Tuesday, July 16, 2019

(Stripped) Bare** trust share ownership



Recent posts Updating ASIC records – Simple (Simon) and Relationships of share ownership and the ASIC have looked at the various issues in relation to notifying the ASIC of the beneficial ownership of shareholdings in a private company.

One aspect of this style of situation that arises relatively regularly relates to companies that were incorporated prior to 1997. Before this date, every private company was required to have at least two shareholders.

In order to provide a practical solution where a person was wanting to be the sole shareholder a practice developed whereby a second party would be listed as a legal shareholder, however they would simply hold that share on a bare trust for the intended sole shareholder.

Where such a structure exists, assuming that the articles of association or constitution have now been updated, it is generally possible to vest (or bring to an end) the bare trust arrangement and have the ASIC records updated to simply list the sole shareholder.

** For the trainspotters, ‘stripped bare’ is a line from the U2 song from 1983 ‘October’. 

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Updating ASIC records – Simple (Simon)**




Last week’s post touched on some of the issues in relation to disclosure of beneficial ownership of shares on ASIC records.

In situations where the beneficial ownership is incorrectly recorded there are three broad alternatives available, namely:

1) Leaving the ASIC records unchanged. From a compliance perspective while this approach is possible, it is not recommended.

2) Simply lodging an annual return or ASIC form 484 that updates the ASIC records from that date. In many cases this approach will be pragmatically appropriate and is certainly the easiest and most cost effective approach. There is a risk however that there may be adverse revenue consequences or challenges from a third party (for example a trustee in bankruptcy).

3) The final approach involves effectively rectifying ASIC records from the date the error first occurred and then arranging for the annual returns for every subsequent year to also be amended. Obviously, this approach can be a significant exercise and is generally only adopted where there are concerns from a tax, stamp duty or asset protection perspective.

** For the trainspotters, the title today is riffed from INXS’ first ever single, from 1980.

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Relationships of share ownership** and the ASIC



Up until the early 2000’s, the ASIC required only very basic information in relation to the share ownership in companies.

From around 2002, the ASIC began requiring that all private companies disclose the basis on which shares were owned, in particular whether shares were owned beneficially or non beneficially.

Broadly the distinction is as follows:

1) If a share is owned beneficially this means that the legal owner listed in the ASIC records also has full beneficial ownership.

2) If a share is owned non beneficially then the legal owner holds the share subject to the terms of some form of trust arrangement (often this trust will be a standard discretionary trust).

Unfortunately the disclosure of beneficial ownership is an area of significant confusion and often the confusion does not arise until resolution of the issue is time sensitive (for example in lead up to a sale transaction or as part of an asset protection audit).

Some of the issues that arise in this regard include:

 (a) anecdotally, it appears that when ASIC was first imputing this data following the change of approach, many companies had their notifications reversed during the data entry process (that is shares that were owned beneficially were noted on ASIC records as being owned non beneficially);

(b) similarly many companies were confused about the distinction and therefore provided incorrect notification to ASIC; and

(c) in some instances a full search of all company records was not performed (for example all aspects of the company register) so the company provided incorrect information to ASIC.

Next week’s post will consider the three main alternatives for rectification where the beneficial ownership of shares is incorrectly recorded on ASIC records. 

** For the trainspotters, ‘relationships of ownership’ is a line from the Bob Dylan song from ‘Gates of Eden’.



Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Tinder-isation + simplification of the law


As mentioned in a previous post 'gamification' has become expected across all aspects of our lives. This was part of the reason for us in ‘tinder-ising’ each of the View apps on both Apple and Android.

Based on adviser feedback, our latest app release now allows access to all 8 of the View apps, through a ‘master app’.

The 8 apps are as follows:

1) estate planning;

2) self managed superannuation funds;

3) estate admin;

4) business succession;

5) memorandum of directions;

6) directors duties;

7) binding death benefit nominations; and

8) adviser facilitated estate planning fixed pricing.

Each app generates a free white paper or template legal document.

The ‘View Apps’ App can be downloaded below:

1) Apple

2) Android

All View apps can also be accessed via our website.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Don’t ask me (why)** would a trust have made a family trust election?



As set out in earlier posts, and with thanks to the Television Education Network, today’s post considers the above mentioned topic in a vidcast.

As usual, an edited transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view it is below:

Why would a trust have made a family trust election?

Historically, primarily an election would be made because there are franking credits that are flowing through the trust.

