WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Taxation Laws
Amendment Bill (No. 11) 1999
Date Introduced: 9 December
1999
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Treasury
Commencement: Upon Royal
Assent. However, the measures contained in the Bill have different
application dates, which will be considered in the Main Provisions
section of this Digest.
Purpose
The amendments
contained in this Bill are:
-
- Measures to amend the International Tax Agreements Act
1953 to extend the scope of the alienation of real property
article in 31 of Australia s double tax agreements. These measures
are designed to overcome the shortcomings in certain double tax
agreements revealed in the full Federal Court decision in
Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings
BV(1) (Schedule 1)
- Measures to remove the tax exemptions currently available to
non-resident sportspersons (Schedule 3)
- Measures to amend the income tax law to extend the period of
time within which donations to certain funds are tax deductible
(Schedule 2), and
-
- Technical amendments to correct unintended consequences arising
from the Taxation Law Simplification Project s rewrite of the
capital gains tax provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act
1936 (the 1936 Act) (Schedule 4).
Background
As this Bill has no
central theme the background to the various measures is included in
the discussion of the main provisions.
Main
Provisions
Alienation of real property through
interposed entities (Schedule 1)
These measures will amend the International
Tax Agreements Act 1953 (the Agreements Act) to extend the
alienation of real property articles in Australia s double tax
agreements (DTAs) to overcome shortcomings revealed in certain DTAs
by the full Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation
v Lamesa Holdings BV (1997) 77 FCR 597 (the Lamesa case). The
amendments are designed to extend the scope of the alienation of
real property article to situations in which interposed entities
are used. The taxpayer in the Lamesa case used two interposed
entities to successfully argue that the alienation of real property
article was inapplicable to profits from the sale of subsidiaries
and that therefore the profits were not assessable in
Australia.
Background
Most countries assert the right to tax persons
who are resident of that country and non-resident persons who make
income from sources within that country. This system may result in
double taxation if a taxpayer makes income from a foreign source.
In this situation the country in which the taxpayer is resident may
seek to tax the taxpayer s worldwide income and the country in
which the income is sourced may seek to tax the income. Australia
has 44 DTAs with other countries to prevent the double taxation of
income and to counter tax avoidance. DTAs are bilateral agreements
negotiated between Australia and another country. A DTA modifies
each country s taxing rights to prevent double taxation. DTAs
generally have an exchange of information article to enable DTA
partners to prevent tax avoidance.
A DTA is to be read together with the domestic
law of the treaty countries and if a conflict arises, the DTA
prevails.(2) This is to ensure that a DTA achieves its
aim of allocating taxing rights between the DTA countries to
prevent double taxation. The only qualification to this rule is
that a DTA does not prevail over Australia s general anti-avoidance
provisions.(3)
DTAs generally provide that if a non-resident
business operates in Australia through a permanent establishment,
the business profits of the permanent establishment will be taxable
in Australia. The term permanent establishment is defined in each
DTA as a place of business and includes a branch of a non-resident
company. If a non-resident company operates in Australia but does
not have a permanent establishment in Australia, the business
profits are taxable in the country of residence. DTAs generally
provide, as an exclusion to the business profits article, that the
profits from the alienation of real property are taxable in the
country in which the real property is located.
The rules on treaty interpretation have been
codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which
Australia is a party. Article 31 of the Convention requires that
ordinary meaning be given to the terms of a treaty, in their
context, and in the light of the treaty s object and purpose.
The Lamesa case
The alienation of real property article in the
Australia-Netherlands DTA is limited to direct interests in real
property and does not apply to indirect interests in real property.
The full Federal Court in the Lamesa case accepted the taxpayer s
contention that the alienation of real property article does not
apply to sales of indirect interests in real property.
In this case a US business decided to acquire an
Australian mining company through interposed entities. A US limited
partnership was created and it acquired an Australian subsidiary
company. A Netherlands company, Lamesa BV (the taxpayer), was
interposed between the US partnership and the Australian company.
