Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v FCT – Full Federal Court upheld the Commissioner’s views about ‘taxing point’ and the ‘take or pay’ issue [51]

On 27.8.13 the Commissioner issued a Decision Impact Statement in relation to Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v FCT [2011] FCAFC 154. In that case, the Full Federal Court dismissed the taxpayers’ appeals and the Commissioner’s cross-appeal in a matter concerning the liability of 2 companies (BHP Billiton Petroleum (Bass Strait) Pty Ltd and Esso…

Fowler v FCT – Full Federal Court found that the Div 13A acquisition date was not the date of the contract of employment but later when the shares were worth more [50]

On 27.8.13 the Commissioner issued a Decision Impact Statement in relation to Fowler v FCT [2013] FCAFC 69. In that case, the Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal, and held that for the purposes of the former ITAA 1936 employee share scheme (ESS) provisions (Div 13A), a taxpayer acquired a right with respect to…

McWilliam case – relevant Div 13A date of acquisition was date of contract of employment and there was no shortfall [49]

The ATO on Thur 22.8.2013, released a Decision Impact Statement on the Full Federal Court’s decision in FCT v McWilliam [2012] FCAFC 105. In that case, the Full Federal Court dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal against an earlier AAT decision in AAT Case [2012] AATA 142 that had held the taxpayer had applied the correct acquisition…

*Collection Point Case – FOI request refused because Act did not require the Commissioner to create software to comply [48]

The ATO on Thur 15.8.2013, released a Decision Impact Statement on the Full Federal Court’s decision in Collection Point Pty Ltd v FCT [2013] FCAFC 67. In that case, the Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal from the decision in Collection Point Pty Ltd v FCT [2012] FCA 720, and confirmed that the…

*Yazbek case: amend individual’s assessment outside the 2 year period because mere object was a ‘beneficiary’ and amendment didn’t have to be as a ‘beneficiary’ [47]

The ATO on Wed 7.8.2013, released a Decision Impact Statement on the Federal Court’s decision in Yazbek v FCT [2013] FCA 39. In that case, the Federal Court dismissed an appeal from an AAT decision and confirmed that for the purposes of the time limits within which an assessment can be amended under s 170(1) of…

*Oswal v FCT – Taxpayers have appealed a decision that the exercise of a special power of appointment in favour of 2 beneficiaries triggered CGT Event E1 [46]

The taxpayers have lodged a notice of appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision in Oswal v FCT [2013] FCA 745. In that case, the Federal Court has held that the legal effect of the decision of a trustee of a discretionary trust to exercise a special power of “appointment” to make 2…

*The Hunger Project Australia v FCT – Commissioner appeals decision that Australian fund raising branch was a PBI despite no direct relief [45]

The Commissioner has lodged a notice of appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision in The Hunger Project Australia v FCT [2013] FCA 693. In that case, the Federal Court held that the Australian arm of a world-wide organisation operating out of the United States that was aimed at ending world hunger was…

*DCT v Roche – Summary judgment for Commissioner in respect of DPN liabilities [44]

The Supreme Court of Western Australia (in Chambers) has granted the Commissioner’s application for summary judgment against a director of a company for 2 Directors’ Penalty Notices (DPN) amounting to over $850,000 for the company’s failure to remit PAYG amounts to the Commissioner. In doing so, the Court found that the Commissioner had complied with…

*DCT v Karas & Ors – Deputy Commissioner has standing to enforce judgment debt against properties [43]

A defendant taxpayer has been unsuccessful in his attempt to strike out the Deputy Commissioner’s amended statement of claim to seeking to enforce a judgment debt obtained against the defendant for some $47m. It was seeking to enforce the judgement against 2 properties held by the second defendant, being a related company. The defendants claimed…