In a joint media statement on 22 August 2022, The Hon Stephen Jones MP, Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Financial Services and The Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury confirmed that the Government is to commence consultation on a framework for the regulation of crypto assets.

In the absence of a comprehensive definition of ‘foreign currency’ in the Australian tax legislation the ATO and Australian courts have interpreted ‘foreign currency’ to be currency issued or recognised by an overseas sovereign state.

We wrote about Draft Taxation Determination TD 2022/D1 (Draft TD) on Division 7A and unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) here. On 12 July 2022, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) finalised the Draft TD as Taxation Determination TD 2022/11 (Final TD).

In the absence of a comprehensive definition of ‘foreign currency’ in the Australia tax legislation the ATO and Australian courts have interpreted ‘foreign currency’ to be currency issued or recognised by an overseas sovereign state.

Draft Taxation Determination TD 2022/D1 sets out the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) views on when an unpaid present entitlement (UPE) with a corporate beneficiary is a loan for the purposes of Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. We wrote about TD 2022/D1 here.

Taxpayers using cryptocurrency in their businesses, including as a means of paying expenses such as staff or contractors or as a means of deriving income through investments, mining or trading, is becoming more common. After a particularly volatile year for the values of cryptocurrency many taxpayers may have significant gains or losses associated with their cryptocurrency transactions.

Both federal and state tax legislations contain different tax rules for different forms of trusts. The recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) decision of Sharlin Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 378 has provided much-needed clarity and insights into relevant considerations to determine whether a hybrid unit trust is a unit trust or a discretionary trust for the purpose of the land tax exemption for primary production land (PPL).

The oft-debated question as to whether the development, subdivision and sale of land constitutes the mere realisation of a capital asset in an enterprising way has once again been considered in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) case of Ian Mark Collins & Mieneke Mianno Collins ATF The Collins Retirement Fund and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2022] AATA 628 (Collins)

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.

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.

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.”

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.