{"id":7583,"date":"2015-08-11T16:51:55","date_gmt":"2015-08-11T06:51:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=7583"},"modified":"2015-08-11T16:51:55","modified_gmt":"2015-08-11T06:51:55","slug":"australian-tax-review-update-august-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2015\/08\/11\/australian-tax-review-update-august-2015\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Tax Review update: August 2015"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are using Checkpoint, the links can be found in the <strong>Checkpoint PDF<\/strong> at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0<em>Australian Tax Review<\/em> (Volume 44 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/1IRqP0G\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Time for another tax rethink? <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Articles<\/h3>\n<p><strong><em><a href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/1MUtgRS\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Australian international taxation of attributed trust gains<\/a> <\/em><\/strong><em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Mark Brabazon SC<\/p>\n<p>Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s international claim to tax trust-level capital gains attributed to beneficiaries or trustees involves a contested question whether the jurisdictional rules of trust taxation based on source apply, or those of capital gains taxation (CGT) based on \u00e2\u20ac\u0153taxable Australian property\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, or a hybrid of the two. The article sets out to answer the question by tracing the development of those rules and their interaction with substantive taxing and attribution rules. It tests the jurisdictional claim across a range of single-trust and chain-of-trust scenarios and concludes that, despite the complexity of the rule structure, the current settings resolve to a small number of basic propositions which involve elements of both CGT and trust tax jurisdictional rules. It argues that the rules should be revised for clarity and should be rationalised to bring the international settings for trust gains into line with direct CGT settings.<\/p>\n<p>To purchase this article, complete the <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/subscribe-or-purchase\/individual-article-sale\/\">Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to <a href=\"mailto:tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com\">tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em><a href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/1eWqspt\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Tracking down stamp duty avoidance \u00e2\u20ac\u201c do Western Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s general antiavoidance rules capture tracking notes?<\/a> <\/em><\/strong><em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/em> Jared Clements and Matthew Plint<\/p>\n<p>A tracking note is a hybrid security instrument that allows the holder to economically participate in a project held by a company without acquiring any ordinary shares in the company or a direct interest in the company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s assets. One advantage of a tracking note is that it generally does not give rise to landholder duty under the Duties Act 2008 (WA). However, there is a real question about whether these instruments fall foul of Western Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s stamp duty general anti-avoidance rules. This article will examine the technical difficulties associated with applying those rules to tracking note arrangements. It will argue that the general anti-avoidance rules are unlikely to apply to tracking notes in circumstances where there is a strong legal or commercial rationale which justifies their use in a transaction.<\/p>\n<p>To purchase this article, complete the <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/subscribe-or-purchase\/individual-article-sale\/\">Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to <a href=\"mailto:tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com\">tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em><a href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/1DuiKPf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Unit Trend: It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not just about GST<\/a> <\/em><\/strong><em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Nick Gangemi<\/p>\n<p>The 2013 case of FCT v Unit Trend Services Pty Ltd was a recent goods and services tax (GST) decision of the High Court on the impact of Div 165 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) (GST Act). It is the first major decision on Div 165; and also the first major decision on the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153election exclusion\u00e2\u20ac\u009d contained in s 165(1)(b) of the GST Act, and which is very similar to provisions in the income tax regime. This article analyses the decision of Unit Trend and the provisions of the GST and the income tax rules, and concludes that the principles of Unit Trent should be applied not only to Div 165, but also to the equivalent provisions in Pt IVA.<\/p>\n<p>To purchase this article, complete the <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/subscribe-or-purchase\/individual-article-sale\/\">Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to <a href=\"mailto:tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com\">tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/1J0uwTF\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CASE NOTES<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>ATS Pacific Pty Ltd v FCT <\/strong><em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Kathrin Bain<\/em><\/li>\n<li><strong>Lighthouse Financial Advisers (Townsville) Pty Ltd v FCT <\/strong><em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Kathrin Bain<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2015\/08\/Checkpoint-AT-Rev-Vol-44-No-3-Contents.pdf\">Checkpoint &#8211; AT Rev Vol 44 No 3 Contents<\/a> or here: <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2015\/08\/Westlaw-AU-AT-Rev-Vol-44-No-3-Contents.pdf\">Westlaw AU &#8211; AT Rev Vol 44 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.westlaw.com.au\/maf\/api\/tocLocatorVM?ndd=1&amp;qlink-label=No+3%2C+2015&amp;stid=std-anz-tocbrowse&amp;originates-from-link=false&amp;ao=o.AUNZ_AU_JOURNALS_TOC%7C%7CId9cdca96359511e586fbf6935eab92ba&amp;ntocview=Id9cdca96359511e586fbf6935eab92ba&amp;dsu=AUNZ_AU_JLTAXREV&amp;sortid=Citation&amp;tocguid=AUNZ_AU_JOURNALS_TOC%7C%7CId9cdca96359511e586fbf6935eab92ba&amp;searchds=AUNZ_SEARCHALL&amp;productAO=AUNZ_TOC%7C%7CanzjourAUtaxrev\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/1T9jrit\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Click here to access this Part on Checkpoint<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The latest Part of the Australian Tax Review includes the following articles: &#8220;Australian international taxation of attributed trust gains&#8221; \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Mark Brabazon SC; &#8220;Tracking down stamp duty avoidance \u00e2\u20ac\u201c do Western Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s general antiavoidance rules capture tracking notes?&#8221; \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Jared Clements and Matthew Plint; and &#8220;Unit Trend: It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not just about GST&#8221; \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Nick Gangemi. There is also an editorial and a Case notes section with notes by Kathrin Bain on the following cases: ATS Pacific Pty Ltd v FCT; and Lighthouse Financial Advisers (Townsville) Pty Ltd v FCT.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[230,39],"tags":[6119,229,6120,6121,56,6122,185,6123,6124,6125,6126,6127,6128,4897,6129,6130,6131],"class_list":["post-7583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australian-tax-review","category-update-summaries","tag-antiavoidance-rules-capture","tag-at-rev","tag-ats-pacific-pty-ltd-v-fct","tag-attributed-trust-gains","tag-case-notes","tag-fct-v-unit-trend-services-pty-ltd","tag-gst","tag-gst-act","tag-income-tax-rules","tag-international-taxation","tag-jared-clements","tag-kathrin-bain","tag-lighthouse-financial-advisers-townsville-pty-ltd-v-fct","tag-mark-brabazon-sc","tag-matthew-plint","tag-nick-gangemi","tag-stamp-duty-avoidance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}