The Australian subsidiary (Australian Resources Limited) then
acquired another Australian subsidiary (Australian Resources Mining
Pty Ltd). Australian Resources Mining Pty Ltd then acquired all the
shares in a listed mining company, Australian Resources and Mining
Company NL, through a takeover. Australian Resources and Mining
Company NL owned a subsidiary, Arimco Mining Pty Ltd which owned
mineral exploration rights. The ownership structure was:
A Netherlands subsidiary was used to enable the
principals to use the Australia-Netherlands DTA. The taxpayer sold
the shares in Australian Resources Ltd in 1994 and 1996. The
profits assessed to Lamesa were $76,693,888 for the 1993-94 income
year and $128,022,859 for the 1995-96 income year. The issue was
whether the alienation of real property article in the
Australia-Netherlands DTA applied to the profits derived by the
taxpayer. If the article applied, Australia had the right to tax
these profits. If the article did not apply, the taxing right
rested with the Netherlands but the Netherlands never asserts its
right to tax such profits. Consequently, if the alienation of real
property article was held to be inapplicable Lamesa s profits would
be tax-free.
The Commissioner of Taxation argued that the
taxpayer was subject to tax under the alienation of real property
article of the Australia-Netherlands DTA. The Commissioner argued
that this article applies to direct and indirect interests in real
property. The Commissioner contended that the court should look
through the interposed entities and apply the alienation of real
property article to Lamesa s indirect interest in the gold mining
leases. The difficulty for the Commissioner was that the alienation
of income article expressly refers to indirect interests in real
property rather than just referring to interests in real property.
The central theme of the Commissioner s contentions was that the
Federal Court should ignore the restriction of the interests in the
real property article to direct interests. The taxpayer contended
that the alienation of real property should be literally
interpreted and that it did not apply to the taxpayer s indirect
interests in the gold mining leases.
The full Federal Court held that the alienation
of real property article does not apply to indirect interests in
real property. The court also found that it was probably the policy
of the agreement to restrict the alienation of real property
article to direct interests, because of the complexity that arises
from extending the article to several layers of companies. Their
Honours said that if the article were to apply to several layers of
companies one would have to develop a system for measuring the
indirect ownership interests. Such a measure would be complex.
Their Honours also stated that another uncertainty is whether
indirect interests would apply to wholly owned subsidiaries or
partly owned subsidiaries. In considering these issues their
Honours concluded that:
It seems to us quite consistent with rational
policy that the agreement is intended to assimilate as reality only
one tier of companies rather than numerous tiers. Separate legal
personality is a doctrine running not only through the common law
but the civil law as well. No suggestion is made to the contrary.
That is consistent with the plain and quite unambiguous language
which the agreement has employed. When legislation speaks of the
assets of one company it invariably does not intend to include
within the meaning of that expression assets belonging to another
company, whether or not in the same ownership group. In
Anglo-Australian law the proposition found early illustration in
Gramophone and Typewriter Ltd v Stanley [1908] 2 KB 89
where Cozens-Hardy MR said (at KB 95-96):
The fact that an individual by himself or his
nominees holds practically all the shares in a company may give him
the control of the company in the sense that it may enable him by
exercising his voting powers to turn out the directors and to
enforce his own views as to policy, but does not in any way
diminish the rights or powers of the directors, or make the
property or assets of the company his, as distinct from
the corporation s. Nor does it make any difference if he acquires
not practically the whole, but absolutely the whole, of the shares.
The business of the company does not thereby become his business.
(Emphasis added.)
In these circumstances the language of the
agreement should be given effect. This is not to adopt a narrow or
'illiberal' view of the agreement. It is merely to interpret the
language of the agreement in light of juridical allocation which
the agreement embodies.(4)
DTAs may only be altered with the agreement of
both countries. If shortcomings are revealed in a DTA both
countries must agree to the amendments. If a country amends its
domestic law to alter the effect of a DTA there is a risk that a
taxpayer may enforce the DTA in a court of law. The technique of
purporting to unilaterally alter a DTA is called treaty override .
