shopping_cart

Your shopping cart is empty

Search Journal Articles

Written by practitioners for practitioners Taxation in Australia® is continually ranked as Australia's leading tax journal. Access the latest issue of Taxation in Australia in print, on your iPad or Android tablet, or online with our new digital edition.

Members, you can access the digital edition here (you'll need to be logged in to the website), or find out more about our iPad and Android* version here.

Not a Member? Our app brings you a selection of great free content from each issue and gives you access to our new Extra supplement. Find out more.

With a readership exceeding 35,000, Taxation in Australia is published 11 times per year and available exclusively to members in hard copy and digital format, and now as an app on the Apple iPad and on Android tablets. This comprehensive publication features articles with a strong, practical approach to the latest tax issues and professional development. It is affectionately known as the Blue Journal.

Find out more about downloading the journal to your iPad or Android device here taxinstitute.com.au/app

Going paperless?

If you're happy using the digital edition of Taxation in Australia or you view it via our iPad or Android app, you can opt out of having your print copy of this journal delivered each month.

Two ways to opt out:

  1. Either opt out instantly via this website. Make sure you are logged in, select Update my details on the right hand side of home page and then click edit on the Other Information section of your profile. Simply tick Do Not Send Blue Journal in this section.
  2. Or email us. Email to membership@taxinstitute.com.au, Subject: Please unsubscribe me from the print edition of Taxation in Australia.

Articles from the current issue:

  • Is the Commissioner immune from the tort of negligence?

    shopping_cart Add to cart 01 Apr 2017

    There are few areas of modern life which have been untouched by Lord Atkin’s most beguiling creation, the tort of negligence. Given the large number of clients that the Commissioner of Taxation has, it is surprising that there are no fully decided cases on the matter in Australia. Many taxpayers have raised the issue of negligent administration and none have succeeded in obtaining damages in an Australian or UK court. The purpose of this article is to examine a recent decision of the UK Court of Appeal, Neil Martin Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where a taxpayer was successful in establishing a duty of care on the part of the revenue.

    This article also considers the UK case against Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, the leading Australian case on the imposition of liability in negligence on a public authority. The implications of the UK case for Australian courts are also examined.

  • Image rights in Australia: Fair game or foul ball?

    shopping_cart Add to cart 01 Apr 2017

    In today’s world of non-stop digital entertainment, sport, and the cult of celebrity, the names, images, likenesses and personalities of certain people are more valuable than ever before. With such value to be created, and indeed protected, comes a new form of tax mitigation strategy that can be extremely potent when undertaken effectively. This article explores the big business of image rights and image rights structuring in an international and Australian context. The author questions if Australian sports stars and other celebrities can exploit their image rights in the same way their overseas counterparts seem to be doing by examining four ATO private rulings on trusts, personal services income and capital gains tax consequences that occur on the granting of image licences. The author comes to the conclusion that it would seem that image rights structuring is a legitimate and viable tax planning option, notwithstanding the lack of specific legal recognition of image rights themselves.

  • Small business restructure: Is it “genuine”?

    shopping_cart Add to cart 01 Apr 2017

    The small business restructure roll-over came into effect on 1 July 2016, allowing small businesses to restructure their affairs without incurring an income tax liability. Despite its usefulness to small businesses, caution must be taken in electing to apply this roll-over, as the anti-avoidance provisions continue to apply. 

    This article considers the meaning of “genuine restructure” in the provisions and attempts to predict the court’s interpretation of the genuine restructure requirement. In doing so, the application of the roll-over and eligibility requirements will be outlined. Both sides of the “interpretative debate” will then be analysed and considered against the principles of statutory interpretation adopted by the High Court since the 1970s and 1980s. This analysis suggests that if the genuine restructure requirement is litigated, it will be interpreted to exclude a change of structure solely entered into to eliminate or defer tax liability. That is, the roll-over will be read together with the anti-avoidance policy underlying the income tax Acts.

Search All Articles
Keywords
Eg. TD 2005/D52 ALL words EXACT phrase WITHOUT words Journals Date range
From
To