Category: Articles

On 17 July 2013, Perram J handed down his decision in The Hunger Project Australia v Commissioner of Taxation (‘Hunger Project Case’), which confirms, despite at least a decade of Australian Taxation Office (ATO) practice, that there is no requirement for public benevolent institutions (PBIs) to provide ‘direct’ relief. This note examines the decision and the prior understanding of the PBI concept in order to comment on the potential implications for PBIs and for government. These implications are important because the term ‘PBI’ is used in a range of Commonwealth, state and territory and local government legislation to provide tax concessions and exemptions to a particular class of not-for-profit entities.

This article critiques the cash flow tax proposed in the Australia’s Future Tax System Review (the Henry Review)(the proposed tax on financial services is covered elsewhere). The author recognises several attractions of the cash flow tax, principally the lower compliance costs associated with ‘automation’ of processes and the removal of the need to identify actual transactions. But concerns are expressed about the cash flow tax such as the risk of underreporting, the risk to Australian Double Tax Agreements by removing income tax on business and adopting a system that is not well recognised internationally.

This article compares and contrasts the Australian Henry Review with major tax reviews that took place at about the same time in the United Kingdom (the Mirrlees Review) and New Zealand (the Tax Working Group Review). It suggests that the three countries share many cultural, social, economic and political traditions and institutions, but that this shared heritage does not necessarily extend to the realms of tax reviews and the possible roads to tax reform that the countries may tread. There are some similarities in aspects of the processes of tax review that have taken place in the three countries (though rather more differences), and all three countries also share a commitment to broadly similar principles underlying the recommendations made by each of the three reviews. But the specific proposals made by each of the reviews do not share much common ground. The differences are more apparent than any similarities that may occur, an outcome (in part at least) predicated upon the very different political, economic and fiscal imperatives prevailing in each of the three countries.