Showing all 4 results
On 11 March 2020, the High Court unanimously dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal from the Full Federal Court regarding attribution of income under Part X of the ITAA 1936.
Key to the decision was the High Court’s reasoning that each of BHP Billiton Ltd and BHP Billiton Plc exercised ‘sufficient influence’ over the other within the meaning of s 318(6) of the ITAA 1936.
An expert panel – including two counsel who appeared in the matter before the High Court – discuss the decision and key implications for taxpayers.
The Full Federal Court in Burton v Commissioner of Taxation  FCAFC 141 considered an appeal by an Australian resident taxpayer from a test case concerning his claim for a Foreign Income Tax Offset (FITO) for the full amount of US tax on a discount…
A five-member bench of the Full Federal Court has unanimously overturned the first instance decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund IV LP  FCA 18. This judgment will have significant implications for the classification of legal entities for tax purposes, entitlement to…
THE IMPLICATIONS OF TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED v CoT and
SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED v CoT
It is commonly stated that a double tax agreement is a shield to protect taxpayers from double taxation and cannot of itself give rise to taxation liabilities. However, the October 2018 decisions of the Full Federal Court in Tech Mahindra Limited and Satyam Computer Services Limited mean that the “source of income provisions” found in many of Australia’s double tax agreements have “what amounts to some ‘sword-like effect in practice”. The decisions have immediate implications for Indian-resident taxpayers in receipt of payments for ‘technical services’ from Australian customers, but the possible implications are much broader.