Legal analysis, not legalese labels - the underwriting example
01 Nov 03 |
AUSTRALIAN GST JOURNAL
Issue: Vol 3, issue 10
Pages: pp. 189-195
This article uses the example of "underwriting" to show how lack of a uniform definition can lead to difficulties for GST purposes. The author also argues that there cannot be a general rule for the treatment of underwriting agreements, the circumstances of each case need to be examined individually.
This item is not available for download from this website. Please contact the Tax Institute library for assistance. Charges will apply.
Andrew Sommer, CTA, is the national practice group leader for tax at Clayton Utz and has been working in tax for over 20 years. Andrew specialises in GST, providing advice across all industry sectors and levels of government as well advising on other tax issues, including land tax, payroll tax, FBT and state-based royalty regimes. Andrew has also acted for clients in relation to various litigious tax matters at all levels of review including the High Court. Andrew lectures in GST for the University of Sydney as part of the Master of Laws program and has previously taught GST subjects for the University of New South Wales. Andrew serves on the Indirect Tax Public Rulings Panel and The Tax Institute’s Education Quality Assurance Board, is a member of the editorial board of the Australian Tax Law Bulletin, the indirect tax editor of the Australian Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice and is a co-author of the book, Tax and Insolvency.
- Current at
06 March 2017