Legal news
Our international tax series predominantly discusses Federal tax issues relating to non-resident (foreign) beneficiaries or non-resident trustees of a trust. This seventh article of the series focuses on the CGT main residence exemption (CGT MRE) for non-resident beneficiaries of deceased estates.
In CCSR v Benidorm Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 285, the NSW Court of Appeal found that a ‘declaration of trust’ did not trigger duty on the basis that it merely acknowledged the existence of an existing trust.
Many states now have foreign land tax surcharges that apply to foreign persons including trustee of foreign trusts. As a result many trustees will consider amending their trust deeds to ensure that they don’t inadvertently trigger such surcharges.
AAT denies deductions for work-related expenses: Lambourne v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] AATA 4562
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) recently agreed with the Commissioner in disallowing certain deductions for work-related expenses.
We have previously written about carefully reading the clauses of a trust deed when seeking to make variations. The recent Federal Court decision of Advanced Holdings once again exemplifies the adverse outcomes that can arise when protocols prescribed in a trust deed are not followed.
The Full Federal Court in FCT v Healius [2020] FCAFC 173 has upheld the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) appeal of the Federal Court decision in Healius v COT [2019] FCA 2011 which considered whether lump sum payments made by a medical centre to its doctors were assessable on revenue or capital account.
Many business owners may be considering a restructure, merger, or demerger in the current economic environment to adapt, sustain, or promote growth in these tumultuous times. A change in a corporate structure typically entails either the change of ownership interests in the entire business or the transfer of specific assets of the business.
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’.
