Legal news
Both federal and state tax legislations contain different tax rules for different forms of trusts. The recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) decision of Sharlin Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 378 has provided much-needed clarity and insights into relevant considerations to determine whether a hybrid unit trust is a unit trust or a discretionary trust for the purpose of the land tax exemption for primary production land (PPL).
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 oft-debated question as to whether the development, subdivision and sale of land constitutes the mere realisation of a capital asset in an enterprising way has once again been considered in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) case of Ian Mark Collins & Mieneke Mianno Collins ATF The Collins Retirement Fund and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2022] AATA 628 (Collins)
We wrote that 2022 is the ‘Year of 100A’ after the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released three guidance products, two in draft, on section 100A and the ATO’s appeal to the Full Federal Court from the decision of Logan J in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 on section 100A.
In one sense, the High Court judgment in FCT v Carter [2022] HCA 10 (Carter) will come as welcome relief for tax advisors. That is, after dealing with the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) view of the ‘lore’ in the form of practical compliance guidelines, Carter turns minds back to the ‘law.’ Unfortunately, the law in Carter can result in unpleasant tax outcomes for certain trust beneficiaries.
Quoting Winston Churchill, we said that the Federal Court decision in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 (Guardian AIT) concerning section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is perhaps the “end of the beginning” of what may become increased clarity on the judicial and administrative approach to that section.
After our semi-serious opening statement on the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) recently released guidance on section 100A and unpaid present entitlements, this is one of a series of deep-dive articles on that guidance.
After our semi-serious opening statement on the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) recently released guidance on section 100A and unpaid present entitlements, this is one of a series of deep-dive articles on that guidance. These articles look at each of the ATO guidance products separately and then we discuss what the overall impact may be.
After our semi-serious opening statement on the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) recently released guidance on section 100A and unpaid present entitlements, this is one of a series of deep-dive articles on that guidance. These articles look at each of the ATO guidance products separately and then we discuss what the overall impact may be.
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).
We have previously discussed Addy v FCT [2021] HCA 34 here. In this case, the High Court unanimously allowed Ms Addy’s appeal and found that a UK working holiday visa holder, who was a tax resident of Australia, was entitled to the tax-free threshold and taxation at the rate that applied to Australian resident nationals.
