{"id":240874,"date":"2019-08-01T16:08:40","date_gmt":"2019-08-01T06:08:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/?p=240874"},"modified":"2020-07-18T16:54:36","modified_gmt":"2020-07-18T06:54:36","slug":"ucg-case-sent-back-to-tribunal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/2019\/08\/01\/ucg-case-sent-back-to-tribunal\/","title":{"rendered":"UCG Case Sent Back To Tribunal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
The gas flare burned briefly at Cougar Energy’s trial UCG plant at Coolabunia on March 16, 2010, before a blockage and a failed well casing halted gas production
(Photo: Cougar Energy)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

August 1, 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moreton Resources has enjoyed a partial win in the Federal Court in relation to its long-standing dispute with the Australian Taxation Office over research and development tax offsets linked to its failed UCG project near Kingaroy.<\/p>\n

The Federal Court has ruled the\u00a0Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) erred in its definition of \u201ccore R&D activities\u201d when it\u00a0determined last year that activities claimed by Moreton Resources were not research and development.<\/p>\n

It has referred the matter back to the AAT for determination.<\/p>\n

Moreton Resources was hit with a claim by the Australian Taxation Office in July 2016.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It was a hangover from then-Cougar Energy\u2019s failed UCG project near Coolabunia which was shut down by the State Government after a well failure in March 2010.<\/p>\n

The ATO had been seeking repayment of $1,003,455.22 for a 2012 research and development tax offset, and $7,182,269.41 for a 2013 R&D offset, both linked to the UCG project.<\/p>\n

It is believed interest has been accruing against these original amounts owed to the ATO.<\/p>\n

Moreton disputed the company owed the money and appealed to the AAT.<\/p>\n

However, the AAT ruled in September last year that the activities claimed by Moreton Resources were not research and development, as defined by the 1997 Income Tax Assessment Act.<\/p>\n

The AAT upheld a finding by Innovation and Science Australia that UCG was a known and proven technology.<\/p>\n

Moreton appealed to the Federal Court, which agreed – at least in part – with the company.<\/p>\n

In a judgment handed down on July 25, Justices Davies, Moshinsky and Steward found the AAT’s decision should be set aside.<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, the judges also found it was not appropriate for the Federal Court to determine whether Moreton’s claimed\u00a0 \u201ccore R&D activities\u201d for 2012-14 (after the UCG well failed but before the Board abandoned the project) were \u201csupporting R&D activities\u201d.<\/p>\n

This was referred back to the AAT for determination.<\/p>\n

Despite its win, Moreton Resources may still have to pick up at least part of the costs of the hearing.<\/p>\n

“We note that, while Moreton has been successful in the overall outcome of the appeal, it has not been successful in its contention that this Court should itself determine whether the registered ‘core R&D activities’ for the 2012 to 2014 years constituted ‘supporting R&D activities’ on the basis of Moreton\u2019s alternative submission before the tribunal,” the judges wrote.<\/p>\n

In a statement to the ASX on Monday, Moreton Resources said: “The company sees this development as a significant step forward in not only an effort to bring this matter to a close but also assist the company focus its efforts on moving into sustained production and advancement of its multiple projects.<\/p>\n

“The matter is by no means resolved as yet, however the findings and the observations have left the Board feeling vindicated in the pursuit of this matter and certainly looking forward to resolving the matter, be it at an AAT hearing of through prior negotiation with AusIndustry.”<\/p>\n