Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/71253
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTretola, J.en
dc.contributor.authorVillios, S.en
dc.contributor.authorCallea, P.en
dc.date.issued2011en
dc.identifier.citationRevenue Law Journal, 2011; 21(1):1-16en
dc.identifier.issn1034-7747en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/71253-
dc.description.abstractSale of ‘residences’ normally do not attract capital gains tax, unless the sale is part of an enterprise. Australian courts have been inconsistent in interpreting the expression ‘intended to be occupied and is capable of being occupied as a residence’ in the GST legislation. This article explores whether a consistent approach has now emerged.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityJohn Tretola, Sylvia Villios and Pasqualina Calleaen
dc.description.urihttp://epublications.bond.edu.au/rlj/en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBond University, Taxation & Corporate Research Centreen
dc.rightsCopyright status unknownen
dc.subjectGoods and Services Tax; GST; residence; residential premises; residential accommodationen
dc.titleGST and residential premises - which intention is relevant?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.rmid0020118692en
dc.identifier.pubid24741-
pubs.library.collectionBusiness School publicationsen
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
dc.identifier.orcidVillios, S. [0000-0002-1568-0550]en
Appears in Collections:Business School publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.