Legal news
We wrote here on the decision of Thawley J of the Federal Court in Peter Greensill Family Co Pty Ltd (trustee) v FCT (Greensill) where the Commissioner of Taxation was successful in arguing that section 855-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) does not disregard a capital gain distributed to a foreign resident beneficiary of an Australian discretionary trust. The taxpayer has appealed that decision to the Full Federal Court.
An individual in Australia for more than 183 days for an income year, whether continuously or intermittently, is an Australian tax resident unless the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied the individual’s usual place of abode is outside Australia and the individual does not intend to take up residence in Australia.
In Chadbourne v FC of T [2020] AATA 2441 (Chadbourne) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) held that a beneficiary (Taxpayer) of a discretionary trust (Trust) was unable to deduct interest on borrowed funds where the funds borrowed in the Taxpayer’s name were used by the Trust to buy real property and shares.
In our earlier article, we noted the Federal Court in FCT v Eichmann [2019] FCA 2155 (Eichman) in late 2019 had found in favour of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (appealing a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) and held land used for storage was not an active asset for the purposes of the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997).
The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in MD Commercial Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] VSCA 295 was a culmination of the battle between the Victorian Commissioner of State Revenue and the taxpayers’ statutory interpretation of a duty exemption contained in s 35 of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) (Act) and whether the trustee had to be in a “bare trustee” relationship with no active powers being held by the trustee.
The recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision of Holman v FCT highlights once again the importance of documentation and maintaining objective factual evidence to discharge the statutory burden of proof when disputing an assessment.
In 2017, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2017/D11 (the PCG) to provide safe harbour measures for professional sportsperson’s who receive lump sum payments in exchange for their professional services and the use and exploitation of their “public fame” or “image”.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) position for several years has been a foreign beneficiary distributed a capital gain made by an Australian discretionary trust on an asset that is not taxable Australian property is assessed on the capital gain even though that would not occur if the foreign resident made the gain directly, or through a fixed trust. Some commentators disagree with that view, the Federal Court in a recent case agreed with the ATO position in what may be the first skirmish of a battle through the courts on this issue.
The Court of Appeal handed down its decision in MD Commercial Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] VSCA 295 in late 2019. The decision has provided further clarity on the application of section 35 of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) which provides an exemption from duty for transfers to bare trusts.
As part of the continued economic response to COVID-19, the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has recently made a determination pursuant to subsection 20(4) of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020, outlining further tests under which an entity may satisfy the decline in turnover required in order to receive JobKeeper payments. This article discusses the various new “alternative” tests that an entity may utilise under the determination.
