The taxpayers has lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the Full Federal Court decision in CofT v Hacon Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] FCAFC 181.

The Full Federal Court had held that the Commissioner was entitled to refuse to make a private ruling, under the discretion in s357-110(1)(a) in Sch 1 TAA to decline to make a ruling. That provision allows the Commissioner to decline to make a ruling if he considers the correctness of the ruling “would depend on which assumptions were made about a future event or other matter”.

The taxpayers sought a ruling that the general anti-avoidance provisions did not apply to a domestic restructuring of the family’s grazing interests.

The FFC overruled the decision of Logan J, at first instance in Hacon v FCT [2017] FCA 659. Logan J quashed the Commissioner’s decision not to rule, as he said he needed further information but failed to ask for it, as as required by s357-105 in Sch 1 TAA.

[TT – article on FFC decision; FJM; LTN 21, 1/2/18; Tax Month February 2018]

 

Study questions (answers below*)

  1. Has the taxpayer sought leave to appeal the Full Federal Court (FFC) decision?
  2. Did the Commissioner refuse to rule, under s357-110, because he would have to make assumptions about past events?
  3. Was it correct that Logan J overruled the Commissioner’s decision not to rule and the FFC overruled Logan J’s decision?
  4. Is the relevant provision, under which the Commissioner can ask for further information, s357-115 of Schedule 1 TAA?

 

 

*[answers:1.yes;2.no(future events);3.yes;4.no(s357-105)]

 

About the author