Source: Taxation In Australia Journal Article
Published Date: 1 May 2017
A recent High Court case, Bywater Investments Ltd v FCT; Hua Wang Bank Berhad v FCT, has further refined the concept of corporate residency when the central management and control test is used. It is also the first time that the Australian courts have considered in detail the implications for tax residency of the shadowy activities of those located in tax havens that provide fiduciary and administration services. While the High Court's decision relates to only some $14m in tax liabilities, press reports suggest that the decision will impact favourably on related audits of entities with over $300m in tax liabilities. The case also considered possible limitations to tax information exchange agreements, particularly as they apply to arrangements entered into prior to an agreement coming into effect. This article considers these issues in turn.
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.