published Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/D2 (Draft PCG) on Personal services businesses and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
We wrote about the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) in Quy v FCT [2024] AATA 245 here. In that decision, the Tribunal held that Mr Quy, who was physically in Australia for less than 2 months each year, was a resident of Australia for tax purposes.
