*TR 2013/D8 – A deemed permanent establishment does not mean that the taxpayer is automatically carrying on a business through the P/E [29]

This Draft Taxation Ruling, issued on Wed 11.12.2013, considers the requirement in s23AH of the ITAA 1936 where a company is taken to have a permanent establishment (PE) in relation to substantial equipment under both s6(1)(b) of the ITAA 1936 and under Australia’s tax treaties. Broadly, the Draft states that where the company is taken…

*PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd v FCT – taxpayer appeals Federal Court decision that the Petroleum Rent Resource’s Tax consideration is the contract amount [27]

The taxpayer has lodged a notice of appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Gordon J in PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd v FCT [2013] FCA 1175. In that case, the Federal Court determined the taxing point and consideration receivable by a taxpayer in relation to revenue it received from the sale…

*IOOF Holdings Limited v FCT – Taxpayer appeals from Federal Court decision that it was not entitled to transitional ‘rights to future income’ consolidation treatment [26]

The taxpayer has lodged a notice of appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Middleton J in IOOF Holdings Limited v FCT [2013] FCA 1189. In that case, the Federal Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and confirmed that for the purposes of undertaking its review of the Commissioner’s deemed disallowance of the taxpayer’s…

*Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner – Barrister wins appeal against his suspension from practice [24]

A barrister has had his appeal allowed by the Supreme Court of Victoria against a 2012 decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which handed down a 3-year suspension of his practising certificate following a finding that he was guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of s 4.4.3(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act2004…

*Power v DCT – DPN valid despite failure to state under which provision the director’s liability arose as required under s269-25(2)(b) of the TAA1 [23]

The NSW Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed a director’s appeal and held that a director’s penalty notice issued to him under s 269-25 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 was valid despite his claim that as the notice did not state expressly that his liability to the Commissioner arose because he failed to satisfy an…

*Cameron v Jeffress – Tax expert’s report on ‘income v capital’ issues cannot be accepted as evidence in matter concerning construction of a ‘Will’ [21]

The Supreme Court of NSW has dismissed an application to allow the plaintiffs to rely on expert evidence by a recognised tax expert concerning the capital v income status of amounts to which beneficiaries under a will were entitled. The plaintiffs in this case had sought to rely upon the expert report of a recognised…