PCG 2021/5: Imported hybrid mismatch rule - ATO's compliance approach
Document type: Final PCG
Status: Current
Date of issue: 16 December 2021

1. This Guideline contains practical guidance as to the ATO's assessment of the relative levels of tax compliance risk associated with hybrid mismatches addressed by Subdivision 832-H of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. [1] This Guideline does not deal with the core hybrid mismatch rules in Subdivisions 832-C to 832-G, which must be considered prior to the application of Subdivision 832-H. [2] 2. This Guideline sets out the expectations regarding the Commissioner's assessment of risk in connection with the imported hybrid mismatch rules, including the Commissioner's approach to reviewing whether a taxpayer has undertaken reasonable enquiries in relation to the rules for non-structured arrangements. [3] This includes the level of supporting information the Commissioner requires in order to demonstrate compliance in connection with non-structured arrangements and will also assist you to prepare for any compliance reviews. This Guideline also explains what it means for a payment to be made directly and indirectly to an offshore deducting entity. 3. This Guideline does not limit the operation of the law, and it does not replace, alter or affect our interpretation of the law in any way. It does not relieve you of your legal obligation to comply with all relevant tax laws.



Intro: 25. The ATO's compliance approach will be based on reviewing the extent to which taxpayers have obtained information to establish that the imported hybrid mismatch rule does not apply to their circumstances, or that they have correctly 'neutralised' any imported hybrid mismatch in respect of non-structured arrangements. The relevant information includes the adequate and complete responses to written enquiries to suitably qualified and responsible individuals or representatives, in accordance with this Guideline. | The ATO's approach to shortfall penalties for non-structured arrangements: 26. The Commissioner will consider that a taxpayer has taken reasonable care to comply with their income tax obligations relating to the imported hybrid mismatch rule for non-structured arrangements when the taxpayer follows the ATO's recommended approach to making enquires (including obtaining responses to the requested information and the taxpayer has no reasonable basis to consider that the information obtained is not adequate and complete). 27. In all other circumstances, the Commissioner will assess the circumstances that resulted in tax shortfall on a case-by-case basis based on the taxpayer's individual circumstances. [16] A taxpayer should not just assume that responses to requested information are adequate and complete. For example, if at the time the statement was made to the Commissioner there is information known, or that should have been known, by the taxpayer or their agent, and the failure to consider that information results in a tax shortfall, the Commissioner considers that a taxpayer will generally not be able to demonstrate they took reasonable care. Similarly, if a member of a taxpayer's Division 832 control group has deliberately withheld information from the taxpayer or deliberately provided the taxpayer with false or misleading information, the taxpayer will need to demonstrate that they had no reasonable way of knowing that the relevant information was withheld or was false or misleading (as relevant). 28. In addition, the Commissioner considers that a taxpayer will generally not be able to demonstrate they took reasonable care if: 29. A taxpayer that the Commissioner treats as having taken reasonable care in respect of the imported hybrid mismatch rule could still be liable to a: The ATO's recommended approach to demonstrating that reasonable enquiries have been undertaken for non-structured arrangements 30. The ATO's recommended approach to undertaking enquiries for non-structured arrangements involves the taxpayer making and documenting formal requests for information and the adequate and complete responses. Taxpayers need to make requests to the responsible individuals or suitably qualified representatives responsible for the relevant Division 832 control group. [18] 31. This could be achieved by reviewing the: 32. For taxpayers to be considered to have followed the ATO's recommended approach, they are not required to follow the steps in the order specified in the methods in paragraphs 39 and 41 of this Guideline, as long as the outcome of the enquiries provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the imported hybrid mismatch rule. 33. The Appendix to this Guideline sets out the information the Commissioner considers may be relevant to demonstrating compliance with the imported hybrid mismatch rule. It is intended as a general guide for your enquiries and is not an exhaustive list. 34. The information listed in the Appendix to this Guideline may be requested when we are assessing risk during engagement or assurance activity.