The OECD made the following comments on treaty override in its 1989
Report on Tax Treaty Overrides:
The certainty that tax treaties bring to
international tax matters has, in the past few years, been called
into question, and to some extent undermined, by the tendency in
certain States for domestic legislation to be passed or proposed
which may override provisions of tax treaties. In this note, which
looks at the consequences of such action by national legislators,
the term 'treaty override' refers to a situation where the domestic
legislation of a State overrules provisions of either a single
treaty or all treaties hitherto having effect in that
State.(5)
In June 1999 the US Court of Federal Claims
overturned domestic US legislation which sought to alter the
application of the US-UK DTA.(6) The US court held in
favour of the taxpayer that the domestic legislation was
inconsistent with the DTA and that the DTA prevailed.
The conclusions of their Honours in the Lamesa
case that the alienation of real property article should be
restricted to direct interests reflects the policy of the
Australia-Netherlands DTA.
Proposed
amendments
Schedule 1 proposes an
amendment to the International Tax Agreements Act 1953
(the Agreements Act). The amendment purports to extend the scope of
the alienation of real property article to indirect interests in
all Australia s tax agreements settled before 1998. This is an
example of treaty override, as the Australian Government is
amending Australia s domestic law to overcome a perceived
shortcoming in some of Australia s DTAs. Given the recent treaty
override case in the US, there is a risk that the proposed
unilateral amendments may be challenged by a taxpayer in court.
Item 1 of Schedule
1 proposes the inclusion of section 3A in
the Agreements Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to
extend the scope of the alienation of real property article to
indirect interests in land.
The threshold requirements for the application
of the provision are:
-
- the DTA must make provision for income, profits or gains from
the alienation of shares or comparable interests in companies whose
assets are principally of real property (proposed paragraph
3A(1)(a)), and
-
- the Agreements Act gave that provision the force of law before
27 April 1998.
Each of Australia s DTAs enacted since April
1998 includes an alienation of real property article which
expressly applies to both direct and indirect interests in land.
Three new DTAs have been enacted since April 1998. These DTAs came
into effect in December 1999.
The operative provision is proposed
subsection 3A(2) which states that alienation of income
provisions in Australia s treaties are extended to indirect
interests in real property held through interposed entities. If the
value of the interposed entities is principally attributable to
real property, this subsection allows the alienation of real
property article to apply to any interests in interposed
entities.
Proposed subsection 3A(3)
limits the application of the proposed provision to real property
located in Australia. This feature of the proposed amendment makes
the alienation of real property articles in the affected treaties
not uniform. The proposed amendment expands Australia s taxing
rights under the alienation of property article to include indirect
interests in land. If the land is located outside Australia, the
other country s taxing right is limited to direct interests in
land. The proposed amendment would directly conflict with the
statement of principle by the Full Federal Court in the Lamesa case
that 'the agreement [DTA] must operate uniformly whether the realty
is in the Netherlands or Australia'. This aspect of the proposed
amendment indicates that Australia is proposing to engage in treaty
override and could potentially lead to double taxation.
For example, if an overseas taxpayer makes a
gain from the sale of an indirect interest in land in Australia,
the country in which the taxpayer is resident may assert its right
to tax the gain under the business profits article of its DTA with
Australia. Under the proposed amendment, Australia would seek to
tax the same gain because the taxpayer has sold an indirect
interest in Australian land. This would result in double taxation.
It is this type of double taxation that a DTA is designed to
prevent by uniformly allocating taxing rights between the DTA
countries.(7)
Proposed subsection 3A(4)
directs that if any of the affected alienation of real property
articles are amended, then proposed section 3A
will no longer apply to that article. This provision reveals the
temporary nature of proposed section 3A which
seeks to override the effect of the Lamesa case pending the
renegotiation of the affected real property articles in Australia s
treaties. However, non-resident taxpayers are unlikely to accept
that the proposed amendment overrides the principle in the Lamesa
case until the affected alienation of real property articles are
renegotiated and enacted. Moreover, an overseas investor may use a
Netherlands subsidiary to undertake similar activity in Australia
and directly enforce the principle in the Lamesa case. This course
of action is unlikely to be prevented until the alienation of real
property article in the Australia-Netherlands DTA is
renegotiated.
