| Rio
Tinto Services Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (FCA)
- goods and services tax - acquisitions not for creditable purpose - input tax credit claims dismissed
|
| Ke Qin
Ren v Hong Jiang; Yi Cheng Jiang v Wan Ze Property Development (Aust) Pty Ltd
(in liq) (NSWCA) – costs – Calderbank offer – offer to consent to
dismiss abuse of process motion – indemnity costs granted
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Rio Tinto Services Ltd v
Commissioner of Taxation
[2015] FCA 94
Federal
Court of Australia
Davies
J
Taxation
- goods and services tax - applicant was representative member for Rio Tinto
Ltd GST group - applicant claimed it was entitled to input tax credits for
acquisitions made by group members in providing and maintaining residential
accommodation by way of lease for workforce - Commissioner denied input tax
credit claims on basis they fell within terms of s11-15(2)(a) A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax)
Act 1999 (Cth) because they related to making supplies that would be input
taxed - held: acquisitions fell within terms of s11-15(2)(a) - acquisitions not
made for a creditable purpose -
application dismissed.
Rio Tinto Services Ltd
|
Ke Qin
Ren v Hong Jiang; Yi Cheng Jiang v Wan Ze Property Development (Aust) Pty Ltd
(in liq)
[2015] NSWCA 22
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Barrett, Gleeson & Leeming JJA
Costs - Court allowed appeals in separate
proceedings brought by parties - Court also dismissed respondents’ notice of
motion contending that application for leave to appeal proceedings was abuse of
process - Court set aside orders against applicant and first respondents and
remitted proceedings – respondents ordered to pay active parties’ costs of
appellate proceedings with costs of proceedings at first instance to be
determined on remitter – parties sought variations of costs orders - applicants
sought indemnity costs based on Calderbank letter – respondents sought more
favourable order on basis appeals succeeded on point not run at first instance
– held: unreasonable of respondent not to accept offer to discontinue abuse of
process motion with no order for costs – applicants entitled to indemnity costs
- essential point that summary judgment should be entered was advanced at first
instance – much of time and expense incurred on appeal attributable to new
points respondents raised unsuccessfully – respondents did not raise any new
matter not already addressed – orders varied.
Ke Qin Ren
|
