Moore Stephens Melbourne

 Articles by this Author

On 16 December 2011, the Government released their response to the final element of the Australia's proposed Investment Manager Regime ('IMR') outlined in the Board of Taxation's Report.  The proposed start date for the IMR is 1 July 2011.
On 11 December the Business Tax Working Group released its Interim Report on the Tax Treatment of Losses (the “Report”) for public comment.

The Report is part of the Business Tax Working Group’s (“BTWG”) focus on improving the business tax system to allow businesses to respond to emerging challenges and create opportunities for themselves in the local and international economic landscape.  The BTWG’s initial focus on reforming the treatment of tax losses is an encouraging first step towards increased certainty in the tax law while also assisting the broader economy by delivering tax relief to corporate Australia.
It is expected that from 30 January 2010 shipowners that do not register their interest in a vessel (under the Personal Property Security Legislation), that is bareboat leased to an Australian based operation will have their ownership in the asset exposed and can potentially lose title over the vessel
Income tax: Cross border profit allocation - Review of transfer pricing rules
Moore Stephens in Melbourne ran a tax update presentation for Universities
On 2 November 2011 the Australian Taxation Office released Draft GST Ruling GSTR 2011/D4: Grants of Financial Assistance (the “Draft Ruling”). The draft ruling represents a substantial rewrite of an earlier ruling on the same topic, GSTR 2000/11 (the “Old Ruling”), and follows numerous court decisions which have both challenged and developed the ATO’s interpretation of the GST law.

Both providers and recipients of grants should review their GST treatment in light of the Draft Ruling, as some aspects of the ATO’s interpretation of the law have changed, particularly in the areas of peripheral supplies and tripartite arrangements.
A further piece of the Government’s reform agenda for the not-for-profit sector began to take shape on Friday 28 October 2011, with the release of a consultation paper on introducing a statutory definition of charity.

The consultation paper is a welcome response to numerous calls for clarity by organisations including the Charities Definition Inquiry, Productivity Commission and the Senate Economic Legislation Committee. It appears to foreshadow a statutory definition which preserves key benefits of the current common law definition, such as flexibility around the meaning of charitable purpose. The proposals seem to be a genuine effort to codify existing principles, rather than an attempt to narrow the definition of charitable entity.
Yesterday the Federal Government released a discussion paper regarding tax reform that will encourage more private investment in infrastructure projects. The proposed reforms provide significant concessional treatment for tax losses incurred by companies and trusts in respect of designated infrastructure projects that are considered to be of national importance.  

Currently, tax losses that are typically incurred at the start of an infrastructure project may not be able to be claimed against taxable income derived by the same entity in future income years because those losses fail the loss recoupment rules. 
The Australian Taxation Office has released Taxation Ruling TR 2011/4 on 12 October, which sets out the Commissioner’s view on:

    •    features that distinguish a charitable institution from a charitable fund
    •    circumstances under which an institution or fund will be considered charitable
    •    determining whether the purpose of an institution or fund is charitable; and
    •    recent court decisions in numerous cases such as Word Investments, Aid/Watch, Central Bayside and Victorian Womens Lawyers
A recent decision handed down by the Full Federal Court (Commissioner of Taxation v Byrne Hotels Qld Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 127) has given much needed guidance to the application of the small business CGT concessions. This decision has clarified that liabilities arising from transaction costs incurred prior to a sale (e.g. agents fee or legal costs) can be taken into consideration when calculating the maximum net asset value test (“MNAV”).