Yeah right** - because before Rinehart, there was Murdoch

While the Rinehart decision received significant attention in relation to many issues, including the tax consequences of ending a trust, the tax principles of another famous case are worth remembering, namely the decision in Murdoch v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCAFC 86.

Broadly the situation was as follows –

1. Dame Elisabeth Murdoch (Dame) had a life interest in the income of several family trusts settled by her husband in the 1930s.
2. The remainder interest was held by one or more of the Dame’s children or grandchildren.
3. For many years, the trustee of the relevant trusts was effectively the Dame, her son Rupert Murdoch and a third party.
4. It was however noted that the Dame was likely influenced in her role to accept the investment decisions due to the very strong personality of her son Rupert.
5. A Reorganisation Agreement under which Dame surrendered her life interests under each of the Trusts were entered into, with the consideration a lump sum payment of more than $85m.
6. The payment was couched as releasing the trustees from potential claims for breaches of trustee duties.
7. In particular, the investment policy that had been adopted (apparently at Rupert’s strong recommendation) was overwhelming weighted to shares in Murdoch family companies that produced capital growth, but comparatively small dividend income. This investment approach essentially benefited the remainder beneficiaries, at the expense of the Dame as life tenant.
8. The payment was said to be to help avoid the need for litigation amongst the family.
9. Around 65% of the $85m was then gifted by the Dame to Rupert and charities she was associated with.
10. The payment was funded by the sale of pre capital gains tax shares and was essentially received tax free by the Dame.

In confirming the extremely onerous fiduciary duties of a trustee (see the post from last week) the court confirmed that Rupert had breached his obligations, even though there was no lack of good faith or particular damage to the Dame.

The court relied particularly on the principles of the case Phipps v Boardman [1967] 2 AC 26, which held that this style of claim was not for a reimbursement of the income shortfall.

The payment was therefore on capital, not income, account as a claim against the profit made by Rupert and in essence a constructive trust over assets of the trust.

As usual, please make contact if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Dinosaur Jnr song ‘Yeah, right’.

Listen here: