Section EX 22 — Income Tax Act 2007: Non-attributing Australian CFCs
Text of the provision Official document
EX 22 Non-attributing Australian CFCs Criteria (1) A CFC is a non-attributing Australian CFC for an accounting period if— (a) at all times in the accounting period the CFC is— (i) resident in Australia; and (ii) under Australian law, subject to income tax on its income or treated as part of the head company of a consolidated group subject to income tax on its income; and (iii) treated as being resident in Australia under all agreements between the government of Australia and the governments of other countries or territories that would be a double tax agreement if between the government of New Zealand and the government of the other country or territory; and (b) the CFC's liability for income tax has not been reduced by— (i) an exemption from income tax for income derived from business activities carried on outside Australia: (ii) a special allowance, relief, or exemption with respect to offshore banking units. No attributed CFC income or loss (2) Sections CQ 2(1)(i) (When attributed CFC income arises) and DN 2(1)(i) (When attributed CFC loss arises) provide that no attributed CFC income or attributed CFC loss arises from a non-attributing Australian CFC. CFCs with interest in FIF: look-through approach (3) This section does not prevent FIF income or FIF loss arising under section EX 58 from an interest of a non-attributing Australian CFC in a FIF. Defined in this Act: accounting period , attributed CFC income , attributed CFC loss , CFC , double tax agreement , FIF , FIF income , FIF loss , income tax , non-attributing Australian CFC , resident in Australia Section EX 22: substituted (with effect on 30 June 2009), on 6 October 2009, by section 163(1) of the Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Act 2009 (2009 No 34).
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →