shopping_cart

Your shopping cart is empty

Q&A - PSI, Part IVA & Mochkin's case - paper, rocks or scissors?

Member Price: $22.00
Non Member Price: $28.00

DisclaimerThis material is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from The Tax Institute.
Unless expressly stated, opinions are not that of The Tax Institute, which accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within it.

Published on 01 Jun 03 by "TAXATION IN AUSTRALIA" JOURNAL ARTICLE

In previous Q & A's we have discussed the PSI rules contained in Part 2-42 of the 1997 Act and explained how to satisfy the tests contained in those rules. However, since the decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Mochkin, the Commissioner appears to want to nullify the relevance of the PSI rules.

Author profiles

Michael Parker CTA
Photo of author, Michael PARKER Michael is a Partner in the Taxation section of Hall & Wilcox Lawyers. His practice focuses on tax disputes, domestic income tax issues, including CGT and Div 7A, business sales, acquisitions and restructures and GST. Michael has extensive experience handling a broad range of taxpayer disputes, including disputes concerning the small business CGT concessions, having acted for the taxpayers in White v FCT [2009] FCA 880, White v FCT [2012] FCA 109 and Altnot v FCT [2013] AATA 140, among other cases. Michael regularly consults to the Board of Taxation and Treasury, including in respect of Div 7A, small business impediments and the small business CGT concessions. He is a regular presenter for The Tax Institute. - Current at 05 May 2022
Click here to expand/collapse more articles by Michael PARKER.
Graham WARREN
Graham is a Solicitor at Hall & Wilcox Lawyers.
Current at May 2005
Click here to expand/collapse more articles by Graham WARREN.

 

Copyright Statement