Example 1: payments made indirectly via an interposed entity 16. Aus Co, B Co and C Co are members of a Division 832 control group. 17. On 30 June 2010, C Co granted B Co a license for the use of C Co's intellectual property. In carrying out its business, Aus Co does not use any of C Co's intellectual property. 18. On 31 May 2019, B Co borrows money from external bank lenders. On the same day, B Co on lends the money to Aus Co on back-to-back terms for the purpose of financing the construction of a manufacturing plant. 19. During the 2022 income year: 20. In this case, it would be identified for the purpose of section 832-625 that Aus Co will have made a payment indirectly to C Co. Taxpayer's obligation in respect of the imported hybrid mismatch rule for non-structured arrangements 21. Where a taxpayer seeks a deduction for a cross-border payment made to a member of its Division 832 control group [14] they need to consider the imported hybrid mismatch rule in Subdivision 832-H. For a taxpayer to be satisfied that they are entitled to deductions for cross-border payments that they make to members of its Division 832 control group, the taxpayer must determine whether any of their cross-border payments result in an offshore hybrid mismatch being directly or indirectly imported into Australia. 22. In relation to non-structured arrangements, the Commissioner expects that the taxpayer would document their enquiries and obtain the information prior to lodgment of the income tax return. This documentation would therefore be capable of being provided to the Commissioner within a reasonable time of a request being made. 23. The Commissioner also expects that the members of the taxpayer's Division 832 control group will provide the taxpayer with full and complete disclosure of all relevant information. [15] The Division 832 control group should have robust processes in place to identify any relevant hybrid mismatch outcomes and inform the taxpayer accordingly. 24. A taxpayer should not claim a deduction for a payment unless they are able to obtain sufficient information to support a conclusion that the deduction in respect of the payment is not disallowed under Subdivision 832-H. Where the taxpayer later obtains further information that confirms entitlement to a deduction for that payment, they can lodge an amendment request to claim the deduction. The ATO's compliance approach for non-structured arrangements 25. The ATO's compliance approach will be based on reviewing the extent to which taxpayers have obtained information to establish that the imported hybrid mismatch rule does not apply to their circumstances, or that they have correctly 'neutralised' any imported hybrid mismatch in respect of non-structured arrangements. The relevant information includes the adequate and complete responses to written enquiries to suitably qualified and responsible individuals or representatives, in accordance with this Guideline. The ATO's approach to shortfall penalties for non-structured arrangements 26. The Commissioner will consider that a taxpayer has taken reasonable care to comply with their income tax obligations relating to the imported hybrid mismatch rule for non-structured arrangements when the taxpayer follows the ATO's recommended approach to making enquires (including obtaining responses to the requested information and the taxpayer has no reasonable basis to consider that the information obtained is not adequate and complete). 27. In all other circumstances, the Commissioner will assess the circumstances that resulted in tax shortfall on a case-by-case basis based on the taxpayer's individual circumstances. [16] A taxpayer should not just assume that responses to requested information are adequate and complete. For example, if at the time the statement was made to the Commissioner there is information known, or that should have been known, by the taxpayer or their agent, and the failure to consider that information results in a tax shortfall, the Commissioner considers that a taxpayer will generally not be able to demonstrate they took reasonable care. Similarly, if a member of a taxpayer's Division 832 control group has deliberately withheld information from the taxpayer or deliberately provided the taxpayer with false or misleading information, the taxpayer will need to demonstrate that they had no reasonable way of knowing that the relevant information was withheld or was false or misleading (as relevant). 28. In addition, the Commissioner considers that a taxpayer will generally not be able to demonstrate they took reasonable care if: 29. A taxpayer that the Commissioner treats as having taken reasonable care in respect of the imported hybrid mismatch rule could still be liable to a: The ATO's recommended approach to demonstrating that reasonable enquiries have been undertaken for non-structured arrangements 30. The ATO's recommended approach to undertaking enquiries for non-structured arrangements involves the taxpayer making and documenting formal requests for information and the adequate and complete responses. Taxpayers need to make requests to the responsible individuals or suitably qualified representatives responsible for the relevant Division 832 control group. [18] 31. This could be achieved by reviewing the: 32. For taxpayers to be considered to have followed the ATO's recommended approach, they are not required to follow the steps in the order specified in the methods in paragraphs 39 and 41 of this Guideline, as long as the outcome of the enquiries provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the imported hybrid mismatch rule. 33. The Appendix to this Guideline sets out the information the Commissioner considers may be relevant to demonstrating compliance with the imported hybrid mismatch rule. It is intended as a general guide for your enquiries and is not an exhaustive list. 34. The information listed in the Appendix to this Guideline may be requested when we are assessing risk during engagement or assurance activity. | Example 2: followed the ATO approach 35. Aus Co is a subsidiary of US Inc. The tax manager of Aus Co requests the head of tax for US Inc to provide the information described in Category 1 in the Appendix to this Guideline. 36. Based on the information provided, the tax manager identifies: 37. The tax manager concludes that to the extent that payments made by Foreign Co may result in a deduction/deduction mismatch, the neutralising amount for any offshore hybrid mismatch will be nil. As a consequence, the tax manager concludes that payments made by Aus Co to Foreign Co (either directly or indirectly) cannot be importing payments. The ATO's recommended approach for non-structured arrangements - top-down Suitably qualified or responsible individuals 38. The appropriately qualified responsible individuals or suitably qualified representatives within the relevant Division 832 control group (the Group) must include the person primarily responsible for the Group's tax obligations, such as the Head of Tax for the Group, and may also include other appropriate qualified responsible individuals or suitably qualified representatives [19] ; for example: Method 39. For a taxpayer to be considered to have followed the ATO's recommended approach for making enquiries for the purposes of this Guideline, the person responsible for preparing the taxpayer's Australian income tax return should undertake the following steps [20] : The ATO's recommended approach for non-structured arrangements - bottom-up Suitably qualified or responsible individuals 40. The appropriately qualified responsible individuals or suitably qualified representatives within the relevant Division 832 control group may include the persons responsible for the taxation obligations for the applicable jurisdictions where the cross-border transactions have been paid and received (that is, country or regional tax manager or suitably qualified advisors within the Division 832 control group). Method 41. For a taxpayer to be considered to have followed the ATO's recommended approach for making enquiries for the purposes of this Guideline, the person responsible for preparing the taxpayer's Australian income tax return should undertake the following steps [25] : Foreign importing payments for non-structured arrangements 42. Where the amount of the imported hybrid mismatch is reduced as the result of the application of foreign hybrid mismatch rules in another jurisdiction (in either the current or prior income years) [31] , the taxpayer should request that the person responsible for taxation obligations in the applicable jurisdictions provide in writing: Reliance on analysis undertaken in a foreign jurisdiction for non-structured arrangements 43. Other members of a Division 832 control group may have undertaken analysis based on the OECD principles or a foreign jurisdiction's equivalent of the imported hybrid mismatch rule. However, given each country's implementation of the rules and their statutory positions, the outcome of that analysis may not necessarily be consistent with the application of Subdivision 832-H. 44. The person responsible for preparing the Australian income tax return should review the analysis undertaken (including all working papers) to determine whether Subdivision 832-H results in a different outcome. It is not sufficient to only rely on the analysis performed for the other jurisdiction. The taxpayer must ensure that its obligations under Subdivision 832-H are met. | Example 3: analysis of a corresponding foreign hybrid mismatch rules 45. Head Co is resident in a country with corresponding foreign hybrid mismatch rules. 46. Head Co has three subsidiaries - Aus Co, B Co and C Co. 47. Head Co and Aus Co both make a payment to B Co. 48. B Co makes a payment to C Co. 49. Head Co reviews the payment it makes to B Co under its imported hybrid mismatch rule and concludes that the payment it made to B Co does not result in an imported hybrid mismatch. 50. The review undertaken by Head Co is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the payment made by Aus Co to B Co does not result in an imported hybrid mismatch under Division 832. Aus Co must consider if there are any differences between Division 832 and the corresponding foreign hybrid mismatch rule that may result in a different outcome. The risk assessment framework 51. The ATO's compliance approach varies with the risk rating of your international related-party dealings. The following principles will assist you to understand how we assess risk in relation to your related-party arrangements and generally allow you to self-assess your compliance risk. 52. If you are outside the low risk zone, we do not presume that your related-party arrangements fail to comply with the Australian tax law. However, where a taxpayer is outside a low risk zone, we consider that there is a greater risk that your related-party arrangements will give rise to inappropriate tax outcomes. In these cases, we are more likely to conduct some form of engagement and assurance activity to further test the taxation outcomes of your arrangements. 