【892实战帖】有趣的“main business”

案件背景:

X先生的公司C Pty Ltd使同一个ABN开展了4种不同的业务:S理发店,V酒类业务,S设备监控系统业务,F肉类屠宰肉类业务。为了满足“在递交892前12个月内申请人及/或其配偶所拥有的生意净资产至少为aud75000”这一条件,X先生递交了BAS表,证明自己的公司在同一个ABN下的4种不同的经营活动所产生的效益,让自己完全符合上述的生意净资产要求。

递签结果:拒签

AAT上诉结果:维持原判

拒签理由: Regulation 1.11中定义,如果申请人拥有超过1个“business”,那么申请人最多只能提名2个“business”作为他的“main business”,来核算生意净资产。基于这个理由,审理人员认为,X先生的C公司下的业务虽然在一个ABN下,但是属于4个不同的“business”,因此只能提名其中的2个“business”来作为他的“main business”。而按照这样的依据进行核算,X先生的生意净资产并不符合aud75000的要求,因此做出拒签的结论。而上诉机构也基于同样的理由,维持原判,驳回了X先生的上诉。

Federal Circuit Court上诉结果:拒签结果有误

理由:Court认为,审理人员对“main business”的定义有不正确的解读。(原文引述)“…there is nothing about the meaning of the word “business” as used in the context of the Regulations which carries with it the necessary corollary that a legal entity can only ever, on its true meaning, have or conduct but one “business”. Such a construction of the word “business” accords with common experience. It is by no means unusual for a legal entity to cease one particular field of commercial endeavor by the disposal of what is aptly termed a “business” without ceasing altogether to trade”。基于上述理由,Court认为AAT觉得“a “main business” could not be composed of a single corporate entity, with 4 entirely different kinds of business activities operating under the one corporate umbrella and being “consolidated” for accounting and tax purposes”这个理念是错误的。于是推翻了之前的拒签结论。

结论:

基于此案的胜诉,同一个ABN下开展的不同业务都可以作为“main business”的一部分申报生意净资产,而不需要仅仅挑选2个业务来符合相关要求了。

(本文内容基于Snyman & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 2791 (19 October 2015) 案件整理,所涉及人名和生意名称均为化名)

严正声明:

本文系墨尔本澳桥留学移民公司原创独家稿件,全部或部分引用请注明“转载自墨尔本澳桥留学移民-微信号ausbridgevisa”,违者必究!

Check Also

485工签政策终于出炉,35岁年龄限制来了!

今天,这一天终于来了! 刚刚, …

发表回复