*AAT Case [2012] AATA 142 – Employee correct that he had ‘rights’ to options to acquire shares in his employer on starting work, not later on issue of the options (under old provisions) [C10]

Tax Month - March 2012

The AAT has held the taxpayer applied the correct acquisition date in relation to options acquired under an employee share scheme, and therefore was not subject to a shortfall amount or penalties as assessed by the Commissioner for the income year ended 30 June 2004. The taxpayer was granted options in a company as a…

Re Kalafatis and FCT – AAT hearing on assessability of a capital gain, deferred pending Supreme Court proceedings challenging transfers of land [C9]

Tax Month - March 2012

The AAT has agreed to defer proceedings before it in relation to the assessability of a capital gain of $100,000 which the taxpayer claimed was incorrectly returned and lodged without his consent by the family accountant. In particular, the AAT ruled that the hearing should be deferred pending the outcome of Supreme Court action in…

*Healey v FCT – Trust agreed to buy shares and took a transfer 18 months later just prior to on-selling –No CGT discount as E2 event more specific than A1 and market value cost base (at later E2 time) not established [C7]

Tax Month - February 2012

The Federal Court has held that a beneficiary of a trust was assessable on a capital gain of $14m to which she was presently entitled that arose from the sale of shares the trust had previously acquired under a “transfer agreement” for consideration of $3m – albeit, the shares were only transferred to the trust…

Kolya v Tax Practitioners Board – No error of law in decision to refuse to grant tax agent registration – not a ‘fit and proper’ person [C6]

Tax Month - March 2012

The Federal Court has dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of the AAT in AAT Case [2011] AATA 804, Re Kolya and Tax Practitioners Board which affirmed the decision of the Tax Practitioners Board to reject his application for transitional registration as a tax agent on the basis he was not “a fit and…

*Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Konza – Section 264 notices served on Australian bank, about clients of their Vanuatu subsidiaries, held to be valid [C5]

Tax Month - March 2012

In a lengthy decision handed down on Fri 9.3.2012, the Federal Court has held that notices issued by the ATO under s 264 of the ITAA 1936 to Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited were valid. The bank had been issued with 2 notices requiring it to provide certain information about customers who have…

*Consolidated Media Holdings Limited v FCT – Appeal allowed: consideration for off-market share buy-back was a rebateable dividend [C4]

Tax Month - March 2012

The Full Federal Court has unanimously overturned the decision at first instance in Consolidated Media Holdings Limited v FCT [2011] FCA 367 and held that an off-market share buy-back transaction did not generate a capital gain of some $400m to the taxpayer. It instead found that the consideration for the buy-back was not capital proceeds…

*FCT v Futuris Corporation Limited – Full Court confirms that Pt IVA does not apply to value shifting scheme – no tax benefit [C3]

Tax Month - March 2012

The Full Federal Court has unanimously confirmed that Pt IVA did not apply to a tax benefit of $83m identified by the Commissioner in relation to a capital gain realised by a holding company on the sale of shares in one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Commissioner argued that the tax benefit arose under a…

Screen Australia v EME Productions No 1 Pty Ltd – AAT overruled Screen Aust and allowed EME a Producer tax offset affirmed on the basis that its film series was a ‘documentary’ which the Full Court affirmed [C2]

Tax Month - March 2012

The Full Federal Court has dismissed Screen Australia’s appeal against an earlier AAT decision which held that a production company was entitled to a producer offset certificate under s 376-65 of the ITAA 1997 in respect of a film series designed to improve household management (called Lush House). The AAT had held the series was…

*FCT v Bargwanna – High Court finds charitable fund not entitled to be endorsed as a tax exempt entity as the trustees invested its funds in an interest off-set account linked to their own personal borrowings [C1]

Tax Month - March 2012

In a decision handed down on Thur 29.3.2012, the High Court has allowed the Commissioner’s appeal and held that the taxpayer trustees’ administration of the Kalos Metron Charitable Trust had not complied with the requirement for tax exemption under s 50-60 of the ITAA 1997, because the fund was not “applied for the purposes for…