53. The ATO's imported hybrid mismatch rule risk framework is made up of seven risk zones, including two different red zones: Reporting your self-assessment 54. If you are required to complete a Reportable Tax Position (RTP) schedule, you may be asked to disclose: 55. If you have undertaken the self-assessment of your risk zone and you satisfy the requirement for more than one risk zone, for the purposes of completing the RTP you would disclose the risk zone with the highest risk level. Voluntary disclosure 56. We encourage willing and cooperative compliance and recognise that the publication of this Guideline may prompt you to review your arrangements for prior income years. 57. For the period of 18 months from the date of publication of this Guideline, we will consider reducing shortfall penalties and shortfall interest charge to the base rate if certain pre-conditions are met. The conditions are that you make a voluntary disclosure in relation to all income years where your arrangements are in place. If you do so, we will view this as a strong factor in favour of exercising the Commissioner's discretion to remit. [34] 58. You can inform us of your intentions to make a voluntary disclosure in respect of your arrangements at any time before you are notified of the commencement of an audit. [35] Evidencing your self-assessment 59. We may, in the course of our ordinary engagement and assurance activities, or any specific assurance activity relating to this Guideline, fact-check your self-assessment of your risk zone. If you are unable to provide adequate evidence to support your assessment or the ATO disagrees with your assessment, we may undertake further engagement and assurance activity. What you can expect given your risk zone 60. You can expect the following treatment depending on your risk zone. Cases might proceed directly to audit. We are likely to use formal powers for information gathering. The risk zones Definitions 61. In this section: Importing payments made under a structured arrangement 62. If you have either: proceed to paragraph 63 of this Guideline. Otherwise, you will be in red zone 1. Reasonable enquiries for payments made to members of your Division 832 control group for non-structured arrangements White zone 63. You are in the white zone if you are in any of the following categories: Green zone 64. You are in the green zone if you are in any of the following categories: Blue zone 65. You are in the blue zone if you are in any of the following categories: Yellow zone 66. You are in the yellow zone if all of the following apply: Amber zone 67. You are in the amber zone if both of the following apply: Red zone 1 68. You are in red zone 1 if you are in any of the following categories: Red zone 2 69. You will be in red zone 2 if you have made a deductible payment to a member of your Division 832 control group, you have claimed the deduction and you do not fit into any of the other risk zones. This includes where you have sought information from your Division 832 control group and have received insufficient information to determine the application of the imported hybrid mismatch rule to your circumstances.

Appendix 1: Information guide 70. This Appendix sets out the categories of information the Commissioner considers may be relevant to demonstrating compliance with the imported hybrid mismatch rule at Steps 1, 3 and 4 of the top-down approach (described at paragraph 38 of this Guideline) applicable to non-structured arrangements. The information in Category 1 and Category 3 of this Appendix may also be relevant for applying the bottom-up approach (described at paragraph 40 of this Guideline) applicable to non-structured arrangements. It is intended as a general guide for your enquiries and is not an exhaustive list. 71. The information listed in this Appendix may be requested when we are assessing risk during engagement or assurance activity. Category 1 - obtain the core information from the Head of Tax 72. The person responsible for preparing the Australian income tax return should request the person primarily responsible for the Group's tax obligations to provide the information necessary to identify any payments made by members of the Division 832 control group that result in a deduction/non-inclusion mismatch or deduction/deduction mismatch. 73. The information requested should include: Category 2 - obtain further information from the Head of Tax if required 74. If there are any offshore hybrid mismatches that are identified under Category 1 of this Appendix that are hybrid payer mismatches or deducting hybrid mismatches, the person responsible for preparing the Australian income tax return should request that the person primarily responsible for the Group's tax obligations provide further information necessary to quantify the amount of offshore hybrid mismatch. 