2. Outline of presentation
Statistical analysis of the 2015 cases – win/loss,
an historical review of overall success percentage,
per Judge review
The award for persistence in 2015
Some Australian income tax cases of note from Some Australian income tax cases of note from
2015
Very briefly, two foreign cases in 2015
̶ C of IR v Trustpower Limited [2015] NZCA 253
̶ MNR v BP Canada Energy Company [2015] FC
714
4. Basis for statistical analysis
Survey of High Court, Full Federal Court and Federal
Court tax cases for the period Jan 2015 – end Dec 2015:
Excludes procedural and basic debt collection cases
(winding up orders etc)
Excludes all AAT cases
Excludes High Court special leave casesg p
Excludes State tax cases
Overall win/loss statistics include all types of federal tax ie
income tax, GST, FBT, PRRT (etc, etc)
Where a judgment is in part for ATO and in part for
taxpayer 0.5 allocated
5. Court Total cases ATO win Taxpayer win
High Court 3 2 1
Full Federal
Court
17 14 3
Statistical analysis – Overall
win/loss
Federal
Court
31 23 8
TOTAL 51 39 12
% Success
overall
76.5% 23.5%
9. Judge
Total
cases
ATO win Taxpayer win
Perram J 2 1 1
Perry J 3 3 -
Rares J 1 - 1
Statistical analysis - overall cases:
Federal Court Judges
Robertson J 2 2 -
Siopis J 1 1 -
White J 2 2 -
Wigney J 1 - 1
TOTAL 31 23 8
10. Judge
Total cases where
part of Full Court
ATO win Taxpayer win
Allsop CJ 3 2 1
Besanko J 1 1
Davies J 5 5**
Edelman J 1 1
Ed d J 4 3 1
Statistical analysis – overall cases:
Judges sitting as Full Federal Court
Edmonds J 4 3 1
Foster J 1 1
Gilmour J 1 1
Gleeson J 1 1
Gordon J 1 1
Greenwood J 2 1 1
Jessup J 1 1
Jagot J 1 1
Kenny J 4 3 1
11. Judge
Total cases where
part of Full Court
ATO win Taxpayer win
Logan J 3 2 1
Middleton J 1 1
Mortimer J 2 1 1
Murphy J 1 1
Statistical analysis – overall cases:
Judges sitting as Full Federal Court
Pagone J 11 8** 3* dissent in Blank
Perram J 2 2
Roberston J 4 3 1
Siopis J 2 2
Wigney J 2 2
Yates J 1 1
** while there was dissent from Justices Pagone and Davies in Channel Pastoral, the dissent
would still have led to a result in favour of the ATO
12. Award for persistence: 2015 cases
Andrew Morton Garrett
̶ Mr Garrett’s efforts will likely win nothing else
but he gets this year’s award for
persistence (vexatiously so)
Honourable mentions
2014 winner, Peter Paalvast
2013 winner Hua Wang Bank Berhad
The LHRC litigation
14. ElecNet – what is a “unit trust”?
Private ruling unsuccessfully sought that the Electricity
Industry Severance Scheme (EISS) was a ‘unit trust’,
‘public unit trust’, ‘resident unit trust’, ‘eligible unit trust’
and not a ‘corporate unit trust’ - the taxpayer (trustee)
appealed
At issue was whether the section 102M definition of
‘unit’ and ‘unitholder’ in relation to a prescribed trust
estate could be relied upon when determining if there is
a ‘unit trust’ for the purposes of all of Div 6C ITAA36
Also at issue was whether a ‘unit trust’ required a
beneficial interest in all of the trust’s property
Justice Davies in the Federal Court: section 102M
definitions were relevant, beneficial interest in any trust
property required by the definition of ‘unit’
15. ElecNet – what is a “unit trust”?
Full Court: allowed Commissioner’s appeal:
̶ Taxpayer’s construct of ‘unit trust’ too wide;
Commissioner’s too narrow
̶ It is relevant to consider the definition of ‘unit’ in sec 102M
– broader approach of Davies J correct
̶ Core feature of a ‘unit trust’ is there needs to be a
beneficial interest which was capable of being ‘unitised’ in
any of the income/property of the trust (not all) – Davies J
approach correct
̶ However, a very close examination of Trust Deed is
required
̶ On the facts, the discretions available to the Trustee under
the Deed militated against there being the required
beneficial interests that could be unitised
16. Orica – Part IVA
OEH OUSSI
(1) $
(2)
RPS(4) on-
lend funds
OFL
Consolidated group
Australia US
(3) Loan funds
to OFL in
return for
interest
received
from
OUSSI
17. Orica – Part IVA
‘Purpose’
̶ Scheme was the means adopted by Orica
̶ Spotless applied: ‘shape or form’ of transaction
adopted indicated the presence of a dominant
purpose to achieve the consolidated after tax benefits
equal to the interest deductionsequal to the interest deductions
̶ Citigroup cited: scheme only made sense because of
the Australian tax deductions – Orica Group’s pre-
existing tax losses not relevant
̶ Insufficient evidence to suggest OUSSI would have
otherwise funded externally, evidence shows that
option was rejected – issue is what the purpose of the
option Orica did choose was
Penalties
18. Liquidator cases
High Court confirmation provided in Australian
Building Systems (in liq): unless there is an
assessment, a liquidator is not required by sec 254 of
the ITAA36 to retain money to meet future tax liabilities
(in that case, from a CGT event)
Watch for a future test case in relation to the issue in
Bell Group (in liq)
̶ a garnishee notice was issued by the Commissioner to
NAB over post-liquidation tax liabilities in respect of a
settlement sum
̶ question of notice validity – sec 254(1)(d) ITAA36 vs
section 468(4) Corporations Act – and application of
Bruton Holdings High Court decision
19. Cases to look out for in 2016
Full Federal Court appeals:
̶ Chevron
̶ Tech Mahindra
̶ Financial Synergy Holdings
Will Orica be appealed?Will Orica be appealed?
Will Blank get to the High Court?
21. The usual plug of NZ as a tourism
destination – only 3 hours away
22. NZ: Trustpower
Deductibility of expenditure to obtain resource consents
– whether feasibility expenditure – capital/revenue
Unchallenged company evidence that the expenditure
was incurred as part of a business process of
considering whether to “build or buy” extra electricity
capacity – operational expenditure
Extraordinary Court of Appeal holdings went beyond the
Commissioner’s argument and overturned lower Court
factual findings
Expenditure capital in nature
‘Feasibility’ expenditure tag meaningless
Expenditure not in course of carrying on business
23. Canada: BP Canada Energy Co
Taxpayer ‘uncertain tax positions’ - access to
accountant papers sought - MNR ‘fishing expedition’
Tax accrual working papers sought (under the
equivalent to sec 264) relating to contingent liabilities –
MNR did not generally access these in accordance with
policy
Taxpayer argued access to such papers would be a
‘compulsory self-audit’ and, using the self-assessment
system as a shield, provided an interesting analogy
Federal Court held the material sought was compellable;
the MNR policy was not a bar to seeking this material –
similar holdings would occur in Australia