In particular, if there are more than $5,000 worth of franking credits to be claimed, then you can't actually access them unless you've made a family trust election. This would be the main reason, and by far, in our experience, the most relevant one.

The other reasons include that there are losses or bad debts. It is infinitely easier to satisfy those rules with an election in place.

The last main reason is ‘because’ ... and that’s not a scientific term.

That's a term that ends with ‘because’.

There's nothing that actually comes after the because.

It is so easy to make these elections. You just tick the box and it's done. Our sense is that many accountants went through, particularly in the late 2000s, and made elections without any thought at all, and it was because.

When the election is then reviewed as part of an estate planning exercise, and we think this is going to come up more and more as part of the 328-G provisions, the conclusion will be ‘we don’t know why we've made that election and it's more restrictive than we need it to be’.

There might therefore be a planning opportunity for a trust that has made a family trust election that is later viewed as inappropriate.

In particular, under 328-G, it should be possible to transfer business assets across to a new trust that will not need to have made a family trust election.

** For the trainspotters, the title today is riffed from PiL’s song of the same name, from 1990.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Super death benefits and conflicts of interest: Guilt is a useless emotion**





As mentioned in last week’s post, arguably, the highest profile decision in relation to the obligation of a legal personal representative (LPR) to avoid creating a conflict of interest is the decision in MacIntosh.

The decision in Brine v Carter [2015] SASC 205 provides another example of the key issues that need to be considered by LPRs, who are also potential beneficiaries of a superannuation death benefit. As usual, a link to the decision is here.

In summary, the factual scenario was as follows:

1) The deceased appointed his de facto partner and three children from an earlier relationship as his LPR.

2) The de facto made an application for the superannuation death benefits to be paid to her directly, as opposed to the estate.

3) If the superannuation proceeds had been paid to the estate, the three children would have been entitled.

4) For a period of time prior to the death benefit being paid, the de facto partner withheld details of the superannuation death benefit from the three children.

5) Importantly however, by the time the super fund trustee exercised its discretion, the three children were aware of all relevant information concerning the death benefits and had themselves made an application for the death benefits to be paid to the estate.

6) It was held that this was a critical point, that is, the other LPRs had effectively consented to the de facto making her individual claim by themselves making a claim on behalf of the estate in full knowledge of all relevant circumstances.

While the decision of the superannuation fund to pay the entitlements to the de facto ultimately was upheld, a number of key principles were explained by the court, including:

1) Where an LPR seeks payment of a death benefit to themselves personally (i.e. not to the estate), they will be in a position of conflict, unless the will expressly permits the conduct.

2) Where there is no express provision waiving conflict, an LPR should renounce their position before taking any active steps to seek personal payment of the death benefit.

3) Alternatively, the LPR can seek the consent of all other LPRs (if any).

4) In seeking the consent of the other LPRs, there is no obligation to also receive consent from each beneficiary under the will.

5) Complications will likely arise where there is a sole LPR. In that instance, if they choose not to renounce their role, there would be an obligation to receive the informed consent of each potential beneficiary.

Ultimately, the decision is yet another reminder of the importance of a holistic approach to every estate plan.

** For the trainspotters, the title today is riffed from New Order’s song of the same name, from 2005.

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

The View** on workarounds to avoid the McIntosh decision



As mentioned last week, the McIntosh case was concerning given that the son’s apparent objective of providing for his mother was not achieved.

While there are obviously a number of issues in relation to this case, three critical steps that could have been taken are as follows:

1) To the extent that they were available, binding nominations could have been made to the mother personally (in this regard, non-binding nominations had in fact been made nominating the mother solely).

2) With the aid of hindsight, the mother should not have applied to administer the deceased estate. This would have relieved her of any duty to act in the best interests of the estate and therefore she could have proceeded to make the application for superannuation benefits to be paid to her personally without her actions being challenged.

3) The son should have made a will at least appointing his mother as executor (this would have potentially meant that she did not have any conflict of interest as the son would have been deemed to have been aware of the potential when making the nomination). Ideally, the will would have also nominated the mother as the sole beneficiary of the estate – thereby meaning that even if the funds were not paid to her directly, she should have ultimately received them in any event.

Next week’s post will consider another case which further informs the key issues in this regard.

** For the trainspotters, the title today is riffed from The Church’s song of the same name, from 1985 (and no, View was not named after this song …).