Legal news
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).
In the recent decision of Signium Pty Limited and FCT [2022] AATA 2824, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) upheld super guarantee (SG) assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and refused to remit Part 7 penalties further.
The taxpayer operates a small pig farming business. The business is run by a general manager, and at relevant times it employed two or three people.
The ATO conducted an audit of the taxpayer’s SG obligations and issued 16 SG charge assessments for quarters ending 30 September 2013 to 31 March 2017. The Commissioner also issued a Part 7 penalty assessment of 200% of the SG charge (Part 7 penalties are automatically incurred under Part 7 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act) for failure to lodge SG charge statements within the relevant timeframe).
The taxpayer disagreed with the ATO’s calculation of the shortfall amounts on the SG charge assessments. However, the Tribunal accepted the ATO’s calculations as they were more thorough than those provided by the taxpayer. The taxpayer asked the Tribunal to remit the shortfall interest component of the SG charge, but the Tribunal declined, noting that the Commissioner has no discretion under the SG Act to remit the shortfall interest component.
The Part 7 penalties were remitted to 35% during the review process, and the Commissioner agreed that a further 25% remission was appropriate. The taxpayer argued that the penalties should be reduced further due to various factors including the general manager’s age, his health conditions, the impact of COVID-19, drought in 2018-2019, bushfires in 2019 and flood in 2021, all of which put the business under considerable pressure. However these factors all arose after the relevant quarters which were the subject of the audit, and therefore did not impact on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not persuaded to remit the Part 7 penalties further.
Key takeaways from this decision:
While a taxpayer should confirm the accuracy of the calculations making up an SG charge assessment, and cross-reference these with their own records, a taxpayer cannot argue for remission of the shortfall interest component, as the Commissioner has no discretion in this regard;
Part 7 penalties are incurred automatically under the SG Act at 200% of the SG charge for late or non-lodgement of SG charge statements. The Commissioner has discretion to remit Part 7 penalties with regard to various mitigating factors. Where the taxpayer is arguing that these factors impacted on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations, it is key to show a nexus between these factors and the quarters in question.
Phil Broderick
Principal
M +61 419 512 801 | T +61 3 9611 0163
E: pbroderick@sladen.com.au
Philippa Briglia
Senior Associate
T +61 3 9611 0173
E pbriglia@sladen.com.au
Jan Oh
Graduate Lawyer
T +61 3 9611 0158
E joh@sladen.com.au
In a joint media statement on 22 August 2022, The Hon Stephen Jones MP, Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Financial Services and The Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury confirmed that the Government is to commence consultation on a framework for the regulation of crypto assets.
Doyles Guide is a comprehensive and independent directory which showcases Australia’s best firms and lawyers. The 2022 listing of leading Victorian Wills, Estates & Succession Planning Law Firms details law firms practising within the areas of Wills, Estates and Succession Planning matters in the Victorian legal market who have been identified by their peers for their expertise and abilities in these areas.
Employers will often refer on previous warnings to support of a decision to terminate the employee’s employment for misconduct. However, a recent case involving Virgin Australia is a reminder for employers to give employees the opportunity to respond to any reliance on former warnings before making a decision to terminate.
The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Owies v JJE Nominees Pty Ltd [2022] VSCA 142 (Owies) will surprise many trustees of discretionary trusts and their advisors. Effectively, the Court found that the decision of the corporate trustee (controlled by the parents of the family) of a discretionary trust not to properly consider two of their children (who were estranged from them), when making annual distributions from the trust, was voidable (and potentially void).
In the recent decision of Pierce Field v Department Of Finance [2022] FWC 1619 (24 June 2022), the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that procedural deficiencies (including dismissal via email) and the denial of natural justice outweigh instances where dismissal could otherwise be considered valid.
The recent New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel’s (Appeal Panel) decision in Thomas and Naaz Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] NSWCATAP 220 dismissed the medical practice’s appeal and confirmed the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (Tribunal) decision that payments from a medical practice to doctors who worked at the practice are subject to payroll tax.
The capital gains tax (CGT) main residence exemption (CGT MRE) is (arguably) the most generous exemption for post-CGT assets in the income tax legislation. The eligibility requirements are not onerous, and it is available to young and old rich and poor. However, actions, or inactions, can result in loss of the CGT MRE in whole or part.
We wrote about Draft Taxation Determination TD 2022/D1 (Draft TD) on Division 7A and unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) here. On 12 July 2022, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) finalised the Draft TD as Taxation Determination TD 2022/11 (Final TD).
