Category Archives: Tax Month – June 2014

*Australian Pipeline Limited as Responsible Entity for the Australian Pipeline Trust v FCT – taxpayer withdraws appeal – entity an ‘associate’ before joining consolidated group [31]

The taxpayer has discontinued its appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Robertson J in Australian Pipeline Limited as Responsible Entity for the Australian Pipeline Trust v FCT [2013] FCA 1372. The Federal Court had dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal from an adverse private ruling concerning the issue of whether the conditions for the…

*Re RepairCo and FCT – No deductions for contributions to employee welfare fund – and assessments within time [30]

The AAT has confirmed that a taxpayer, an automotive repair company, was not entitled a deductions for a contribution paid to an off-shore “employee welfare fund” in the 1998 income year nor to a deduction for the resultant carried forward loss and another contribution in the 1999 income year. However, the AAT found that while…

*Re Van Gestel and FCT – Alleged identity fraud in BAS: Tribunal has jurisdiction to review [29]

The AAT has found that it has jurisdiction to entertain a review of an objection decision that affirmed assessments of net GST amounts and net fuel credit amounts owed by a taxpayer. Monthly BASs were lodged in the name of the taxpayer’s business for the July 2010 and August 2010 periods. Both BASs resulted in refunds, $9,695 for July 2010, and…

*Re Ogden and FCT – Large claims for work-related and investment deductions reduced significantly [28]

The AAT has confirmed that a taxpayer, a professional sales commission agent, was not entitled to various work-related deductions and personal investment deductions on the basis he had not discharged the onus of proof in regard to the items in dispute, except in relation to certain minor items. The taxpayer during the relevant year was…

*Re Mack and FCT – Trust distributions through interposed beneficiary a sham – assessments affirmed [27]

The AAT has affirmed that husband and wife beneficiaries of a family trust were each assessable on 50% of the income from a family trust that had been distributed to an “interposed” trust beneficiary on the basis that the arrangement was a profit washing scheme. The husband and wife taxpayers were beneficiaries of the Mack…

*Re Huckle and FCT – Serious hardship claim refused [26]

A taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in seeking to be released from his tax liabilities under s 340-5 of Sch 1 of the TAA. As of 21 February 2014, the taxpayer’s tax debt amounted to around $81,000. The taxpayer contended his income tax debts have arisen as a result of his unauthorised early access of superannuation benefits…

*Re Power and FCT – Serious hardship claim refused [25]

A taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in seeking to be released from his tax liabilities under s 340-5 of Sch 1 of the TAA. As of 4 May 2014, the taxpayer’s outstanding tax debts amounted to around $58,000. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied the taxpayer’s situation, if required to pay the tax debts, would be of…

*Re Moignard and FCT – Taxpayer not presently entitled to profit from sale of premises deposited in his account [24]

The AAT has held that an individual taxpayer who was the controller of several trusts that operated a wine growing business and who was also a beneficiary was not presently entitled to an amount of over $480,000 that one of the trust made from the sale of business premises that occurred on the same day…

*International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v FCT – Commissioner denied access to documents in Family Law proceedings [21]

The Federal Court has denied the Commissioner’s request for access to documents that are part of Family Law proceedings. The case involved an appeal against an appealable objection decision under s 14ZZ of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. The applicant is International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd. In the course of the proceeding, the Court said the…

*Re Sisley and FCT – Excess super assessments stand: no special circumstances [22]

The AAT has held that no special circumstances existed to warrant granting a taxpayer’s request that the Commissioner exercise his discretion to allocate excess super contributions to another year. The taxpayer had contributed over $678,000 into his superannuation funds over a 3-year period when the statutory limit was $450,000. The Commissioner said the taxpayer must…