The firm of ‘now’ – 5 things about the way you do the things you do**

Following on from recent posts, to give some insight to what we believe a ‘firm of the future now' looks like, 5 examples from our business that we have abandoned as compared to a traditional model are as follows:

1. Guaranteed fixed pricing – the definition of a competent service provider is someone who can devise a scope of work and provide an upfront fixed price that they are willing to refund in full if the customer is not satisfied with the performance.
2. ROWE – if you do not know what this is for, Google it or click here and join the movement.
3.  Solution choreographed teams – we work with whomever and on whatever terms are best to achieve the client’s objectives.
4. AAR – again, if you do not know what it is, Google it or click here, and embed it into your business today.
5. Diversity of thought – when two people in business are constantly of the same opinion, one or more is irrelevant. It raises diversity in every sense of the word and arbitrary politically correct percentages become irrelevant.

** For the trainspotters, ‘The way you do the things you do’ is a song by the Temptations from 1965, The version I first heard was by Hall & Oates.

The time is now** for the firm of ‘now’ – 5 things not to do

Following on from recent posts, to give some insight to what we believe a ‘firm of the future now' looks like, 5 examples from our business that we have abandoned as compared to a traditional model are as follows:

1. No Timesheets – with timesheets, all we ever focused on was what was chargeable – without timesheets, we now focus on what is valuable.
2. No leave policies – leave policies are a hangover from the industrial age – it is time to move on.
3. No individual budgets – while we certainly have team goals, these are never broken down into individual monetary targets. Our targets are aligned around our performance in the eyes of customers. If we get those right, everything else flows (including money).
4. No performance reviews – again, a very poor hangover from the industrial age.
5. No diversity goals – seeking to mandate minimum percentages of certain genders, cultures, religious beliefs or sexuality disguise much bigger problems with the underlying business model.

** For the trainspotters, ‘Time is Now’ is a song by Moloko from 2000.

What’s Your Story?** … Tax Sharing & Funding Agreements

Though originally designed to primarily assist 'the big end of town', the tax consolidations regime is available to any Australian company and often can be very useful for small to medium size business operators.

One of the key consequences of forming a tax consolidated group is that all of the members of the group are jointly and severally liable for the tax liabilities of the group as a whole.

If however, each member of the group signs a valid tax sharing agreement (TSA), then it is possible for each member of the group to only be responsible for a 'reasonable' portion of the Group's tax liability.

A TSA is generally seen as a document that should be in place whenever a tax consolidated group is formed.

Generally, a TSA will also set out how any member of the group can make a 'clean exit', ensuring that it will not bear any future liability in relation to taxes that arise once the entity has left the group, even where they relate to a period where the entity was in fact a member.

Often, a TSA will be implemented in conjunction with a tax funding agreement (TFA).

Due to the way in which the tax consolidations regime is structured, the head entity of a consolidated group is the one that is ultimately liable for the tax of the group as a whole.

In order to ensure that the head company has the funds to meet the tax liability, a TFA can be utilised to regulate the manner in which that funding is to occur, particularly with reference to relevant accounting standards.

While most consolidated groups in the small to medium enterprise space will (or at least should) implement a TSA, often TFAs are only utilised by larger tax consolidated groups, given that they are more mechanical and technical in nature.

** For the trainspotters, ‘what’s your story’ is a line from the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ song from their 1986 album Stadium Arcadium, namely ‘Tell Me Baby’.

2+2 made 5** … adding testamentary trusts by Court Order – a family law perspective

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 is below -

One very interesting decision was originally published as ADT v LRT and then the appeal, the appeal decision was released as GAU v GVT.

The case involved a mother who had a will that she’d signed giving a significant number of assets to her son in his personal name.

The son was going through divorce proceedings and the mother had lost capacity and was unable to change her will.

The Court was asked by the son to incorporate a testamentary trust into her will for the express purpose of protecting the son’s future inheritance from his matrimonial proceedings.

The inheritance was estimated to be about $5 million, which was significant in terms of the matrimonial proceedings if it was successfully excluded.

In the first instance (ADT v LRT), the Court said that they agreed the testator would have made the change if she still had capacity, but then concluded that it was inappropriate to interfere with Family Court proceedings and therefore refused to grant the order.

On appeal (GAU v GVT), the son was successful and the Court said that the will maker’s intentions were the critical test and there was no doubt she would have made the change if she still had capacity.

The Court said the Family Court proceedings were only relevant at the margins and it agreed to grant the order incorporating the testamentary trust into the mother’s will.

** For the trainspotters, ‘Two and two made five’ is a song by Ned’s Atomic Dustbin from 1992.