Legal news
We wrote here on the decision of Thawley J of the Federal Court in Peter Greensill Family Co Pty Ltd (trustee) v FCT (Greensill) where the Commissioner of Taxation was successful in arguing that section 855-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) does not disregard a capital gain distributed to a foreign resident beneficiary of an Australian discretionary trust. The taxpayer has appealed that decision to the Full Federal Court.
In our earlier article, we noted the Federal Court in FCT v Eichmann [2019] FCA 2155 (Eichman) in late 2019 had found in favour of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (appealing a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) and held land used for storage was not an active asset for the purposes of the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997).
The recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision of Holman v FCT highlights once again the importance of documentation and maintaining objective factual evidence to discharge the statutory burden of proof when disputing an assessment.
In 2017, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2017/D11 (the PCG) to provide safe harbour measures for professional sportsperson’s who receive lump sum payments in exchange for their professional services and the use and exploitation of their “public fame” or “image”.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) position for several years has been a foreign beneficiary distributed a capital gain made by an Australian discretionary trust on an asset that is not taxable Australian property is assessed on the capital gain even though that would not occur if the foreign resident made the gain directly, or through a fixed trust. Some commentators disagree with that view, the Federal Court in a recent case agreed with the ATO position in what may be the first skirmish of a battle through the courts on this issue.
