Category Archives: Tax Month – December 2013

VN Railway Pty Ltd & Anor v FCT – Taxpayer withdraws appeal [25]

The taxpayer has discontinued its appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision in VN Railway Pty Ltd & Anor v FCT [2013] FCA 265. In that case, the Federal Court upheld a 75% tax shortfall penalty imposed on the trustee of a family trust operating independent supermarkets after ruling that the taxpayer had…

*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…

*DCT v Moignard – Appeal against summary judgment fails [22]

The Supreme Court of South Australia has dismissed an appeal by a taxpayer against decisions of the Master of the Court to grant summary judgment to a Deputy Commissioner for a tax debt of some $450,000 (plus interest) and to dismiss the taxpayer’s claim for a stay of execution of the judgment. On appeal, the…

*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…

*IMO of an application by CJ CGV Co Limited – Korean royalty payment to Hungarian subsidiary ineffective to avoid 15% withholding tax on Korean payer, who got a Korean judgment against Village parent that was registered in Victoria [20]

The Victorian Supreme Court has ordered that a judgment obtained in South Korea concerning tax paid by the plaintiff, be registered in Australia against the judgment debtor (a Village Cinemas company), which was liable for that tax. The plaintiff in this case, CJ CGV Co Ltd, paid tax in South Korea for which the judgment…

*Re Retirement Village Operator and FCT – Retirement village business entitled to deductions for “outgoing resident” payments [19]

The AAT has ruled that a taxpayer that owns and manages a number of retirement villages was entitled to a deduction for payments which it was contractually required to make to “outgoing residents” comprised of a percentage of a resident’s “incoming contribution” and any difference between that incoming contribution and that of the next resident’s…

*Re Guissouma and FCT – Taxpayer was a resident for part of year (like previous year) [18]

The AAT has set aside the Commissioner’s decision and held that a taxpayer was an Australian resident for part of the 2012 income year and therefore was entitled to the pro-rated tax-free threshold. The taxpayer was a French citizen who arrived in Australian on a temporary working holiday visa. At all relevant times he intended…

*Re Browne and FCT – Irish citizen, here for 365 days, wanted to be a resident for lower tax rates, and during AAT proceedings Commissioner agreed [17]

The AAT has granted the Commissioner’s application for an order under s 42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) remitting an objection decision to the Commissioner for reconsideration in order to allow the taxpayer’s objection that he was a resident for the year ended 30 June 2012. The crux of the matter in the taxpayer’s…

*Re Desalination Technology Pty Ltd and FCT – R&D: Relevant expenditure incurred so R&D tax offset allowable [16]

The AAT has held that a taxpayer was entitled to an R&D tax offset of $363,281 in relation to activities associated with the development of desalination units. The Commissioner argued that the taxpayer had not “incurred” the relevant expenditure in view of the way the R&D activities were structured – which essentially involved the setting…