The High Court dismissed the application for special leave of Resource Capital Fund IV LP and Resource Capital Fund V LP (RCF) on Friday, 13 September.
The case concerned the Australian tax treatment of profits made by RCF following a sale of shares in Talison Lithium Limited (Talison), an Australian resident company. It considered a number of tax issues commonly impacting foreign investment in Australia.
On 5 February 2018, the Federal Court handed down its decision at first instance.
The Commissioner appealed to the Full Federal Court (FFC, Besanko, Middleton, Davies, Steward and Thawley JJ), which handed down its decision on 2 April 2019. The FFC allowed the Commissioner’s appeal, and RCF sought special leave to appeal this decision to the High Court.
Keane and Gordon JJ dismissed RCF’s application with costs, and without seeking oral submissions from the Commissioner, deciding that the case was not a suitable vehicle to test the application of Division 855 and that there was no reason to doubt the decision of the FFC.
The submissions made by counsel for RCF, John de Wijn AM QC, related to the FFC’s decision regarding the:
Keane and Gordon JJ have upheld the FFC’s interpretation in this context.
Taxpayers will need to bear this relatively broad interpretation in mind when considering what constitutes a “mining, quarrying or prospecting right” in their existing and future contractual arrangements.
Again, Keane and Gordon JJ have upheld the FFC’s decision.
For more articles like this, please register to KPMG Tax Now.
© 2020 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.