Sub-trust interest, the assumption that was not tested, and the onus problem 1. Cameron v Commissioner of Taxation[cm_simple_footnote id=”1″] decides two things: interest on a sub-trust loan was not deductible under s 8-1 because the supposed borrowing was...
Development Company Structures and Why PCG 2026/D2 Is Wrong In my view the PCG is wrong. It misreads the substantive law. It assumes facts that are not true of the arrangements it targets. It offers an alternative postulate that is not an alternative postulate. This...
Bendel May Be More Interesting Than It Appears – Clarifying Present Entitlement Bendel is one of the most anticipated tax cases of the past couple of decades. Simply put, whether UPEs trigger a Div 7A deemed dividend is a matter that is consequential to every tax...
Fischer V Nemeske: The Dissenting Judgements – Part 3 Kiefel J’s Dissent This is the final part of my three part series commenting on Fischer V Nemeske, specifically the dissenting judgements. Kiefel J considered that for the capital to be applied,...
Analysis of Fischer v Nemeske: Gageler J’s Judgement Continuing on from part one of the discussion on Fischer v Nemeske, in which the conventional view of present entitlement and the controversial majority judgement of French CJ and Bell was...
Present Entitlement and Fischer V Nemeske – Part 1 This is part 1 of my three-part series commenting on present entitlement and Fischer V Nemeske. To understand the effect of a resolution to make a beneficiary presently entitled to a sum, with a...
