Go your own way - The Rinehart Ruling – a key aspect **

Following last week’s post in relation to the, suspected, Tax Office Ruling in relation to the Rinehart trust dispute matter, there was some discussion about one key aspect of the reasoning.

In particular, the question of when a beneficiary becomes absolutely entitled to a particular capital asset as against the trustee is generally seen as critical.

The position appears to be that, where a trustee has a right of indemnity (and lien over) the relevant asset, it is not enough that the beneficiary has a ‘vested and indefeasible’ interest in the trust capital.

Instead, the beneficiary must have the right to force the trustee to transfer to them the asset, subject only to the payment of the trustee's expenses.

In order for this to be the case the better view appears to be that one of the following tests must be met, despite some suggestions to the contrary in the Tax Office’s Taxation Ruling 2004/D25 (TR 2004/D25), mentioned in last week’s post –

1. If the trust is over particular assets, then the trustee has a clear duty to transfer those assets to the beneficiary, without the trustee having any express or implied power of sale under the trust instrument.
2. Alternatively, if the trustee has a power of sale, the beneficiary must have demanded a particular asset be transferred to them and must tender sufficient funds to the trustee to satisfy the trustee’s right of indemnity.
3. Finally, absolute entitlement may be created by a trustee resolving to exercise a power under the trust deed (or at law) that a particular asset be immediately distributed to the beneficiary.

Importantly, and as flagged by the Tax Office in TR 2004/D25, a trustee’s right of indemnity of itself is irrelevant to the question of whether absolute entitlement exists. Rather it is a trustee's power of sale that will generally prevent a beneficiary being able to demonstrate absolute entitlement. However this point is unfortunately not clear in TR 2004/D25, despite the Ruling running to over 100 pages.

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

** For the trainspotters, ‘Go Your Own way’ is another song by legendary band Fleetwood Mac from 1977.

View here:

Little lies ? The Rinehart Private Ruling **

Obviously, there has been an enormous amount of interest in relation to the Rinehart trust dispute matter over an extended period of time.

Interestingly, the centrepiece of the dispute, at least from a tax perspective, does not always receive a significant amount of attention.

Given what has been disclosed publicly, there are many who believe that Ms Rinehart successfully obtained a private ruling from the Tax Office in relation to whether there were any capital gains tax (CGT) consequences of the trust, which is the focus of the dispute, vesting when Ms Rinehart’s youngest child turned 25.

While it cannot be certain, it appears that private ruling authorisation No. 1012254771092 relates to the Rinehart matter. As usual, if you would like a copy of the ruling please contact me.

The private ruling carefully considers whether CGT event E5 occurs on the vesting of a trust. CGT event E5 is said to occur when a beneficiary becomes ‘absolutely entitled' to a CGT asset of trust as against the trustee.

The ruling then goes onto explore in some detail the broad position that the Tax Office adopts in these areas based on Taxation Ruling 2004/D25 (TR 2004/D25). Again, as usual, if you would like a copy of the ruling please contact me.

The Tax Office confirms that while TR 2004/D25 remains in draft, so long as it is not withdrawn, it does represent its view of the law.

Based on the analysis of TR 2004/D25, the ruling concludes that because no beneficiary was able to call for any one or more of the assets to be transferred to them, they were not entitled to any assets as against the trustee, and therefore, CGT event E5 did not occur on the vesting of the trust.

An interesting footnote in this regard is that CGT event E5 was essentially based on similar UK legislation. The CGT rules in the UK however, unlike in Australia, explicitly state that absolute entitlement can be triggered for jointly owned property even when the trustee's right of indemnity is yet to be satisfied.

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

** For the trainspotters, ‘Little Lies’ is a song by legendary band Fleetwood Mac from 1987.

View here:

Can trusts last forever now? **

Following on from recent posts it is useful to understand that the majority of Australian jurisdictions decided that a life in being plus 21 years was too complicated. Instead, the rule was replaced with a statutory provision which allows up to 80 years as the maximum length of trust in Australia.

As mentioned last week, there are exceptions to this rule. In relation to discretionary trusts, the highest profile exception is in South Australia where the rule has effectively been abolished.

Another exception is in relation to superannuation funds.

Superannuation funds are simply a form of trust instrument, although a highly regulated form of trust due to the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act which imposes a whole range of specific rules.

In relation to the core of the underlying structure of a superannuation fund however, it is simply a trust structure. Importantly however there is no concept of an ending period. In other words, in theory superannuation funds can last forever.

There are obviously tax issues for self-managed superannuation funds meaning maintaining the structure indefinitely may not be a particularly smart idea. However in the context of trust vesting, superannuation funds are a clear and obvious exception to the vesting rules.

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

** For trainspotters, ‘Forever now’ is song by legendary Australian band Cold Chisel from 1982.

View here:

(Don’t ask me) why do trusts have vesting dates? **

Arguably trust vesting as a concept is an area of the law where you can ask 4 different lawyers for a view and you will get 5 different answers as to where it actually came from.

The theory I enjoy the most and the one that probably resonates most closely to what is possibly the truth is that, historically, trusts or as known in early English law, 'uses' could last forever.

In other words, trusts were the same as the modern-day company. There was no ending date; a trust was a structure that could last in perpetuity.

The story goes that there were forms of death duties back in the early English law. What was happening was that wealthy families would arrange for an initial transfer of assets into a trust on death.

While, there would be tax payable on that initial transfer of assets into the trust (that is, the death duty) once the asset was inside the trust, it was effectively protected from tax forever.

In other words, from a tax perspective, it was sheltered because there would be no further transfer of the asset on later deaths and therefore no further revenue to the monarchy.