Consequences arising from the findings
of the full Federal Court in the Lamesa case
The Federal Court in the Lamesa case stated that
it was unlikely that the alienation of real property article
applies to indirect interests. Firstly, their Honours stated that
if the alienation of real property article is to apply to indirect
interests complex measurement rules are required. Their Honours
stated that an example of the complexity which a comprehensive
provision assimilating land rich companies to land may give rise is
to be found in the provisions of the Stamp Duties Act 1920
(NSW) Div 30 and comparable provisions in other states.
(8) Secondly, their Honours stated that the degree of
complexity required would depend on whether the policy was to deal
with wholly owned subsidiaries or partly owned subsidiaries.
Greater complexity would arise from applying such a rule to partly
owned subsidiaries.
Proposed subsection 3A purports
to apply to indirect interests in land through interposed companies
which are held through either wholly or partly owned companies.
Proposed subsection 3A does not contain the
complex rules assimilating land rich companies to land which their
Honours said would be required. If proposed subsection
3A were held to be valid a court may be unable to
determine the attribution for the purposes of the alienation of
real property article.
Application
The amendments in Schedule 1
apply to income, profits or gains from the alienation or
disposition of shares or interests after 12 noon on 27 April 1998.
This measure was announced by Treasurer s Press Release No. 39 of
27 April 1998.
The OECD Model Tax
Treaty
The model tax treaty used as a basis for
negotiations between developed countries is the OECD Model Tax
Convention on Income and Capital (the OECD Model
Treaty). In 1980, the United Nations developed a model for
developing countries titled the United Nations Model Convention
for Tax Treaties Between Developed and Developing Countries.
Australia's DTAs are based on the OECD Model.(9)
Article 13 of the OECD Model Treaty deals with
the alienation of real property. It only applies to the alienation
of direct interests in real property. On the issue of alienation of
indirect interests in real property, the OECD made the following
comments in its Commentary on the 1992 Model Treaty:
Certain tax laws assimilate the alienation of
all or part of the shares in a company, the exclusive or main aim
of which is to hold immovable property, to the alienation of such
immovable property. In itself para 1 [of article 13] does not allow
that practice: a special provision in the bilateral convention can
alone provide for such assimilation. Contracting States are of
course free either to include in their bilateral conventions such
special provision, or to confirm expressly that the alienation of
shares cannot be assimilated to the alienation of the immovable
property.(10)
This statement was contained in the 1977 OECD
Model Treaty.(11) The potential for an alienation of
real property to be avoided through the use of interposed entities
has been documented by the OECD. The OECD in its 1989 Report on
Tax Treaty Override considered the type of problem revealed in
the Lamesa case. The OECD in the following statement advocates
treaty renegotiation as the only effective way to overcome this
problem.
31. State B taxes gains from the alienation of
immovable property. Taxpayers have found a way to avoid paying the
tax by interposing, in State B, a company between themselves and
the property and by selling the shares in the company rather than
the immovable property itself. State B cannot tax the gain from the
sale of the shares as its tax treaties follow Article 13 of the
OECD Model Convention. State B legislates that the sale of shares
in any real estate company is deemed to be a sale of immovable
property for the purpose of the application of its tax
treaties.
32. The effect of such legislation is in
contravention of State B's tax treaty obligations, even though the
overriding measure is clearly designed to put an end to the
improper use of its tax treaties. . . .
33. Override of the kind described in paragraph
31 above could justify termination by State B's tax treaty partners
under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention. However, . . . this
route may do more harm than good. Partial suspension under that
Article (restricted to the provision State B is not respecting) by
State B's partners might be an adequate response but it would only
leave things as they are. As an alternative, partners of State B
could show willingness to solve the problem by an adequate and
quick revision of its treaties.(12)
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill
lists the 31 DTAs to which this amendment applies.(13)
The Explanatory Memorandum also states that the result in
the Lamesa case is inconsistent with the anti-avoidance provisions
of this type, as evidenced by the Commentary on the comparable
provision of the United Nations Model Tax Convention. The OECD
Model Treaty in the Explanatory Memorandum is not,
however, referred to.
