The Commissioner has been unsuccessful in its appeal to the Full Federal Court in Morton’s case. Here we provide a summary of the appeal decision.
Family trust distribution tax has brought home the realisation that the two and four year time limit on amending assessments is not universal. There are other instances where these limits do not apply which are well worth being aware of.
We’re not quite at the end of Uber trip yet, with the High Court granting Uber Australia Pty Ltd (‘Uber’) Special Leave to appeal the decision in Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Uber Australia Pty Ltd of 1 August 2025. Here’s what it might mean.
The ATO’s compliance activity in relation to family trust elections is raising issues about what the law was intended to do and whether the current compliance approach ignores principles of fair taxation in order to use the complexity of these rules to raise revenue, regardless of the consequences to the affected taxpayers.
With increased scrutiny from the ATO on the eligibility of deductions claimed on individual tax returns, it even more important to remember the significance of substantiation when claiming deductions in your income tax returns.
We were recently made aware of a process that the ATO adopts to assist some taxpayers in obtaining refunds of franking credits on a timely basis – that is, soon after the end of the income year. Here’s what you need to know.
Tax residency is an issue that comes up repeatedly, and every case seems to reinforce one key principle – every case is different. So past cases can help us understand the requirements, but there is risk in treating them as if they are a binding precedent.
As global employment becomes increasing fluid with individuals undertaking internal assignments, establishing the residency status of an individual becomes more complex and critical. Quy and Commissioner of Taxation [2025] ARTA 174 is a case on point that demonstrates the underlying principles of the residency tests when determining tax residency status.
The Commissioner generally has the power to amend an income tax assessment within a period of either 2 years or 4 years for other taxpayers who are not eligible for the 2-year amendment period. However, the recent case of Kirtlan and Commissioner of Taxation illustrates a rare instance where a taxpayer successfully challenged the Commissioner’s opinion that there was evasion.
In this article we summarise the key facts and findings of the recent Federal Court decision in Morton’s Case. It provides important guidance regarding the mere realisation of a capital asset in the context of a large scale residential subdivision where land was acquired and held long term for farming before entering into a development agreement.