75. The information requested should include Category 3 - identify any interposing payments and quantify the imported mismatch 76. If there are any offshore hybrid mismatches and the amount of offshore hybrid mismatches exceeds the dual inclusion income that is eligible to be applied against that mismatch, the person responsible for preparing the Australian income tax return must request the person primarily responsible for the Group's tax obligations to provide further information necessary to determine if there is an importing payment. 77. The information requested should include: © AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute this material as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products). Paragraph 832-625(3)(a) clarifies that: We are concerned about views being taken that a payment is not made indirectly through one or more interposed entities despite payments existing between the entities involved in the relevant sense. For example, if a taxpayer is preparing an Australian income tax return for the year ended 30 June 2022, it is necessary to consider foreign income tax deductions in a foreign tax period that ended anytime between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022. Previously issued in draft format as PCG 2021/D3


What this Guideline is about | Overview of the imported hybrid mismatch rule | Importing payments made under structured arrangements to which the taxpayer is a party | Payments made directly or indirectly to an offshore deducting entity | Example 2 - followed ATO approach | Reliance on analysis undertaken in foreign jurisdiction for non-structured arrangements | Appendix - Information guide | This Practical Compliance Guideline sets out a practical administration approach to assist taxpayers in complying with relevant tax laws. Provided you follow this Guideline in good faith, the Commissioner will administer the law in accordance with this approach. | Date of effect: 4. This Guideline applies both before and after its date of issue. [4] | 5. This Guideline will be under continuous review for two years from its date of issue. | Overview of the imported hybrid mismatch rule: 6. Subdivision 832-H was enacted to implement recommendation 8 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Action 2 Final Report and recommendation 5 of the OECD Branch Mismatch Arrangements Report. [5] As stated in the OECD's Action 2 Final Report, the policy behind the imported hybrid mismatch rule is to prevent taxpayers from entering into structured arrangements or other arrangements with group members that shift the effect of an offshore hybrid mismatch into the domestic jurisdiction through the use of a non-hybrid instruments such as an ordinary loan. [6] | 7. The imported hybrid mismatch rule operates to disallow deductions for a range of payments (including interest, royalties, rents, payments for the purchase of goods and payments for services) if the income from such payments is set-off, directly or indirectly, against a deduction that arises under a hybrid mismatch arrangement in an offshore jurisdiction. [7] | 8. The key objective of the imported hybrid mismatch rule is to maintain the integrity of the other hybrid mismatch rules by removing any incentive for multinational groups to enter into hybrid mismatch arrangements. [8] | 9. Where the rules may have application to a taxpayer's arrangements, it will create compliance obligations for taxpayers and their controllers as they are required to obtain sufficient information to identify and assess the expected tax treatment of instruments or entities in a foreign counterparty jurisdiction. However, the measure is limited to arrangements involving members of the taxpayer's Division 832 control group or payments made under a structured arrangement to which the taxpayer is a party. | 10. Taxpayers, and their Division 832 control groups, may look to mitigate the cost of compliance by endeavouring to eliminate hybrid mismatch arrangements, including offshore hybrid arrangements, to which Division 832 could apply. Refer to Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2018/7 Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and restructures of hybrid mismatch arrangements for the Commissioner's compliance approach to the application of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and certain restructures of hybrid mismatch arrangements. [9] | Importing payments made under a structured arrangement to which the taxpayer is a party: 11. For a payment to give rise to a hybrid mismatch under a structured arrangement, the hybrid mismatch must be priced into the terms of the scheme under which the payment is made or it is reasonable to conclude that the hybrid mismatch is a design feature of a scheme under which the payment is made. [10] | 12. If a taxpayer makes an importing payment under a structured arrangement covered under table item 1 of subsection 832-615(2) [11] , that taxpayer will be a party to the structured arrangement. It is therefore considered that the taxpayer will have all relevant information necessary (or will be able to obtain that relevant information from the other parties to that structured arrangement) [12] to apply the imported hybrid mismatch rule, and to correctly disallow deductions under section 832-610. | 13. Where members of the taxpayer's Division 832 control group are also