Letting little fury things ** like the tax tail wag the dog

Given the theme of ‘famous tax cases’ in recent posts, it seemed appropriate to revisit the tax aspects of the case involving the family of famous retailer Solomon Lew (Lew), in Solomon Lew & Ors v Adam Priester & Ors [2012] VSC 57.

Broadly the situation was as follows:

1. Based on tax advice about an impending tax change (which was ultimately never implemented), certain distributions were made by a trust ultimately controlled by Lew to each of his children
2. The potential change was proposed in the late 1990’s and was known as the ‘profits first rule’ which would have seen a mandatory requirement that any distribution from a trust would presumed to be of profits and therefore taxable.
3. 2 of Lew’s children some years later were caught up in (separate) property settlements following the breakdown of their respective marriages.
4. The former spouses claimed the outstanding loans were assets of Lew’s children and therefore able to be subject to orders of the Family Court.
5. Lew argued that his children did not have any beneficial interest in the loan accounts due to agreements entered which resulted in the amounts in fact being held by the children on a trust for Lew and his wife Rose.

While the exact outcome as to whether the loans were in fact assets of the children appears to be unknown (it is assumed the cases must have settled out of court or the decisions de-identified), the fact that the former spouses were able to mount the arguments is a reminder that the wider commercial implications of any tax planning strategy should always be considered carefully.

Similarly, in the high profile case of Cardaci v Filippo Primo Cardaci as executor of the estate of Marco Antonio Cardaci [No 5] [2021] WASC 331, in a situation where historically payments to a beneficiary were categorised as distributions of capital or income, a subsequent unilateral attempt by the trustee to commence treating the amounts as loans was rejected by the court.

This was ultimately on the basis that the trustee had not adequately or sufficiently explained how or why the change in characterisation occurred, nor was there any express or implied loan agreement in relation to the payments.

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 ‘Little fury things’.

View here:

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:

Fiduciary duties: they are out there**

Fiduciary duties are generally seen as the most onerous of all legal duties and where they apply they require a person to act solely in another party's interests.

One case often referred to that highlights the extent of fiduciary duties is Loughnan v McConnell [2006] QSC 359.

Broadly the situation was as follows:

1. Loughnan was a lawyer and a co-executor and trustee of the estate of Mr McConnell (Ross).
2. Nadia McConnell (Ross’ wife) was the co-executor and trustee.
3. Ross’ accountant was also an executor.
4. Duckett Pty Ltd was the trustee of a family trust.
5. The sole shareholder of Duckett was Ross, who held two shares, and he and Nadia were its directors.
6. Under the will, the shares in Duckett were to be held by the trustees of the will on trust for Henry McConnell (the son of Ross and Nadia) if he was living on 1 August 2021.
7. After probate was granted, Nadia undertook a number of actions without reference to Loughnan, including relevantly -
1. in her role as sole director appointed herself as chairman of Duckett;
2. appointed her mother as an additional director of Duckett;
3. Duckett then resolved to vary the deed for the trust to (among other things) make Nadia the appointor of the trust and allow her to remain a beneficiary even if she remarried. The trust deed prior to the amendment excluded Nadia as a beneficiary if she remarried and gave the appointor powers to Nadia and Loughnan jointly.
4. Under the trust deed as amended, Nadia then by further deed removed Duckett as trustee and in its place appointed NEM Investments Pty Ltd of which she was sole director.

Loughnan made an application to court for directions concerning the trust and in particular unwinding the steps Nadia had unilaterally taken. The court confirmed that proceedings against Nadia should be commenced by Loughnan on the basis that she had breached her fiduciary duties as an executor and trustee of the estate.

The court also observed however that the primary concern was Nadia’s failure to disclose her intentions and that if consent of the co-executors had been obtained the actions would not have been reviewable.

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 ‘Out there’.

View here: