*Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Dickson and Ors – No revocation of orders to provide statement of assets in alleged tax fraud matter (37)

The NSW Supreme Court has dismissed applications by various defendants to revoke orders previously made by McCallum J on 5 April 2012 under s 39(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) for the defendants to provide sworn statements of their interests in assets on a world-wide basis. The orders related to proceedings against…

Re NaughtsnCrosses Pty Ltd and Innovation Australia – R&D activities not systematic or experimental (36)

The AAT has upheld an IR&D Board decision refusing to register a particular project for the purposes of the former R&D tax concession. The taxpayer, an IT company, incurred expenditure in 2002-03 and 2003-04 in connection with a project that involved embedding heat resistant radio frequency identification (RFID) tags into moulds used to manufacture motor…

No new evidence admissible to AAT review of private ruling objection decision – about application of non-commercial losses provisions to farming losses (34)

The AAT has affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to disallow the taxpayer’s objection to a private ruling. The taxpayer had sought to offset losses from his cattle breeding activities and (apparently) sought a private ruling in relation to the issue of whether the Commissioner should exercise his discretion under s 35-55(1) of the ITAA 1997 to…

*Re Boyn and FCT – Commissioner incorrectly calculated tax payable on ETP by allocating deductions and c/f losses to the less favourable component (33)

The AAT has held that the Commissioner had incorrectly calculated the tax payable on the taxable component of an employment termination payment (ETP). The Tax Office calculated the tax payable on the ETP taxable component of $250,880 by first offsetting the taxpayer’s deductions (and $173,445 of prior year losses) against his “ordinary taxable income”. The…

*Pratt Holdings Proprietary Limited v FCT – No deduction for transfer of losses under mining provisions despite favourable ruling (because of retrospective legislation) (31)

The Federal Court has held that a taxpayer was not entitled to deduct a loss transferred to it from a related joint venture company in respect of a project to explore certain mining exploration tenements. This loss included part of a balancing adjustment deduction for “allowable capital expenditure” (ACE) claimed by the joint venture company…