Can you Mislead or Deceive Someone if You Have Honestly Relied on Your Lawyers Advice? A Case Study on ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd
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.
Debt deduction creation rules – coming to a private group near you
Sladen Snippet - Private Wealth Advisor Program: advisors beware – you are on the ATO’s watch list
Sladen Snippet - PCG 2024/D2 - PSI and Part IVA
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.
Section 99B – TD 2024/D2 – you can’t always get what you need
Sladen Snippet - Quy v FCT: residency – decision overturned on appeal
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.
Sladen Snippet - Federal Court affirms Trustees in Bankruptcy are liable for capital gains tax on property dispositions
Selling to a trust: is it only a matter of time?
Division 7A, Section 100A And Other Inter Entity Loan Issues Impacting The Estate Plan
Part 1: tax consolidation for SMEs series: pros and cons of forming a consolidated group?
Minerva – Part IVA - Full Federal Court gives the taxpayer back its “Liberty”
In 2022, the decision of the Federal Court in Minerva Financial Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 1092 raised the question that tax benefits emanating from trustee decisions could be subject Part IVA. At that time, we said we think ‘no’ (see here).
Quy v FCT: less than 2 months in Australia … I still call Australia home
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) has held in Quy v FCT [2024] AATA 245 that a taxpayer, who was physically in Australia for less than 2 months each year, was a resident of Australian tax purposes.
Disputed Debts with the ATO – teamwork makes the dream work?
Bowerman: an unusual case that may have unusual implications
UPEs as loans - end of an era?
BBlood v FCT: section 100A, more guidance on tax avoidance purpose
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.
Guardian AIT: 100A or ATO’s Part IVA angel in disguise?
This time last year, we published an article querying whether the Federal Court decision in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 (First Instance Decision) would ignite an administrative and judicial quest for clarity on the interpretation of section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).
TR 2022/3: personal services income: key changes from draft ruling TR 2021/D2
On 23 November 2022, the Australian Tax Office (ATO) released Taxation Ruling TR 2022/3, finalising its views on personal services income (PSI) and personal services businesses (PSB).
Section 100A: if you want BBlood, you’ve got it: 100A and capital amounts
On 19 September 2022, Justice Thawley of the Federal Court handed down his decision in BBlood Enterprises Pty Ltd v FCT [2022] FCA 1112 (BBlood), the most recent decision on section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) was successful in arguing that section 100A applied.