A recent High Court case, Bywater Investments Ltd v FCT; Hua Wang Bank Berhad v FCT, has further refined the concept of corporate residency when the central management and control test is used. It is also the first time that the Australian courts have considered in detail the implications for tax residency of the shadowy activities of those located in tax havens that provide “fiduciary and administration services”. While the High Court’s decision relates to only some $14m in tax liabilities, press reports suggest that the decision will impact favourably on related audits of entities with over $300m in tax liabilities. The case also considered possible limitations to tax information exchange agreements, particularly as they apply to arrangements entered into prior to an agreement coming into effect. This article considers these issues in turn.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Taxation in Australia|
|Publication status||Published - May 2017|