party to the structured arrangement and the taxpayer does not already possess all the relevant information to apply Subdivision 832-H, the relevant members of the taxpayer's Division 832 control group are expected to provide the taxpayer with any information necessary to calculate the amounts of the importing payments and importing deductions. This is included in the evidence the taxpayer would be expected to have to demonstrate that the offshore hybrid mismatch under the structured arrangements has been neutralised (refer to the Appendix to this Guideline). | Payments made directly or indirectly to an offshore deducting entity: 14. For the purpose of identifying importing payments and calculating the amount of any importing deduction, a payment will have been made directly to an offshore deducting entity if the taxpayer has made any deductible payments to the offshore deducting entity. Similarly, a payment will have been made indirectly to an offshore deducting entity if the taxpayer makes a deductible payment to a member of its Division 832 control group and payments have been made by each interposed entity to an offshore deducting entity or to another interposed entity. | 15. In determining whether there are any payments that have been made directly or indirectly to the offshore deducting entity, it is sufficient that payments exist between each interposed entity, and it is not necessary to demonstrate that each payment in a series of payments funds the next payment, or is made after the previous payment. [13] | Step 1 - obtain the core information from the Head of Tax | Request that the person primarily responsible for the Group's tax obligations provide information necessary to identify and advise of any payments by members of the Division 832 control group result in a deduction/non-inclusion [21] or deduction/deduction [22] outcome. | Step 2 - filter information by local tax manager | Step 3 - quantify the offshore hybrid mismatch | Obtain further information necessary to determine if the mismatch outcomes identified at Step 1 of this paragraph (and not excluded at Step 2 of this paragraph) result in there being an amount of a hybrid mismatch that is not fully offset by dual inclusion income [23] in the relevant foreign countries. | Step 1 - identify all potential importing payments | Identify all payments or provision of non-cash benefits [26] made to non-resident members of the taxpayer's Division 832 control group (the direct tested entity) that would otherwise result in a deduction in the current income year and do not give rise to a hybrid mismatch that is addressed by Subdivisions 832-C to 832-G. | Step 4 - identify and follow payments | Repeat Steps 2 and 3 of this paragraph for each indirect tested entity identified at Step 3 of this paragraph that are not resident in a jurisdiction with foreign hybrid mismatch rules until you identify any payments that have been made to a foreign entity where those payments resulted in a foreign income tax deduction that is the deduction component of an offshore hybrid mismatch (in which case, payments from the taxpayer are likely to be indirectly funding the offshore hybrid mismatch), or until you have reviewed all relevant payments made by all indirect tested entities and you can demonstrate that none of those payments results in an offshore hybrid mismatch. | Self-assessment of risk rating not necessary | No review other than to confirm ongoing consistency with the agreed/determined approach. | No review other than to confirm you have satisfied the necessary criteria to fall within the low risk zone. | Limited review to confirm that your arrangements are low to moderate risk. | We may apply compliance resources to review your compliance methodologies and outcomes. | We are likely to apply compliance resources to review your compliance methodologies and outcomes and resolve any areas of difference. | A continuous presence in this zone (that is, two or more years), is likely to result in the commencement of reviews of your compliance methodologies and outcomes as a matter of priority. | Commissioner of Taxation 16 December 2021 | ' it is sufficient if payments exist between each interposed entity, and it is not necessary to demonstrate that each payment in a series of payments funds the next payment, or is made after the previous payment ...' | Related Rulings/Determinations: MT 2008/1 MT 2008/2 LCR 2019/3

Related rulings and determinations: LCR 2019/3 | MT 2008/1 | MT 2008/2 | PS LA 2006/8 | PS LA 2008/3 | PS LA 2011/30 | PS LA 2012/4 | PS LA 2012/5
Legislative references: ITAA 1997 Div 832 ITAA 1997 SubDiv 832-C ITAA 1997 SubDiv 832-D ITAA 1997 SubDiv 832-E ITAA 1997 SubDiv 832-F ITAA 1997 SubDiv 832-G ITAA 1997 SubDiv 832-H ITAA 1997 832-15 ITAA 1997 832-105 ITAA 1997 832-110 ITAA 1997 832-205 ITAA 1997 832-210(1) ITAA 1997 832-210(3) ITAA 1997 832-610 ITAA 1997 832-615(2) ITAA 1997 832-620 ITAA 1997 832-620(2) ITAA 1997 832-625 ITAA 1997 832-625(1)(b) ITAA 1997 832-625(1)(a)(ii) ITAA 1997 832-625(3) ITAA 1997 832-625(3)(a) ITAA 1997 832-625(3)(b) ITAA 1997 832-625(4) ITAA 1997 832-630 ITAA 1997 832-635 ITAA 1997 832-680
Other references: PCG 2018/7 PCG 2019/6 PS LA 2006/8 PS LA 2008/3 PS LA 2011/30 PS LA 2012/4 PS LA 2012/5 OECD, Action 2 Final Report (2015) Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018