The ATO on Mon 24.6.2013, issued Decision Impact Statements on the following judgments:
- Hua Wang Bank Berhad v FCT [2013] FCAFC 28 – This Decision Impact Statement outlines the ATO’s response in this case in which the Full Federal Court refused a taxpayer’s appeal from an earlier decision refusing to grant relief from a notice to produce in circumstances where compliance with the notice may involve the commission of a crime under the laws of Samoa. The ATO said the Court had “correctly determined that there was no error of principle in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge in refusing to set aside or vary the notice to produce”. It also said “the Full Court [had] correctly refused the application made by the Independent State of Samoa to intervene or be heard as amicus curiae in this particular case”.
- AAT Case [2013] AATA 116, Re Picton Finance Ltd and FCT – In this case, the AAT held that certain share trading activities by a Vanuatu incorporated company were Australian-sourced, but that the taxpayer had discharged its onus of demonstrating that an assessment in relation to one year in dispute was excessive. In doing so, the AAT affirmed the decision under review in relation to the 2008 tax year, but set aside the decision under review in relation to the 2007 tax year. The ATO stated in the Decision Impact Statement that the decision of the AAT was based solely on the facts in this case and should not create a precedent for cases in the future.
[LTN 119, 24/6/13]