Category Archives: Tax Month – March 2014

*Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v FCT – Commissioner appeals to the Full Federal Court from a decision that s254 does apply to a liquidator for CGT [43]

The Commissioner has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Logan J in Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v FCT [2014] FCA 116. The Federal Court had held that, where an assessment has not been issued, s 254 of the ITAA 1936 does not require retention of monies by a liquidator upon the mere…

*Haritos & Anor – Taxpayer appeals to Full Federal Court from decision assessing it on $20m deposited into a bank over a 4 year period as income [42]

The taxpayer has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Pagone J in Haritos & Anor v FCT [2014] FCA 96. The Federal Court had dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal from an AAT decision that had found the taxpayers failed to discharge the burden of proving that assessments raised by the Commissioner under s 167…

*Nelson v FCT – taxpayer appeals to Full Federal Court from decision upholding AAT’s finding that activity was preparatory to carrying on business [41]

The taxpayer has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Collier J in Nelson v FCT [2014] FCA 57. The Federal Court had dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal from the decision in AAT Case [2012] AATA 579, Re Nelson and FCT in which the AAT confirmed the taxpayer was not carrying on a business…

*Task Technology Pty Ltd v FCT – Taxpayer appeals decision that payments were a ‘royalty’ under Article 12(7) of the Canada-Australia DTA [40]

The taxpayer has appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision in Task Technology Pty Ltd v FCT [2014] FCA 38. The Federal Court had held that licensing payments by an Australian distributor (the taxpayer) to a Canadian software supplier were royalties under the Australia/Canada DTA. [LTN 41, 3/3/14]

*DCT v Healy – Appeal against 2007 DPN default judgment denied – argument that Administrator appointed within the 14 days rejected [39]

The District Court of WA has dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal concerning a default judgment by a Deputy Commissioner for over id=”mce_marker”64,000 that was entered in March 2007 in default of the taxpayer filing an appearance. The matter concerned a director’s penalty notice (DPN). The taxpayer argued the default judgment should be set aside because he had an…

*Power v DCT (No 2) – Director fails to re-open previous adverse DPN finding (where DPN called director’s attention to Div 269 as required) [38]

The NSW Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an application by a director to have set aside its prior decision in Power v DCT [2013] NSWCA 428 that the director was liable for a directors’ penalty of some id=”mce_marker”m imposed on him by a director’s penalty notice (DPN) that was issued under s 269-25 of the…

*FCT v Moodie – Commissioner liable for liquidator’s costs in relation to unfair preference claim [37]

The NSW Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal and held that he should pay a liquidator’s costs in relation to a matter where a claim was made by the liquidator of the company against Commissioner pursuant to s 588FF under the Corporations Act 2001 for the repayment of id=”mce_marker”.3m in tax paid to…

*R v Milne (No 2) – Wickenby matter: jail sentence varied and taxpayer released on recognizance order [36]

The NSW Supreme Court has reopened sentence proceedings in a Project Wickenby matter, following the High Court’s decision on 14 February 2014 in Milne v The Queen [2014] HCA 4, where it quashed the conviction in relation to the money laundering count. This left the charge on which he was convicted in December 2012, of dishonestly obtaining a gain…

*DCT v Roget (No 2) – Summary judgment against company director refused because he may have a defense to the ‘DPN’ liability [35]

The WA District Court has overturned a Registrar’s decision to enter summary judgment against a company director for the recovery of unremitted PAYG withholding amounts. Mad Monk Pty Ltd was a subsidiary of Oz Brewing Ltd, which was a publicly listed company. The defendant in these proceedings was a significant shareholder of Oz Brewing. In August 2008,…

‘BJ’ and Australian Taxation Office – Access to documents regarding ‘rights to future income rules’ denied under FoI Act – they were deliberative [34]

The Privacy Commissioner has affirmed an ATO decision to refuse access to documents concerning the rights to future income rules that was requested under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). On 28 February 2013, the applicant applied to the ATO for access to: “…for the period of 3 June 2010 until 22 February 2013, photocopies of the following…