shopping_cart

Your shopping cart is empty

04 Feb 2021 Cases

Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118  

The applicants (Dental Corporation Pty Ltd) have lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the Full Federal Court’s decision. 

The special leave application is to be heard on Thursday, 11 February 2021. 

Read more here

Carter & Ors v FCT [2020] FCAFC 150

The Commissioner has lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the Full Federal Court's decision. 

Read more here

FCT v Addy [2020] FCAFC 135

The taxpayer is seeking special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court’s decision.

The Full Federal Court had allowed the ATO's appeal against a decision that the so-called ‘backpacker tax’ did not apply to a British national who was a tax resident of Australia.

Read more here.

Kinghorn v DPP (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA

The taxpayer’s application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal decision has been dismissed.

Read more here

Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Downer EDI Engineering Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 126

The NSW Chief Commissioner of State Revenue has lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. 

The Court of appeal had dismissed the Chief Commissioner's appeal and upheld a decision that payments by a taxpayer company to third party subcontractors engaged by the taxpayer to install Foxtel equipment were not subject to payroll tax.

Read more here.

H2O Exchange Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia [2021] FCA 11

The Federal Court has upheld a decision that the development of a web-based trading platform enabling water rights to be traded did not constitute core R&D activities for the purposes of the R&D tax incentive.

Read more here

CUB Australia Holding Pty Ltd v FCT [2021] FCA 43

The Federal Court has held that an ATO notice issued under s 353-10 of Sch 1 to the TAA was valid, following CUB’s refusal to produce certain documents on the grounds of legal privilege.

Read more here.

Westpac Securities Administration Limited & Anor v ASIC

The High Court confirmed that Westpac Bank subsidiaries, Westpac Securities Administration Limited (WSAL) and BT Funds Management Limited (BTFM), breached financial services laws, including the requirement to act in their clients’ best interests and the requirement to act honestly, efficiently and fairly.

The unanimous High Court judgment today upheld the Full Federal Court’s decision regarding the conduct of WSAL and BTFM, dismissing their appeal and holding that they breached the Corporations Act 2001 by providing personal financial product advice in calls made to 14 customers. Neither company was licensed to provide personal financial advice.

Welcoming the decision, ASIC Commissioner Danielle Press said, ‘By clarifying the distinction between tailored, quality, personal advice in the customer’s interest, and general advice given via a sales campaign, today's judgment will provide clear guidance to those financial institutions that develop campaigns to sell financial products through direct approaches to retail clients.’

Read more here.

Advertising

Media Release Search
Keywords
Eg. TD 2005/D52 ALL words EXACT phrase WITHOUT words Date range
From To