<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Taxabull &#187; tax controversy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxabull.com/tag/tax-controversy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxabull.com</link>
	<description>Australian Tax &#38; Accounting news. No BS.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:08:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>ATO vs Symone Anstis case dispute continues..!!</title>
		<link>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/12/21/ato-vs-symone-anstis-round4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/12/21/ato-vs-symone-anstis-round4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>taxabull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax - Individuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax - Tax Deductions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Cases & Judgements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symone Anstis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax controversy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youth allowance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxabull.com/?p=394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/ / CC BY 2.0

 
This is our continued coverage of this tax case regarding the deductibility of self-education expenses against Youth Allowance income&#8230;&#8230;
The full Federal Court found in favour of Symone Anstis on 4 November 2009.
However, the ATO has once again lodged an application on 2 December 2009 for special leave to appeal against this decision to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_410" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 510px"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/3355278756/"><img class="size-full wp-image-410" title="Worshipful Master's Gavel" src="http://www.taxabull.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gavel.jpg" alt="Justice will be served..!!" width="500" height="375" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Justice will be served..!!</p></div>
<div><a rel="cc:attributionURL" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/</a> / <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC BY 2.0</a></div>
<p>
 </p>
<p>This is our continued coverage of this tax case regarding the deductibility of self-education expenses against Youth Allowance income&#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>The full Federal Court found in favour of Symone Anstis on 4 November 2009.</p>
<p>However, the ATO has once again lodged an application on 2 December 2009 for special leave to appeal against this decision to the High Court.</p>
<p>This should be final rung in the ongoing dispute, so until then, the ATO&#8217;s existing non-deductible view stands.</p>
<p>Keep those tax receipts though as we think that Symone has a very strong case to argue.</p>
<p><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">TIMELINE OF EVENTS (UPDATED)</span> </p>
<div>17/11/2006  ATO issues an amended tax assessment to Symone</div>
<div>27/11/2006  Symone objects to amendment</div>
<div>05/12/2006  ATO disallows Symone’s objection</div>
<div>12/12/2006  Symone goes to Tribunal to dispute ATO decision</div>
<div>18/04/2007  Tribunal rules in favour of ATO</div>
<div>21/07/2008  Symone appeals to the Federal Court</div>
<div>01/04/2009  The Federal Court rules in favour of Symone</div>
<div>29/05/2009  The ATO appeals against the Federal Court decision</div>
<div>04/11/2009   The full Federal Court dismisses the ATO’s appeal</div>
<div>02/12/2009   The ATO appeals the decision to the High Court</div>
<p> </p>
<div><strong>COURT JUDGEMENTS</strong></div>
<div><a href="http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?rank=find&amp;criteria=AND~anstis~basic~exact&amp;target=CA&amp;style=java&amp;sdocid=JUD/*2007*AATA1238/00001&amp;recStart=1&amp;PiT=99991231235958&amp;recnum=3&amp;tot=6&amp;pn=ALL:::ALL" target="_blank">Symone Anstis and Commissioner of Taxation</a> – AAT (18 April 2007)</div>
<div><a href="http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?rank=find&amp;criteria=AND~anstis~basic~exact&amp;target=CC&amp;style=java&amp;sdocid=JUD/2009ATC20-098/00001&amp;recStart=1&amp;PiT=99991231235958&amp;recnum=4&amp;tot=6&amp;pn=ALL:::ALL" target="_blank">Anstis v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</a> – Federal Court (1 April 2009)</div>
<div><a href="http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?rank=find&amp;criteria=AND~anstis~basic~exact&amp;target=CC&amp;style=java&amp;sdocid=JUD/2009ATC20-142/00001&amp;recStart=1&amp;PiT=99991231235958&amp;recnum=5&amp;tot=6&amp;pn=ALL:::ALL" target="_blank">FC of T v Anstis</a> – Full Federal Court (4 November 2009)</div>
<p> </p>
<div>Fingers crossed&#8230;!</div>
<div>Taxabull Team</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/12/21/ato-vs-symone-anstis-round4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ATO to target private equity and ASX 100</title>
		<link>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/03/25/ato-to-target-private-equity-and-asx-100/</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/03/25/ato-to-target-private-equity-and-asx-100/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>taxabull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax Rumours]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ASX 100]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ATO Hitlist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax controversy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxabull.com/?p=27</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of our sources has told us that it appears that the ATO may be trying to increase its revenue by increasing the number of risk reviews on larger taxpayers. There&#8217;s been news in the past few months that they will target private equity transactions and ASX 100 companies.
Which makes sense given the PWC job advertisement from [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of our sources has told us that it appears that the ATO may be trying to increase its revenue by increasing the number of risk reviews on larger taxpayers. There&#8217;s been news in the past few months that they will target private equity transactions and ASX 100 companies.</p>
<div><p>Which makes sense given the PWC job advertisement from a few days ago. Hence, PWC is beefing up its tax controversy expertise. Other big 4 firms are also taking note re tax reviews.</p>
<div>
<div>From the Tax Insider</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/03/25/ato-to-target-private-equity-and-asx-100/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tax Controversy Positions</title>
		<link>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/03/25/tax-controversy-positions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/03/25/tax-controversy-positions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>taxabull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Jobs - Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PWC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seek.com.au]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax controversy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Jobs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxabull.com/?p=26</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Seek wouldn&#8217;t let us link to the job ad anymore but we thought we would bring you a copy of the PWC tax controversy position before they took it down. We have it on good authority that:
&#8220;PWC had made 2 rounds of redundancies, affecting tax area in one of them and getting rid of lower [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mwRgbsgDB_w/ScnoA5VZWeI/AAAAAAAAAAM/evWVWb-qNtI/s400/pwc+tax.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 395px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5317035937175788002" /></p>
<p>Seek wouldn&#8217;t let us link to the job ad anymore but we thought we would bring you a copy of the PWC tax controversy position before they took it down. We have it on good authority that:</p>
<p>&#8220;PWC had made 2 rounds of redundancies, affecting tax area in one of them and getting rid of lower levels, yet now they are hiring managers and senior managers from their seek ads.  A bit of a <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">tax</span></span> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">controversy</span></span> given couldn’t they have used existing staff to do the work&#8221;
<div></div>
<div>Hey Seek / PWC, we&#8217;re doing you a favour! We are generating more interest for that position. Maybe someone will take on this poisoned chalice. For the second ad see below.</div>
<div></div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mwRgbsgDB_w/ScnphT9csJI/AAAAAAAAAAc/yaVmKT6lZo8/s400/pwc+tax+2.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 317px; height: 400px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5317037593590542482" /></div>
<div></div>
<div>From the AusTax team &#8211; your tax insider. </div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxabull.com/2009/03/25/tax-controversy-positions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
