Source: Taxation In Australia Journal Article
Published Date: 1 May 2012
When approaching matters involving the general anti-avoidance provisions of Pt IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, one of the key statutory questions that must be answered is whether the taxpayer has obtained a tax benefit in connection with a scheme. This involves a determination as to whether the supposed benefit would or might reasonably be expected to have accrued if the scheme had not been entered into. Over the past four years, the requirement of the “tax benefit” has received extensive judicial clarification. In examining circumstances of what “would” or “might” happen, the courts have had to delve into the realm of the hypothetical and rely on a prediction as to the outcome of certain events.
This article examines how the courts have carried out their function of resolving this key statutory question, and the continuing uncertainty in outcomes that has resulted.
The material is copyright. Apart any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research criticism or review, as permitted under the copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from The Tax Institute.
Unless expressly stated, opinions are not that of The Tax Institute, which accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within it.
The Tax Institute
(ABN 45 008 392 372 (PRV14016))
The Tax Institute is a Recognised Tax Agent Association (RTAA) under the Tax Agent Services Regulations 2009.
All materials provided on this site are protected by copyright and are owned by or licensed to TTI.
Except as expressly permitted by TTI or the copyright owner, any person or company who uses this site must not use, reproduce, redistribute, retransmit, publish or otherwise transfer, or commercially exploit, the materials or any information, software or other content, in whole or in part, which is available through this site.