Legal news
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.
On 8 August 2024, the Victorian Court of Appeal in Oliver Hume Property Funds (Broad Gully Rd) Diamond Creek Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] VSCA 175 confirmed that landholder duty applied on the separate acquisition of shares by 18 investors under a single capital raising. The Court held that that capital raising amounted to substantially one arrangement and therefore was a relevant acquisition for landholder duty purposes.
On 24 May 2024 the New South Wales Supreme Court held that landholder duty applied to value of a water carrying pipeline in Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2024] NSWSC 628.
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.
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.
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).
The High Court in Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] HCA 34 culminated a protracted debate on whether to apply the presumption of resulting trust or presumption of advancement in the context of a matrimonial home.
The recent Federal Court decision of Minerva Financial Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 1092 (Minerva) signifies that the Federal Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) can successfully scrutinise a trustee’s discretion under the general anti-avoidance provisions (Part IVA).
The NSW Supreme Court’s (NSWSC) decision in Godolphin Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] NSWSC 430 (Godolphin Case) is instructive as it provides guidance into the ambit and scope of the land tax primary production exemption particularly in relation to the breeding of horses.
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.
