Mining giant BHP Billiton is considering whether to appeal a Federal Court decision that has left the company with an $82 million tax bill.

Key points: BHP's battle with the Australian Taxation Office was again over its Singapore marketing hub

BHP's battle with the Australian Taxation Office was again over its Singapore marketing hub The mining giant is considering whether to appeal the $82 million tax bill in the High Court

The mining giant is considering whether to appeal the $82 million tax bill in the High Court This tax case follows an earlier dispute with the ATO over BHP's Singapore business, which the two parties settled on in November

BHP's battle with the Australian Taxation Office was again over its Singapore marketing hub.

BHP last year won the case in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), but the full Federal Court heard an appeal from the ATO, and sided with the taxman, leaving the mining giant with a bill for $82 million in primary tax for the 2006 to 2015 financial years.

The appeals court decided its Australian and British arms are associates and therefore subject to what the company claims is a "top-up tax" in Australia under Controlled Foreign Companies rules.

BHP has 28 days to file an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

"BHP is considering the Full Federal Court's judgment and its position in relation to any appeal," the miner said in a statement.

"This is a highly complex area of the tax law. It involves a technical interpretation of Australian federal income tax rules."

The ATO said it would not comment on cases that may be open to further legal action.

The problem with dual-listed tax structures

The case could set a precedent going forward, with implications for other corporate giants with dual-listed structures.

The British side of BHP sells coal to the group's marketing hub in Singapore.

Due to the company's dual-listed structure, BHP Australia owns 58 per cent of the Singapore operation while its sister company in Britain owns 42 per cent.

BHP agrees that under controlled foreign corporation rules it must pay Australian tax on the 58 per cent share of the income the Australian arm gets from Singapore.

But it fought the ATO over whether it must also pay tax on the share of the income the British arm gets from its sales of Australian goods, including Hunter Valley coal, through Singapore.

Tax Institute president Tim Neilson said the case concerned whether some companies in BHP's dual-listed company structure fell within a lengthy definition of "associate", which was written at a time when dual-listed structures would not have been in the drafters' contemplation.

"The relevant legislation is necessarily drafted in very general terms, and no-one could expect the drafters to be clairvoyant, but the case typifies the kind of interpretational complexity which people in tax often have to try to unravel," he said.

"It would come as no surprise to most tax practitioners that of the four judges who have heard the case to date two think the answer is 'yes' and two think it's 'no'."

The other tax battle BHP fought

This is not the first time BHP has been hit with ATO tax bills relating to commodity payments to the company's Singapore marketing business.

The big miner had been hit with tax bills spanning 11 years that total $661 million in primary tax and with interest and penalties added amounted to more than $1 billion.

In November, BHP announced it settled the transfer pricing tax dispute with ATO for $529 million, and without admitting fault.

From next financial year, BHP's Singapore marketing business will be taxed 100 per cent locally, as agreed to as part of the settlement.

ATO deputy commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn had called the settlement a "landmark and precedential" outcome.

BHP's chief financial officer Peter Beaven said at the time that the settlement gave clarity for BHP and the ATO in relation to how taxes will be assessed and paid on the sale of Australian commodities.