Legal news
On 12 June 2025, the High Court granted the Commissioner special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Full Court Decision) that we wrote about here.
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.
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
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).
On 28 August 2024, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) published Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/D2 (Draft PCG) on Personal services businesses and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
On 8 August 2024, the Victorian Court of Appeal in Oliver Hume Property Funds (Broad Gully Rd) Diamond Creek Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] VSCA 175 confirmed that landholder duty applied on the separate acquisition of shares by 18 investors under a single capital raising. The Court held that that capital raising amounted to substantially one arrangement and therefore was a relevant acquisition for landholder duty purposes.
On 24 May 2024 the New South Wales Supreme Court held that landholder duty applied to value of a water carrying pipeline in Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2024] NSWSC 628.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) has held in Quy v FCT [2024] AATA 245 that a taxpayer, who was physically in Australia for less than 2 months each year, was a resident of Australian tax purposes.
The Full Federal Court in the BBlood appeal found for the ATO on section 100A and the taxpayer dividend stripping (albeit on a technical, non-substantive basis).
The 100A analysis was limited to ‘tax avoidance purpose’ with the Full Court holding that, in certain circumstances, the purpose of advisors can be relevant.
This time last year, we published an article querying whether the Federal Court decision in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 (First Instance Decision) would ignite an administrative and judicial quest for clarity on the interpretation of section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).
The High Court in Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] HCA 34 culminated a protracted debate on whether to apply the presumption of resulting trust or presumption of advancement in the context of a matrimonial home.
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).
