shopping_cart

Your shopping cart is empty

Dastardly implications arising from Greensill and Martin decisions – attribution and discretionary beneficiaries

Member Price: $35.00
Non Member Price: $45.00

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 Oct 21 by "THE TAX SPECIALIST" JOURNAL ARTICLE

Five justices in the Greensill and Martin decisions have unanimously decided that the attributed income of a discretionary beneficiary was not “from” the CGT event to allow access to an exemption/disregard. However, if you look at the under-litigated judicial analysis of the single undefined word “from” in the charging provisions of s 6-5 and s 6-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA97), especially in the under-litigated s 6-10, you will observe good unanimous legal reasoning from the four recent decisions to doubt whether attributed or non-owned income can satisfy the undefined “from” precondition for inclusion of amounts in assessable income where the amounts do not factually represent property owned by the person.

Author profile

Tim Galvin
Click here to expand/collapse more articles by Tim Galvin.

 

Copyright Statement