Monthly Archives: February 2017

Barossa Vines – promoter penalties case – ATO view [47]

The ATO on Mon 31.3.2014, released a Decision Impact Statement on the Federal Court decision in FCT v Barossa Vines Ltd [2014] FCA 20. The Federal Court had imposed civil penalties in relation to 2 mass-marketed viticulture managed investment schemes that were implemented in a way that was “materially different” from the ATO Product Rulings…

*Garnishee notice for horse race winnings because ATO issued it in respect of the wrong taxpayer: ATO Decision Impact Statement (Oops) [46]

The ATO on Thur 27.3.2014, issued a Decision Impact Statement on the Federal Court’s decision in Ultra Thoroughbred Racing Pty Ltd v FCT [2013] FCA 1300. In that case, the Federal Court upheld the action of the applicant, “Ultra Thoroughbred Racing Pty Ltd”, to prevent Racing Victoria Limited from paying money to the Commissioner under…

CGT small business relief – daughter was a “puppet director” for her father’s trust, which didn’t have to be grouped with her company: Gutteridge case [45]

The ATO has issued a Decision Impact Statement on the AAT’s decision in AAT Case [2013] AATA 947, Re Gutteridge and FCT. In that case, the AAT allowed the appeals of 2 taxpayers (a married couple) and held that the husband alone was the person who controlled the relevant Trust within the meaning of s 328-125(3)…

Taras Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Burnley Street Trust v FCT – Taxpayer appeals decision that vesting land in JV trust was a CGT event [44]

The taxpayer has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Kenny J in Taras Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Burnley Street Trust v FCT [2014] FCA 1. The Federal Court had held that the taxpayer (a trustee of a trust), that owned land and that, in effect, transferred it to a…

*Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v FCT – Commissioner appeals to the Full Federal Court from a decision that s254 does apply to a liquidator for CGT [43]

The Commissioner has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Logan J in Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v FCT [2014] FCA 116. The Federal Court had held that, where an assessment has not been issued, s 254 of the ITAA 1936 does not require retention of monies by a liquidator upon the mere…

*Haritos & Anor – Taxpayer appeals to Full Federal Court from decision assessing it on $20m deposited into a bank over a 4 year period as income [42]

The taxpayer has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Pagone J in Haritos & Anor v FCT [2014] FCA 96. The Federal Court had dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal from an AAT decision that had found the taxpayers failed to discharge the burden of proving that assessments raised by the Commissioner under s 167…

*Nelson v FCT – taxpayer appeals to Full Federal Court from decision upholding AAT’s finding that activity was preparatory to carrying on business [41]

The taxpayer has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Collier J in Nelson v FCT [2014] FCA 57. The Federal Court had dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal from the decision in AAT Case [2012] AATA 579, Re Nelson and FCT in which the AAT confirmed the taxpayer was not carrying on a business…

*Task Technology Pty Ltd v FCT – Taxpayer appeals decision that payments were a ‘royalty’ under Article 12(7) of the Canada-Australia DTA [40]

The taxpayer has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision in Task Technology Pty Ltd v FCT [2014] FCA 38. The Federal Court had held that licensing payments by an Australian distributor (the taxpayer) to a Canadian software supplier were royalties under the Australia/Canada DTA. [LTN 41, 3/3/14]

*DCT v Healy – Appeal against 2007 DPN default judgment denied – argument that Administrator appointed within the 14 days rejected [39]

The District Court of WA has dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal concerning a default judgment by a Deputy Commissioner for over id=”mce_marker”64,000 that was entered in March 2007 in default of the taxpayer filing an appearance. The matter concerned a director’s penalty notice (DPN). The taxpayer argued the default judgment should be set aside because he had an…

*Power v DCT (No 2) – Director fails to re-open previous adverse DPN finding (where DPN called director’s attention to Div 269 as required) [38]

The NSW Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an application by a director to have set aside its prior decision in Power v DCT [2013] NSWCA 428 that the director was liable for a directors’ penalty of some id=”mce_marker”m imposed on him by a director’s penalty notice (DPN) that was issued under s 269-25 of the…