The allegation was that King Henry VIII (after it took the revenue authorities about a hundred years to work it out) eventually was unimpressed that the revenue was drying up.

The reason that tax collections were drying up was because all the wealthy families were putting their assets into trusts and then effectively just skipping the death tax and making it an elective tax for later generations.

The solution, as is often the case in the structuring area, was to create the revenue outcome by imposing a limit on the life span of trusts.

Hence, you’ll see in many trust instruments, particularly earlier trust instruments, this idea of the 'life in being' of King Henry VIII or some other member of the royal family.

This is because the rule imposing the limit was set as the life in being as at the date of establishment of the trust plus 21 years. In most states (other than South Australia, which effectively has no statutory limit) the life in being approach has been replaced with a maximum period of 80 years.

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

** For trainspotters, ‘Why’ is song by Annie Lennox.

View here:

When one is no more fun – another tip on changing trustees **

As highlighted in previous posts, there are a myriad of issues that should be taken into account in relation to any decision to change the trustee of a trust (see for example our post on 7 February 2017).

One critical issue under the Trusts Acts in most states is the rule that where there are two or more individual trustees appointed initially of a trust, the retiring trustees will continue to be liable unless replaced by:

1. at least two individual trustees; or
2. a ‘trustee corporation’.

For the purposes of these rules the ‘trustee corporation’ must be a formal trustee company, as opposed to a private propriety company.

Importantly, the trust instrument may override these rules and allow trustees to be discharged, even when replaced by a single trustee.

Often however trustees will be changed without the required permission in the trust instrument, completely ignorant of the Trust Acts rules, meaning the retiring trustees unknowingly continue to be liable.

For obvious reasons we therefore generally recommend an amendment to any trust deed that does not expressly override the Trusts Acts requirement, however this is approach is also subject to the standard mantra ‘read the deed’ as often deeds will not in fact permit this type of variation.

In situations where a variation is not permitted, one work around that helps in some (but unfortunately not all) states is to appoint (say) one individual trustee and a propriety company of which the individual trustee is the sole shareholder and director.

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

** For trainspotters, ‘More Fun’ is song by legendary Australian band Radio Birdman.

Listen here:

I fought the law … **

As set out in last week's post, this week's post considers some possible solutions to the issues that arose in the Domazet decision.

The first work around is probably the easiest and the best one in some respects. Simply, the No.2 trust could have included a clause that said, “Our trust automatically ends the day before the No.1 trust.” This one sentence would have arguably avoided the issue.

The second idea would have been to amend the trust deed for No.1 trust and remove the prohibition. In other words, amending the terms of the No. 1 trust instrument so that it required any other recipient trust end before the No.1 trust.

This idea, would have essentially relied on the wait and see rule which has been explored in previous posts.

The third idea is that the No.1 trust could have skipped distributing to No.2 and simply distributed directly to the relevant beneficiary. Many might however say, “Well Matthew, that sounds nice, but I suspect there would have been a lot of wider tax planning strategies that were being utilised by the No.2 trust.” Thus, there should be an asterisk next to this idea because in many instances this style of approach may not have actually worked.

The fourth idea is in fact what they actually did in the Domazet case, which is they applied to the court for rectification.

The rectification adopted the first approach outlined above (that is the variation to amend the vesting date of the No. 2 trust).

Thus, while the taxpayer 'won', they had all the issues that go with a rectification. They had pain, they had suffering, they had delays, they had vastly increased costs, and they had significantly more attention.

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

** For the trainspotters, see early punk outfit The Clash perform the Sonny Curtis (of 'The Crickets' fame) song 'I fought the law and the law won'.

View here:

Trust distributions and the Domazet decision – it’s a miracle !**

Domazet is arguably, one of the highest high profile trust vesting-related cases. As usual, if you would like a copy of the decision please contact me.

The factual matrix in board terms was as follows.

The original trust was set up in the 1970s, named here as the No. 1 trust.

Many years later there is a desire to distribute to another trust (named here as the No.2 trust). The No.1 trust was set up in the 1970’s. The No.2 trust set up in the 2010s - in other words, many years later.

The provisions in the trust deed for the No.1 trust provided that distributions to another trust as beneficiary were possible, as long as the receiving trust ended before the vesting date of the No.1 trust.

Here, No.1 trust, or the trustee and its advisers assumed that the vesting date of the No.2 trust would be 80 years.

The reason they assumed that is because the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had at one point introduced the statutory 80-year perpetuity period and the No. 1 trust was established in the ACT.

It was therefore assumed that the legislation applied. The problem was that they had misunderstood the way the statutory limit had been implemented.

In particular, each Australian jurisdiction implemented the 80 years statutory limit at different points in time. The adviser for the No.1 trust was Queensland-based.

The Queensland legislation had come in before the No.1 trust was set up. So, they just assumed that would be the case in the ACT. In fact, the ACT legislation came in after the No.1 trust was set up.

They then amended the No. 2 trust to ensure it ended with 80 years of the No. 1 trust being set up.

What this meant in the practical sense was that when the distributions took place, the No.2 trust in fact had a vesting date after the No.1 trust because the No. 1 trust did not with certainty have an 80 year life.

This was a big problem because it meant that distribution was void according to the terms of the No. 1 trust.

What that meant was that the No.1 trust would be assessed, as if there was no trust distribution at all, which triggers a flat rate of tax of 48.5 cents. To the extent there were any capital gains, the 50% general discount would also be completely ignored.

Next week's post with consider some possible solutions given the factual matrix here.

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 Culture Club song 'It's a Miracle’.

View here: