Greenwoods and Freehills Weekly Tax Highlights 18.1.08-25.1.08
ATO Documents
Released 23.1.08 Released 24.1.08
Product Ruling
PR 2008/5: Income tax: Margaret River Watershed Premium Wine Project 2008 (Pre 15 June 2008 Growers)
Erratum
Class Ruling
CR 2007/114: Income tax: scrip for scrip: acquisition of Coles Group Limited by Wesfarmers Limited
Addendum
Product Ruling
PR 2006/27: Income tax: 2006 Grain Co-Production Project
Released 25.1.08
New Interpretative Decisions
ATO ID 2008/17: Release authority: excess concessional contributions tax
ATO ID 2008/18: Release authority: excess non-concessional contributions tax
ATO ID 2008/19: Entrepreneurs' tax offset and personal services income: company
ATO ID 2008/20: Reportable fringe benefits: pooled or shared cars - use of a motor vehicle that is not a car
ATO ID 2008/21: Reportable fringe benefits: pooled or shared cars - where one employee's use of the car is an exempt benefit
ATO ID 2008/22: Entrepreneurs' tax offset and personal services income: partnership
ATO ID 2008/23: A cell in a protected cell company formed in Guernsey and the controlled foreign company measures
ATO ID 2008/24: Foreign Hybrid Limited Partnership: UK limited partnership
Withdrawn Interpretative Decisions
ATO ID 2001/392: GST and agreement to apply the margin scheme ATO ID 2001/483: GST and the sale of a strata titled residential apartment
ATO ID 2001/483: GST and the sale of a strata titled residential apartment
ATO ID 2002/30: GST and acquisition costs under the margin scheme
ATO ID 2002/62: Assessability of UK disability pension - first payable after 1 July 1983
ATO ID 2002/324: Assessability of Australian sourced worker's compensation pension paid to a resident of the United Kingdom
ATO ID 2002/429: Assessability of UK War Widows Pension
ATO ID 2002/582: Assessability of salary and wages received from employment as a teacher in the United Kingdom
ATO ID 2002/591: Resident of the UK in receipt of Australian employment income - present in Australia for a period not exceeding 183 days
ATO ID 2002/667: Withholding Tax - UK resident receiving Australian sourced royalties
ATO ID 2002/669: Exempt income - UK War Widows Supplementary Pension
ATO ID 2003/766: Capital gains tax - making a choice under CGT Event I1 - choice to disregard gain or loss
ATO ID 2003/1194: Assessability of educational grant from Norway paid to resident
ATO ID 2005/368: Assessability of employment income received by a dual resident
ATO ID 2006/40: Foreign Investment Fund exemption and foreign hybrid
ATO ID 2006/314: Income tax: helicopter - 'substantial equipment' - Article 5(4)(b) of the Norwegian Convention
Decision Impact Statements Brown v Commissioner of Taxation
Decision Impact Statement: Brown v Commissioner of Taxation: In this case the AAT affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny a taxpayer a deduction claimed for partnership losses. However, it upheld the taxpayer's objection to the imposition of a penalty under Subdivision 284-B. In the ATO's view the Tribunal should not have made any Subdiv 284-B decision as "it was questionable whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make any decision in respect of Subdivision 284-B" in this case. The ATO did note that it was not a case where an appeal by either the Commissioner or the applicant would have been appropriate.
Making it easier to comply
The Commissioner gave a speech launching the 5th edition of the Tax Office's booklet "Making it easier to comply". The booklet provides an annual progress report on the Tax Office's commitment on reducing the tax compliance burden. The Commissioner noted a
Tax Cases
Troughton v DCT [2008] FCA 18, 18 January 2008: The Federal Court has upheld the Commissioner of Taxation's decision not to revoke a departure prohibition order (DPO) which had been placed on a taxpayer. The taxpayer is a UK resident visiting Australia who had worked in New Zealand and Australia between 1988 and 2002. The Commissioner issued substantial assessments against the taxpayer all of which remained outstanding. The Court rejected the taxpayer's argument that the order should be revoked as the amount was completely irrecoverable. The Court decided that the Tax Office's belief that the taxpayer had interests in family trusts with assets in New Zealand and in funds in a Swiss bank account justified the decision not to revoke the DPO.