TAX NEWS | VIEWS | CLUESWelcome to the December 2010 Edition of the Spry Roughley Report A topic causing some concern to trustees of discretionary (family) trusts is whether they should arrange for a review of their trust deed following the recent High Court decision in Bramford's Case. The key concern for trustees is whether they may be liable to tax on capital gains where the wording in the trust deed is not clear that taxable capital gains can be distributed to beneficiaries. In such cases, the tax applicable is 46.5%. Our response is: not yet! Some deeds may need revision, however, we are assessing this as part of our year end tax planning review. This majority of modern deeds seem to be satisfactory. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the Tax Office has published a decision impact statement that seems inconsistent with the Court's decision on a number of points. We will review this and other tax issues now relevant to distributions and unpaid present entitlements of trusts as part of our planning assessment before the 30th June balance date. This will allow time to take remedial action if any is needed and hopefully by then, some of the current controversy will have been resolved. Of course, if you are planning an asset disposal by a trust with a capital gain likely in this current tax year, you should seek advice immediately. Your trust deed may need to be revised before the asset is sold or otherwise disposed of. There were also a number of other important taxation developments in November which we thought may be of interest and benefit to you. Scroll down to read a short summary of the articles or click here to access the explanatory memorandum if you would like to read the full version. As usual, please do not hesitate to call us on (02) 9891 6100 should you wish to discuss how any of the points raised in the report specifically affect you or click here to send us an email. Kind regards, Martin __________________________________________________________________________ |
The Tax Office has released its keenly awaited guidance on the tax treatment of trust entitlements and loans. The guidance, known as a practice statement, explains how the Tax Office will apply its ruling on when a private company with an unpaid present entitlement makes a loan to the trust estate which generated the entitlement. The Commissioner of Taxation said he was aware of the importance of this issue to businesses, particularly small businesses, which use a trust structure. The Tax Office has been calling selected business operators in the $2 million to $100 million annual turnover range to discuss instances where the pay-as-you-go (PAYG) instalment amount received for the quarter under review is significantly different to the PAYG instalment amount received in a previous quarter.
The Tax Office has warned self-managed super funds (SMSFs) not to invest in trusts with the intention of making funds available for lending to members. The warning comes in a taxpayer alert which describes an arrangement where an SMSF invests money in an unrelated trust that then on-lends the funds to an SMSF member or relative. The Tax Office says such arrangements attempt to circumvent strict rules prohibiting SMSF trustees from lending money or providing financial assistance to a member or a relative using the resources of the fund.
The High Court unanimously dismissed the Commissioner of Taxation’s appeal and held that a taxpayer was entitled to a deduction for expenses incurred in deriving income from receiving Youth Allowance. The Full Federal Court had previously dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal and held that self-education expenses incurred by the taxpayer in deriving Youth Allowance were allowable deductions.
A taxpayer has been successful in obtaining a declaration from the Supreme Court of Western Australia that a valid trust had been created over a property he had originally bought in 1990 under his own name. The trust had been declared in favour of a family trust at the time of the land’s subdivision five years later. As a result, the Commissioner of Taxation could not argue that the taxpayer was personally liable for capital gains tax on one of the lots sold in 2006. Instead, the profit had been included in the family trust’s tax return in that year and had been offset by the trust’s carried forward losses. In a recent case, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that a taxpayer in the waste disposal business was assessable on a “subsidy” paid to it by a competitor in connection with the taxpayer assuming unprofitable waste disposal contracts that it acquired from the competitor under an agreement. Even though the transaction was a one-off, the Tribunal found it was assessable as ordinary income as the agreement was entered into in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s business with a view to making a profit.
Two recent cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dealt with the scenario of a husband employing his wife to assist with looking after rental properties. The question before the Tribunals was whether there was a “genuine employment relationship”. As the two cases show, if it is found that there was no employment relationship in the circumstances, the taxpayer would not be entitled to deductions for salary or wages, fringe benefits, and superannuation contributions paid in relation to “employing” the spouse. Rather, the outgoings would be considered to be private or domestic in nature. In another case, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that three taxpayers were required to reverse earlier claims for input tax credits in their later Business Activity Statements. As the taxpayers accounted for GST on an accruals basis, the credits were attributed to the tax period in which the tax invoices were received. However, those invoices remained unpaid after 12 months. Under the GST legislation, if an invoice remains outstanding after 12 months, a recipient is required to reverse any input tax credits previously claimed. The Tribunal noted there was little evidence of the invoices being paid, and therefore affirmed that the taxpayers had an increasing adjustment. This is not advice. Clients should not act solely on the basis of the material contained in this newsletter. Items herein are general comments only and do not constitute or convey advice per se. Also, changes in legislation may occur quickly. We therefore recommend that our formal advice be sought before acting in any of the areas. The Spry Roughley Report is issued as a helpful guide to clients and for their private information. Therefore it should be regarded as confidential and not be made available to any person without our prior approval. |