2013•Tax SpecialistRequires access

The role of foreign tax outcomes in defending cases under Pt IVA

Gareth Redenbach

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Part IVA, the general anti-avoidance provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), applies only where a taxpayer has a sole or dominant purpose of achieving a tax benefit. A tax benefit is a reduction in Australian tax liability when the scheme undertaken by the taxpayer is compared to a reasonable counterfactual. Recent case law suggests that, where taxpayers obtain both foreign and Australian tax benefits under a transaction, the foreign tax advantages may provide a defence to both the tax benefit and purpose elements of Pt IVA. This article examines in detail recent cases which show that, where a tax arbitrage transaction is undertaken, it is possible to argue successfully that the purpose requirement of Pt IVA is not satisfied due to the foreign tax consequences of the transaction, and that tax arbitrage transactions that generate foreign tax benefits for a related party may be more likely to be protected from Pt IVA than tax arbitrage transactions which do not.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Part IVA, the general anti-avoidance provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), applies only where a taxpayer has a sole or dominant purpose of achieving a tax benefit. A tax benefit is a reduction in Australian tax liability when the scheme undertaken by the taxpayer is compared to a reasonable counterfactual. Recent case law suggests that, where taxpayers obtain both foreign and Australian tax benefits under a transaction, the foreign tax advantages may provide a defence to both the tax benefit and purpose elements of Pt IVA. This article examines in detail recent cases which show that, where a tax arbitrage transaction is undertaken, it is possible to argue successfully that the purpose requirement of Pt IVA is not satisfied due to the foreign tax consequences of the transaction, and that tax arbitrage transactions that generate foreign tax benefits for a related party may be more likely to be protected from Pt IVA than tax arbitrage transactions which do not.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Part IVA, the general anti-avoidance provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), applies only where a taxpayer has a sole or dominant purpose of achieving a tax benefit. A tax benefit is a reduction in Australian tax liability when the scheme undertaken by the taxpayer is compared to a reasonable counterfactual. Recent case law suggests that, where taxpayers obtain both foreign and Australian tax benefits under a transaction, the foreign tax advantages may provide a defence to both the tax benefit and purpose elements of Pt IVA. This article examines in detail recent cases which show that, where a tax arbitrage transaction is undertaken, it is possible to argue successfully that the purpose requirement of Pt IVA is not satisfied due to the foreign tax consequences of the transaction, and that tax arbitrage transactions that generate foreign tax benefits for a related party may be more likely to be protected from Pt IVA than tax arbitrage transactions which do not.

Key concepts: Indirect tax, Tax avoidance, Tax reform, Ad valorem tax, Business, Tax credit, Value-added tax, Taxpayer

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The role of foreign tax outcomes in defending cases under Pt IVA — Research Paper | ScholarLens