Commissioner of Taxation v Complete Success Solutions Pty Ltd ATF Complete Success Solutions Trust [2023] FCAFC 19

Commissioner of Taxation v Complete Success Solutions Pty Ltd ATF Complete Success Solutions Trust [2023] FCAFC 19

The Tribunal failed to properly address both the dominant purpose and principal effect tests in s 165-5(1)(c) of the GST Act, as it did not separately consider whether any entity (particularly PMMS) had a sole or dominant purpose of securing a GST benefit for CSS or consider whether the principal effect of parts of the scheme was that CSS got the GST benefit. These failures amount to errors of law, mandating remittal for reconsideration according to law. The cross-appeal was allowed upon the Commissioner's concession that material relevant to ‘dealer in precious metal’ status was not provided, resulting in a miscarriage of the Tribunal’s statutory function.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Taxation Appeal and Cross Appeal / Full Court Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed; remitted to Administrative Appeals Tribunal; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['goods and Services Tax' 'input Tax Credits' 'precious Metal' 'division 165' 'anti Avoidance' 'procedural Fairness' 'administrative Penalty']
['taxation'] ['goods and Services Tax' 'input Tax Credits' 'precious Metal' 'division 165' 'anti Avoidance' 'procedural Fairness' 'administrative Penalty']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Taxation Appeal and Cross Appeal / Full Court Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Complete Success Solutions Pty Ltd (CSS) was entitled to input tax credits for acquisitions of scrap gold during the two assessment periods' 'Whether supplies by CSS were GST-free, input taxed or taxable supplies under the GST Act' 'Whether Division 165 anti-avoidance provisions apply to enable the Commissioner to negate GST benefits' 'Assessment of penalties for recklessness or intentional disregard']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal failed to properly address both the dominant purpose and principal effect tests in s 165-5(1)(c) of the GST Act, as it did not separately consider whether any entity (particularly PMMS) had a sole or dominant purpose of securing a GST benefit for CSS or consider whether the principal effect of parts of the scheme was that CSS got the GST benefit. These failures amount to errors of law, mandating remittal for reconsideration according to law. The cross-appeal was allowed upon the Commissioner's concession that material relevant to ‘dealer in precious metal’ status was not provided, resulting in a miscarriage of the Tribunal’s statutory function.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed; remitted to Administrative Appeals Tribunal; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Commissioner have leave to amend the notice of appeal to add the question of law set out at [68] of the reasons and a corresponding ground.' 'The notice of appeal be taken as so amended.' 'Within seven days, the Commissioner file and serve an amended notice of appeal with the amendments.' 'The appeal be...