Bill
Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013
passed, as at 2013-06-29. Treasury portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Treasury
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2013-02-13
- second reading — 2013-02-13
- second reading — 2013-03-14
- second reading — 2013-05-16
- second reading — 2013-05-16
- third reading — 2013-05-16
- introduced — 2013-05-16
- second reading — 2013-05-16
- second reading — 2013-06-25
- second reading — 2013-06-25
- third reading — 2013-06-25
- passed — 2013-06-25
- royal assent — 2013-06-29
Divisions
- David Bradbury Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of those members who have contributed to this debate. The Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013 amends the income tax law to protect the integrity of Australia's income tax system and to secure a fair, competitive and sustainable tax base for the future of the nation. These reforms come forward at a time of unprecedented global recognition that base erosion and profit shifting must be addressed. The G20 finance ministers and central bank governors have acknowledged the importance of addressing base erosion and are working on a comprehensive plan to address base erosion and profit shifting. Similarly, this government is committed to taking steps where necessary to ensure the integrity and the sustainability of the tax system. These amendments demonstrate that commitment. Schedule 1 amends part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Part IVA is the income tax law's general anti-avoidance rule. Its proper operation is vital to protect the integrity of the income tax law, which is still overwhelmingly the single largest source of Commonwealth revenue. The principal role of part IVA is to counter arrangements that, when objectively viewed, are carried out with the sole or dominant purpose of securing a tax advantage. Broadly speaking, part IVA does this by exposing the substance or reality of the arrangements to the ordinary operation of the tax law. The proper role for the tax benefit test is to compare the tax consequences of what the taxpayer actually did with the tax consequences of a reasonable alternative that achieves substantively the same thing. It makes little sense in an anti-avoidance provision to allow the tax consequences of what the taxpayer has achieved to act as a shield against the operation of part IVA. In particular, taxpayers should not be able to avoid the normal tax consequences of what they have actually done by arguing — 2013-05-16, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 73, noes 70
- Mathias Cormann Here we are. We have 20 minutes to deal with a piece of tax legislation that has massive implications for our economy, that has massive implications for our attractiveness as a destination for investment, that has not properly been thought through, that has massive potential for unintended consequences and that has not gone through proper processes. And here we are: we have a long list of coalition senators who are here ready to make a meaningful contribution, led by the coalition chair of the Senate references committee, Senator David Bushby, who was part of an inquiry into this particular bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013. But we will not have the opportunity to do proper justice to actually airing all the arguments against this bill so that, in particular, Greens senators might be persuaded of the merits of the very sound arguments that will be put forward by the coalition in this very short debate. Let me just say up-front that the coalition will be opposing this bill, and we will be opposing it strongly, because we think it is not in our national interest. It is a bill that is undermining our national interest. The coalition will always support well-considered, carefully drafted and appropriately targeted amendments to strengthen anti-tax-avoidance measures and counter multinational profit shifting. But we do not support Labor Party knee-jerk overreactions in the face of yet another desperate attempt to raid more cash to feed its spending addiction, which has been well demonstrated in recent years. In fact, the coalition in government has a long and proud record of improving and upholding the integrity of our business tax system and international taxation arrangements. However, we are very concerned that the amendments in this bill are in fact an overreaction. They go too far and should be subjected to more consultation and proper road-testing to avoid unintended consequences. Alo — 2013-06-25, Senate: affirmative, ayes 36, noes 30
- The majority voted in favour of passing the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r4965). In parliamentary jargon, they voted to [give the bill a third reading](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). Learn more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd091). — 2013-06-25, Senate: affirmative, ayes 36, noes 30
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
frl act