Concluding
Comments
The Lamesa case highlights one feature of having
a network of DTAs — where a shortcoming is revealed in an
article, then all the affected DTAs must be renegotiated to correct
the shortcoming. The renegotiation and redrafting of treaties is a
lengthy and time consuming process. Changes to treaties are not
effective until there is a bilateral agreement which is enacted.
Unilateral amendments of treaties by domestic legislation are
likely to be treated by the courts as treaty override and held to
be ineffective. On this issue the OECD stated in its Report on
Treaty Overrides that:
The Committee [on Fiscal Affairs] recognizes
that treaty negotiations, and renegotiations, are indeed time
consuming but this is a factor which is common to all bilateral
negotiations where a proper balance of advantage to both sides has
to be found. Any unilateral abrogation of specific obligations
destroys such balance and must be condemned.(14)
The potential avoidance of alienation of real
property articles was first documented by the OECD in 1977. It was
also highlighted in 1989 in the OECD's Report on Treaty
Override. The principals in the Lamesa case may have used the
OECD's comments on the alienation of real property article in its
Model Treaty in arranging their acquisition of shares in Arimco
Mining.
Another concern is the reaction of Australia s
tax DTA partners to the proposed amendments to the alienation of
real property article. The Minister's second reading speech states
that Australia s DTA partners in the 31 affected treaties have been
consulted on the proposed amendments but no reference is made on
their views of the proposed amendments. The delay of 20 months
between announcement of the measures and introduction of the
legislation is curious. While this measure is described as being a
response to protect revenue, the significant delay between
announcement and introduction of the measures also raises the issue
of whether the measures are likely to be effective.
Income of non-resident sportspersons,
clubs and associations (Schedule 3)
Schedule 3 proposes to repeal
exemptions from income tax for non-resident sportspersons, clubs
and associations.
Background
Subparagraph 23(c)(i) of the Income Tax
Assessment Act 1936 (the 1936 Act) exempts from income tax the
earnings of sportspersons in Australia if the following
requirements are satisfied:
-
- the sportsperson is a representative of the controlling body of
any outdoor athletic sport or game in the person s country,
and
-
- the sportsperson participates in contests in that sport in
Australia.
Subparagraph 23(c)(ii) of the 1936 Act exempts
from income tax the earnings of a non-resident sports club or
association if the following requirements are satisfied:
-
- the association is from a Commonwealth country
-
- the club or association represents the controlling body of the
sport, and
-
- the team representing the club or association plays cricket,
football or similar matches.
Paragraph 23(g) of the 1936 Act exempts from
income tax non-profit bodies established for the encouragement or
promotion of any sport. This provision is not restricted to
resident bodies and would therefore be available to non-resident
non-profit bodies. Subparagraphs 23(c)(i) and (ii) are
original provisions of the 1936 Act. The provisions pre-date
professional sport and the development of arenas to play certain
sports indoors or outdoors. For example, swimming and tennis may
now be played at indoor venues. The Colonial Stadium (Docklands) in
Melbourne will provide the opportunity for cricket and football to
be played indoors for the first time in Australia.
It should be noted that the exemption from
Australian income tax provided by subparagraph 23(c)(i) to
certain non-resident sportspersons does not mean that such income
is tax-free in the hands of the sportspersons. Non-resident
sportspersons will generally be assessable in their country of
residence in respect of their income earned overseas.
Repeal of the
exemptions
The Explanatory Memorandum states that
subparagraph 23(c)(i) leads to inconsistent tax treatment because
it is only available for outdoor sports.(15) To resolve
this inconsistency Item 1 of Schedule
3 proposes to repeal subparagraph 23(c)(i). The
Explanatory Memorandum states that inconsistencies also
arise from subparagraph 23(c)(ii) the restriction of the exemption
to clubs and associations from Commonwealth countries.
