Jenny Wong and Matthew McRae explore the legislative background to the recent Commissioner of Taxation v Hacon case.
The Commissioner of Taxation is required to request further information from an applicant where he or she considers it would be needed to make a private ruling, but also has the discretion to decline to make a ruling that would depend on assumptions about a future event or other matter.
So how do we distinguish a case where the Commissioner can legitimately decline to make a private ruling, from one where he or she has to ask for more information from the taxpayer?
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) recently released a Decision Impact Statement which summarised the Full Federal Court Case: Commissioner of Taxation v Hacon Pty Ltd  FCAFC 181, which dealt with precisely this issue.
In Hacon, the taxpayer (a large grazing outfit) sought a private ruling from the Commissioner about the potential application of Part IVA to a proposed restructure.
The Commissioner ultimately declined to make a ruling on the basis that they would need to make assumptions in order to do so, and compiled a non-exhaustive list of the matters that these assumptions related to in a document provided to the taxpayer.
To read more analysis of this case, please register for KPMG Tax Now.
©2021 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organisation.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
For more detail about the structure of the KPMG global organisation please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.