The Full Federal Court case of Commissioner of Taxation v Liang [2025] FCAFC 4 serves as a reminder that when challenging an ATO decision at a court or tribunal, it is the taxpayer who carries the burden of proving that an assessment is excessive and what the assessment should have been.

This article considers the views of the Full Federal Court in AusNet v FCT on the “nothing else” condition in Division 615 and what those views may mean for proposed ATO guidance on sequential transactions and the “nothing else” condition of a rollover.

The Board of  Taxation (BOT) has recently released its report on the taxation of digital taxes – Review of the tax treatment of digital assets and transactions in Australia. This includes a section, from page 155, on whether crypto assets should receive the “trading stock” exemption.

The decision of Malcolm v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 218 has considered the operation of the joint owners of land provisions for Victorian land tax purposes and confirmed that where two taxpayers own multiple parcels of land together, the joint owned land will be aggregated and the progressive scale of land tax rates will be applied only once.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement (like a UPE).

In this part 3 of the series we examine how this may play out in the in-house asset rules contained in Part 8 of the SIS Act.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement (like a UPE).

As discussed here, the recent decision of the Full Federal Court (Court) in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel) has been a significant one in the private tax world.

On 19 February 2025, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15. On 18 March 2025, the ATO applied for special leave and, on 19 March 2025, the ATO updated its interim decision statement (DIS) on the case.

We review the updated DIS below.

#Division 7A, #UPE, #Unpaid present entitlements, #Tax, #Trusts, #TD2022/11, #Bendel, #109D #Special leave #Decision Impact Statement

In the 2023-24 Budget, the Government announced that the super guarantee framework will be reformed to align the payment of super guarantee contributions with an employee’s regular pay cycle, instead of the current quarterly requirements. 

The exposure draft legislation for the new ‘Payday Super’ rules has now been released, with consultation open until 11 April 2025.

The super guarantee charge, payable where employers fail to make contributions in full and on time, will be updated, including a new ‘administrative uplift’ component of up to 60% of the shortfall amount.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a decision that a pipeline was dutiable for the purposes of the New South Wales landholder duty provisions in Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCA 20.

On 19 February 2025, the Full Federal Court, in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel), held that an unpaid present entitlement (UPE) with a corporate beneficiary is not a loan under subsection 109D(3) of Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).

The recent NCAT decision of T & A Skills Care Service Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAD 18 demonstrates the importance of a taxpayer discharging its evidentiary burden in claiming the primary production exemption from land tax.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision of Caloutas as trustee for Caloutas Family Trust v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 82 has considered the interaction of bare or fixed trusts and the Victorian land tax trust surcharge provisions.

The Victorian Supreme Court decision of Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lao Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 800 has considered the ability for a company to recover landholder duty from the shareholders that had made the relevant acquisition.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) recently issued two key updates that could affect private groups using guarantee-backed financial arrangements.

The ATO published Taxation Determination TD 2024/9, finalising its guidance on section 99B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and specifically on the relevant factors to be considered when applying paragraphs 99B(2)(a) and (b).

The income tax treatment of settlement payments received under an agreement depends on the circumstances surrounding the entering into of the agreement, not just the terms of the agreement.

The use of a rarely used “anti-avoidance” provision, which triggers landholder duty when there is a change of control of the trustee of a unit trust, has been upheld by VCAT.

While the thin capitalisation rules have traditionally had limited application to many private groups, the new debt deduction creation rules (DDCR) that apply from 1 July 2024 are a clear creep into that space.