Your shopping cart is empty
Section 100A and trust reimbursement agreements
Published on 01 Jun 23 by "TAXATION IN AUSTRALIA" JOURNAL ARTICLE
The provision of greater clarity and certainty around the operation of s 100A has not been progressed as far as may have been hoped by the issue of TR 2022/4. The opportunity has not been taken to correct positions reflected in TR 2022/D1 which are not grounded on the exact words of s 100A or the case law (old and new). These positions include how TR 2022/4 fails to recognise the lack of tax purpose as an exclusion from the structure of s 100A, rather than representing the existence of tax purpose being a requirement. Issues also remain around the meaning of “agreement”. On the critical matter of what is “ordinary family dealing”, TR 2022/4 has unhelpfully sought to “repackage”, but still to maintain, the “predication test” reasoning from Newton’s case (relating to tax purpose) by introducing the new concept of a “core test” with an excessive focus on tax objectives.
Author profile
Mark West CTA
Mark West, CTA is a qualified as a lawyer, chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, Mark provides advice across the spectrum of taxes. Mark assists with all legal matters involving taxation law. He advises on appropriate business or investment structures/restructures and on making applications for rulings from the ATO. He assists with tax audits and with related settlement negotiations with the ATO and State revenue authorities. He has acted for clients in tax cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Full Federal Court. Mark been listed as a leading tax lawyer in Queensland by Doyles Guide and The Best Lawyers™ in Australia.
- Current at
18 January 2024
The Tax Institute is Australia's leading professional association and educator in tax providing the best resources, professional development and networks.