Jackson McDonald publications


  • 18 March 2016

    Are you prepared for the new foreign resident CGT withholding regime?

    From 1 July 2016, if you buy Australian property from a foreign resident you may have to withhold some of the purchase price and remit it to the Australian Taxation Office as part of a new regime designed to assist in the collection of the seller’s capital gains tax (CGT) liability.

    The withholding tax rate will be 10% of the total purchase price.

    LINK 41KB

    Authors: Jim O’Donnell, Jemal Zagami

  • 16 March 2016

    Sandy v YAC – key messages for your corporation

    Last week, the Supreme Court of WA handed down its judgment in the case of Sandy v Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [No 2] [2016] WASC 75 (YAC Case). 

    The YAC Case raises a number of crucial points that all Aboriginal Corporations should be aware of.  Most importantly, the YAC Case should serve as a reminder of why corporations need to follow their Rulebook and the provisions of the CATSI Act.  

    This article features the five key messages we took from the YAC Case. 

    LINK 41KB

    Author: Adam Levin

  • 11 March 2016

    Duplicity – don’t get caught out!

    The recent WA Supreme Court of Appeal decision in City of Swan v Bayblue Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 227 is a timely reminder to local governments of the difficulties in determining whether or not a charge is tainted by duplicity and the potential consequences of getting it wrong.

    Duplicity occurs where there is a single charge which on its face or on the evidence adduced at trial gives rise to more than one offence. A charge tainted by duplicity may at best result in a costly adjournment of the trial and at worst may result in a conviction being overturned on appeal.

    The above risks are particularly acute in the prosecution of offences involving a failure to comply with a direction issued under s. 214 of the Planning Development Act 2005 or a building order issued under s. 110 of the Building Act 2011 (where these notices are directed to more than one set of works).

    LINK 41KB

    Authors: Lance Hilton-Barber, Matthew Reid

  • 11 March 2016

    It’s Not About the Height! – an overview of Nairn v Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel [2016] WASC 56

    On 25 February 2016, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Nairn v Metro-Central Joint Development Assessment Panel [2016] WASC 56.
    The decision by Justice Chaney quashed an approval by the Metro-Central Joint Development Assessment Panel for a 29 storey mixed use development on Mill Point Road, South Perth.
    The decision has caused a great deal of consternation within the property development sector and attracted a lot of press about the ramifications for other approvals of high rise developments in South Perth.
    The decision highlights the difficulties of interpreting and applying the provisions of a planning scheme which may have multiple, overlapping and, in some cases, disparate provisions applying to a particular subject site.
    However, the decision should not be construed as precluding or limiting a decision-maker’s discretion to vary development requirements (such as height and plot ratio) under a planning scheme in appropriate circumstances.

    LINK 44KB

    Authors: Lance Hilton-Barber, Matthew Reid

  • 4 February 2016

    New financial reporting requirements for retirement villages

    No doubt you have started thinking about the preparation of budgets for the next financial year.

    We remind you that the new accounting and financial reporting requirements are effective for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016. This article sets out some factors for you to keep in mind.

    LINK 42KB

    Authors: Bianca McGoldrick, Simon Moen

  • 27 January 2016

    Applying partnership assets to meet the costs of liquidators appointed to the former partners

    It is well-established that a liquidator is entitled to his or her expenses properly incurred in preserving, realising or getting in property of the company to which they are appointed.

    LINK 43KB

    Authors: Victoria Butler, Eva Lin

  • 18 January 2016

    Related Party Benefits & CATSI Act Corporations

    Corporations registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) (CATSI Act), cannot give a financial benefit to a related party without the approval of that corporation’s members.

    While this may seem like a simple principle, the relevant provisions of the CATSI Act are complex and not widely understood within the sector.

    • Who is a related party, when everyone within the community is family?
    • What is a financial benefit?
    • Are there any exceptions to the rule?

    With individuals involved in breaches personally liable for penalties of up to $220,000 and five years imprisonment, it’s critical that you understand the rules and develop procedures to ensure compliance.

    This 3 part series provides a guide to assist CATSI Act corporations to understand and manage related party benefits transactions. Parts 1 – 3 include:

    PART 1 – Breaking down the rules
    PART 2 – Exceptions and Exemptions
    PART 3 – Tips for complying with the rules

    LINK 38KB

    Author: Adam Levin

  • 17 January 2016

    Insolvency update: recovery of unreasonable director-related benefits

    When a company becomes insolvent, sections 588FA and 588FB of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) empower liquidators to investigate voidable transactions, including unfair preference and uncommercial transactions, as well as unreasonable director-related transactions.
    This update focusses on some recent judicial developments in the law surrounding recovery of unreasonable director-related transactions.  These developments may broaden the scope of potential recoveries open to insolvency practitioners under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act.

    LINK 42

    Author: Victoria Butler

  • 22 December 2015

    Update: RSRT order issued 18 December

    Further to our earlier article, over 100 interested persons presented written submissions, material and comments to the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal (RSRT) on the draft road safety remuneration order on minimum payments for contractor drivers.

    LINK 41 KB

    Author: Renae Harding

  • 18 December 2015

    Duty of Disclosure: How brokers’ knowledge and conduct affect their clients

    Kalabakas v Chubb Insurance Company of Australia [2015] VSC 705 is a timely reminder of the importance of an Insured’s duty of disclosure and the broker’s important role in avoiding a breach.

    LINK 41 KB

    Authors: Lucinda McLeod, Stefan Sudweeks, JC van der Walt