Published on 01 Aug 11
by "THE TAX SPECIALIST" JOURNAL ARTICLE
Each state and territory of Australia has now adopted either a general anti-avoidance provision (GAP) applicable to all taxes and duties, or a more specific GAP applicable to duty or other taxes. Unfortunately, no two jurisdictions have identical duty GAPs, though there are similarities. This makes the consideration of GAPs more complex, given that transactions commonly involve assets in several jurisdictions, therefore requiring consideration of the legislation in several jurisdictions. This, the authors argue, is inefficient, serves no purpose, and gives no benefit.
This article provides an overview of the duty GAP in each jurisdiction, identifying the similarities and (more importantly) the differences between the models adopted by each jurisdiction. The discussion draws on recent income tax and GST GAP cases to assist in understanding the operation of the state and territory GAPs, and considers the special challenges that are represented when trying to apply GAPs in a duty context.
Sue leads EY's Melbourne Tax Controversy practice. She has acted in various AAT, Federal Court, High Court and Supreme Court cases relating to various Commonwealth and state taxes, and has advised clients on a broad range of taxation issues including income tax, GST and PRRT. Sue is also an accredited mediator and has assisted clients in resolving disputes using various alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Sue is a member of the ATO Dispute Resolution Committee and is a former president of The Tax Institute.
- Current at
Ada Lam is a Senior Manager in Ernst & Young's Tax Controversy Practice. She has been involved in a wide range of tax advisory and transactional matters (including in relation to the transfer of intellectual property and other intangible assets). Ada has also conducted tax litigation at Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Federal Court level.
- Current at
15 February 2012