TaxVine 11 Preamble — Understanding the implications of Addy

[Zoe-MarieBeesley]

This week’s TaxVine preamble is authored by David Watkins, CTA, Deloitte and Clint Harding, CTA, Arnold Bloch Leibler.

David and Clint explain the ATO’s response to the High Court’s decision in Addy v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] HCA 34.

What are your thoughts, ideas, experiences and comments when it comes to the implications of the Addy decision for taxpayers? Join the conversation here.

Regards

Zoe Beesley

Tax Policy Assistant

The Tax Institute

• This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by Zoe-MarieBeesley.
• This topic was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by RobynTax.

Report as inappropriate

[my-tax-accountant.com.au]

Thank you for the fantastic commentary in relation to the Addy HCA decision, although I am also critical of the ATO communicating in that DIS that it is a rare for a WHM to be a resident.

I am critical as I have recently had two WHM audits decided favourably to taxpayers, and that they were a residents of Australia for two income years each. These taxpayers were citizens of Chile, therefore Addy was relevant to prevent discrimination.

It appears to me that the ATO have one approach in their formal DIS communications, but when pushed with a good argument fold as their position is not supported in law. In my view, this is not proper administration of the tax system and is particularly unfair for taxpayers who do not have the financial resources to dispute.

Finally, the two taxpayers I represented only paid me $154 each for the preparation of a personal tax return and I spent about 10-12 hours to ensure that the audit was finalised favourably. My hourly rate was less than an Uber driver, and most Tax Agents would not bother.

Report as inappropriate

[Author]

Posts