Legal news
Over the last 18 months several decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Federal and Full Federal Courts considered the application of Australian tax residency laws including Harding v FCT [2019] FCAFC 29, FCT v Addy [2020] FCAFC 135, Stockton v FCT [2019] FCA 1679, Handsley v FCT [2019] AATA 917 and Coelho v FCT [2020] AATA 2474.
In our earlier articles we discussed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and Federal Court decisions in Eichmann v FCT [2019] AATA 162 and FCT v Eichmann [2019] FCA 2155. The Full Federal Court in Eichmann v FCT [2020] FCAFC 155 recently allowed the taxpayer’s appeal of the Federal Court decision.
On 17 August 2020, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in FCT v Fortunatow [2020] FCAFC 139 allowing the Commissioner’s appeal from the decision of Griffiths J of the Federal Court and finding Griffiths J had erred in his construction of section 87-20(1)(b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 97).
As we discussed in Coelho v FCT [2020] AATA 2474, different tax rates apply to residents and non-residents. Further, under Pt III of Sch 7 to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986, a working holiday maker pays tax at 15% on the first $37,000 of income in Australia. Commonly referred to as the ‘backpacker tax’.
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.
