Legal news
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).
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.
In the recent decision of JMC Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 750, the Federal Court found that an ‘independent contractor’ was an employee for super guarantee purposes.
In the much anticipated decision of Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd, the High Court has determined that regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (SIS Regs) does not apply to binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs) prepared for self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).
The ATO has confirmed that its current administrative approach to the non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE), as set out in Practical Compliance Guide PCG 2020/5, will be extended to 30 June 2023.
SMSFs (self managed superannuation funds) have been carrying on property development activities ever since SMSFs came into existence. Yet despite that there is still a common concern that such activities will cause the SMSF to become non-compliant, or subject to penalties, on the basis that such activities, and in particular undertaking a property development business, are prohibited.
As discussed here, one of the key superannuation announcements in the May 2021 budget was the removal of the minimum $450 threshold for super guarantee purposes.
The NSW Supreme Court’s (NSWSC) decision in Godolphin Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] NSWSC 430 (Godolphin Case) is instructive as it provides guidance into the ambit and scope of the land tax primary production exemption particularly in relation to the breeding of horses.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (VCAT) decision in Hartman v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 28 (Hartman Case) is a rare decision on the application of the sub-sale “double duty” provisions in the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) (Act).
In the recent Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) decision of Trustee for Virdis Family Trust t/a Rickard Heating Pty Ltd v FC of T [2022] AATA 3, the AAT relied on the decision in Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (Moffet) to find that a plumber who was engaged as a contractor was an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).
