A taxpayer who had lodged an application for a private ruling in respect of the operation of the consolidation rules before amendments were made to those rules (relating to rights to income), which adversely affected the situation for the taxpayer on consolidation. The taxpayer however had not got an actual answer to the ruling request when the amendments were introduced (and they grandfathered those who had a ruling). The taxpayer was unsuccessful before the Full Federal Court in arguing that the consolidation rules, as they existed before the amendments, should be applied to its circumstances.
The taxpayer had argued that it had an adverse ruling from the Commissioner before the amendments were passed, through elapse of time. The taxpayer then appealed that deemed (negative) private ruling to the AAT, arguing that its application for review should be determined under the old rules as they existed before the amendments. It did so on the basis that it believed an “accrued right” to such an application of the rules by virtue of the effect of the amendments themselves and the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
However, the Full Court unanimously held that there was no “accrued right” to have the matter determined by the AAT in accordance to the law that existed before the effect of the amendments and that, furthermore, the amendments did not contain any relevant “saving” provisions to preserve any such right.
(IOOF Holdings Limited v FCT [2014] FCAFC 91, Full Federal Court, Jessup, Robertson & Davies JJ, 24 July 2014.)
[LTN 144, 29/7/14]