eWombat Search 
spacer spacer spacer
Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
Our website is really our digital office.
‘Substantiation will be a key focus’: ATO drums in tax time 2018 hit list
Super changes: $1.6 million transfer balance cap and death benefit pensions
Payroll, compliance issues top dodgy practices in Aussie business
Employee travel expense deductions
The Goldilocks effect - Economic and market update 4Q 17
Tax assessments confirmed for undisclosed business income
Super returns on the up despite clients’ hesitation
Australia. All you need to know to be the expert.
Business confidence hits 5-month high: NAB
Caution advised on best interests duty with cryptocurrencies
$20,000 asset write-off renewed for another financial year.
SMSF compliance traps with bitcoin
Where Australia is at. Our leading indicators.
Foreign resident CGT withholding: early recognition of tax credit
ATO set to doorknock as 60% of cash-heavy businesses caught
New downsizing cap available
Capital Gains and Renounceable Rights
Treasury finds Australia 'increasingly uncompetitive' as US moves on tax plans
Australia's vital statistics
Our Advent calendar for 2017
Articles archive
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Taxpayer failed to prove that payments were “loans”

In a recent case, the Full Federal Court has found that several taxpayer companies had not discharged the onus of proving that assessments the Commissioner of Taxation issued to them were excessive. 



The amended assessments added income of some $4 million that the Australian companies received from overseas sources, which taxpayers had claimed were loans.

In agreeing with the Commissioner, the Court majority held that it would not be appropriate to find that the taxpayers had provided the required proof that the payments were genuine loans; in fact, they had made inconsistent or “alternative” arguments about the nature of the payments.

This case again demonstrates – good evidence gives the taxpayer a chance (of winning a tax debate).