Your shopping cart is empty

Section 100A: The case that needs to run


The meaning of “ordinary family or commercial dealing” in s 100A is unclear. This article demonstrates that the reasons for decision of Hill and Sackville JJ in Prestige Motors point the way to the meaning of the phrase — it gives rise to a dominant purpose test. However, the task for taxpayers is not simple because s 100A was intended to have a broad application; to that end, the dominant purpose test will only be considered after tax avoidance has been presumed.

Author profile

Adam Craig
Adam is a specialist tax barrister. Before coming to the Bar, Adam worked at the ATO preparing rulings for large private groups and advising ATO audit teams. Adam’s work focused on questions about the application of integrity and anti-avoidance rules to complex business structures and transactions. Adam’s earlier experience includes: large multinational transfer pricing audits; instructing on the drafting of legislation (e.g., the 2012 expansion of the director penalty regime; key parts of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Act 2012); major policy projects (e.g., the review into the taxation of trusts) secondments at Treasury and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; being a tax advisor in an accounting firm, and a range of leadership and management roles. Adam has a Master of Tax from the University of Melbourne and a Bachelor of Laws from Monash University. He also has a Bachelor of Arts with first class honours from the University of Melbourne. - Current at 27 October 2020
Click here to expand/collapse more articles by Adam Craig.


Copyright Statement
click to expand/collapse