The purpose of the amendments is described in
the Explanatory Memorandum as being to provide for all
non-resident sportspersons and their clubs or associations to be
taxed on a similar basis.(16) No reference is made to
the fact that the proposed amendments commence before the Sydney
Olympics and that the measure will expand the income tax base. It
would be surprising if the Olympics were not the motivating force
for the repeal of subparagraphs 23(c)(i) and (ii). Nevertheless,
the provisions have been income tax anachronisms at least since the
development of professional sport in the 1960s.
Application
The amendments made by Schedule
3 apply to income derived after 30 June 2000.
Extension of period for certain gifts
(Schedule 2)
Schedule 2 amends the
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (the 1997 Act) to extend
the period of time in which gifts to certain funds are tax
deductible.
Division 30 of the 1997 Act provides deductions
for donations of $2 or more to certain funds or organisations. For
a fund or organisation to qualify for tax deductible status it must
be listed in Division 30. The period of time in which a tax
deductible donation may be made to a fund or organisation may be
limited. The amendments proposed by
Schedule 2 extend the period in which a
deductible gift may be made for three specific funds.
The Shrine of Remembrance and Restoration and
Development Trust was created for the sole purpose of providing
funds for the benefit of the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne.
Item 1 extends the period in which a tax
deductible donation may be made to the fund to 30 June 2005. This
extends the tax deductible period by 6 years.
The Australian National Korean War Memorial
Trust Fund was established to raise funds for the construction of a
memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra. Item 2
extends the period in which a tax deductible donation may be made
to the fund to 1 September 2000. This extends the tax deductible
period by 1 year.
St Patrick s Cathedral Parramatta Rebuilding
Fund was established to raise funds to rebuild St Patrick s
Cathedral in Parramatta. The Cathedral was destroyed by fire in
1996. Item 3 extends the period of time in which a
tax deductible donation may be made to the fund to 24 February
2002. This extends the tax deductible period by 2 years.
Technical amendments (Schedule
4)
Schedule 4 will amend the 1936
Act, 1997 Act and Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act
1997 to correct errors arising from the redrafting of the
capital gains tax provisions. The Explanatory Memorandum states
that since the capital gains tax provisions were redrafted certain
unintended consequences were identified.(17) The
Explanatory Memorandum states that the proposed amendments merely
reinstate the position of the 1936 Act and that there is no change
in policy.(18)
Endnotes
-
- (1997) 77 FCR 597.
- Subsection 4(2) of the International Tax Agreements Act
1953.
- Under subsection 4(2) of the International Agreements Act
1953 a DTA does not prevail over Part IVA (the general
anti-avoidance provisions) or section 160AO (maximum tax credits)
of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
- Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV
(1997) 36 ATR 589 at 598 9.
- OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs, Report on Tax Treaty
Overrides (1989), para 2.
- National Westminster Bank, PLC v United States
unofficially reported at 1999 WTD 132-133.
- Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV
(1997) 36 ATR 589 at 598.
- Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lamesa Holdings BV
(1997) 36 ATR 589 at 597.
- The High Court in Thiel v Federal Commissioner of
Taxation (1990) 171 CLR 338 stated that the DTA between
Australia and Switzerland was based on the OECD Model Treaty, at
348-9 and 357. Enfield J of the Federal Court, the judge at first
instance in Lamesa Holdings BV v FCT (1997) 35 ATR 339,
stated at 242 that Australia s DTAs are based on the OECD Model
Treaty.
- OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital,
(1992) Commentary on Article 13, para 23.
- 1977 OECD Model Convention for the Avoidance of Double
Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, para
23.
- OECD, Report on Tax Treaty Overrides (1989), paras 31
to 33.
- Explanatory Memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill
(No. 11) 1999, para 1.8.
- OECD, Report on Tax Treaty Override (1989), para 37.
- Explanatory Memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill
(No. 11) 1999, para 3.4.
- ibid, para 3.7
- ibid, para 4.2.
- ibid, para 4.3.
Michael Kobetsky
22 February 2000
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2000
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
2000.
Back to top