Category Archives: Tax Month – October 2013

CR 2013/74 – Griffith University’s Early retirement scheme [37]

The ATO on Wed 9.10.2013, issued Class Ruling CR 2013/74 (Early retirement scheme for Griffith University). It applies from Wed 9.10.2013, to 31 December 2013. Broadly, the Ruling states that the early retirement scheme to be implemented is an early retirement scheme for the purposes of s 83-180 of the ITAA 1997. [LTN 195, 9/10/13]

TD 2013/21 – Tax consolidated group reporting – inconsistent methodologies for converting foreign currencies don’t qualify [36]

This TD, released on Wed 23.10.2013, says that a consolidated special purpose financial report of a head company of a tax consolidated group cannot satisfy clause 1.1 of Sch 2 to the Income Tax Assessment Regulations 1997 where transactions within the same category are translated using inconsistent methodologies. Clause 1.1 of Sch 2 to the Regulations allows…

TD 2013/20 – FBT: reimbursement of expenditure and otherwise deductible rule [35]

This TD, issued Wed 23.10.2013, states that when an employer reimburses an amount of expenditure incurred by an employee to a third party, under a salary sacrifice (or similar) arrangement with that employee, where that expenditure is notionally subject to Div 35 of the ITAA 1997, the amount included under s 35-10(2E) is increased when applying the…

TR 2013/6 – FBT – expenditure subject to Div 35 non-commercial loss deferral cannot give rise to a ‘once only deduction’ for ‘otherwise deductible’ purposes [34]

This Ruling, released on Wed 23.10.2013, sets out the Commissioner’s views on whether a “once only deduction” arises in calculating the taxable value of an “external expense payment fringe benefit” under s 24 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA) where the expenditure associated with that fringe benefit would be subject to the loss…

WET producer rebates denied: ATO view on S J Buller case [33]

The ATO on Wed 16.10.2013, released a Decision Impact Statement on the AAT’s decision in AAT Case [2013] AATA 617, Re S J Buller Pty Ltd and FCT. In that case, the AAT affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to deny a taxpayer wine producer rebates under the WET regime for the March 2010 and June 2010 quarters and impose a 25%…

CGT maximum net asset value test: ATO view on Bell case [32]

The ATO on Fri 11.10.2013, released a Decision Impact Statement on the Full Federal Court’s decision in Bell v FCT [2013] FCAFC 32. In that case, the Full Federal Court confirmed that a family trust failed the maximum net asset value test for the purposes of accessing the CGT small business concession in respect of…

Re Bai and FCT – the taxpayer is seeking to appeal the decision the objection be allowed only in part and remaining penalties would not be remitted [31]

The taxpayer has lodged an application for extension of time in which to lodge an appeal [to the Federal Court] against the decision in AAT Case [2013] AATA 612, Re Bai and FCT. In that case, the AAT concluded that the taxpayer’s objections to amended assessments should be allowed in part and specified which deposits…

SPI PowerNet Pty Ltd v FCT – Taxpayer appeals to Full Federal Court from decision that its s163AA payments to Vic Treasury were not deductible [30]

The taxpayer has lodged a notice of appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision in SPI PowerNet Pty Ltd v FCT [2013] FCA 924. In that case, the Federal Court found that the imposts under s 163AA of the Electricity Industry Act 1993 (Vic) paid by a taxpayer to the Victorian State Treasurer were…

FCT v Ludekens [2013] FCAFC 100 – Taxpayers seek leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision that they were ‘promoters’ of a ‘tax exploitation scheme’ [29]

The taxpayers have applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Full Federal Court in FCT v Ludekens [2013] FCAFC 100. In that case, the Full Federal Court unanimously allowed the Commissioner’s appeal and held that 2 persons were “scheme promoters” in terms of Div 290 of the TAA…

*DCT v Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 885; DCT v Power Assets Holdings Limited – taxpayers to appeal order for payment [28]

Thomson Reuters understands that the taxpayers intend to appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision of Gordon J in DCT v Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 885; DCT v Power Assets Holdings Limited (previously known as Hongkong Electric Holdings Ltd) (No 2) [2013] FCA 886. The Federal Court had entered…