Subdivision EA & gift/loan back arrangements

Recent posts have touched on various aspects of the 'gift and loan back' arrangement.

Recently we had a situation where historically a gift and loan back arrangement had been entered into, however the provisions of the Tax Act under subdivision EA had been ignored.

While there has been some significant dilution of the circumstances where subdivision EA will apply given the Tax Office’s approach to unpaid present entitlements, in the situation we were looking at it remained potentially relevant.

In particular, the second 'tranche' of the gift and loan back arrangement involving a loan out of a trust was problematic because at the time the loan was made, there was an unpaid distribution to a corporate beneficiary.

We are working with the relevant adviser to determine the most appropriate approach moving forward, however the example was a timely reminder that in any structuring exercise, it is critical to consider all potential transaction costs and in particular those that are not immediately obvious.

Until next week. 

ATO gives some relief in lead up to 30 June for trust distribution resolutions

Extracted below is the announcement the ATO has made this morning confirming the transitional arrangements that will apply for 30 June 2011 in relation to trust distributions.

The comments in relation to IT 328 are particularly interesting.


Other administrative arrangements

The Commissioner recognises that the passage of this legislation so close to the end of the income year to which it will first apply gives trustees and practitioners little time to familiarise themselves with its content and to determine how it might affect the circumstances of a particular trust for that income year (that is, the 2010-11 income year).

Therefore, following representations from practitioners, and in recognition of the practical difficulties faced by them and by trustees as a result of the timing of the new law, the Commissioner will put in place the following administrative arrangements in respect of the application of the new law to the 2010-11 income year.

Specific entitlement to franked distributions

As regards the timing of recording such an entitlement for the 2010-11 income year, the Commissioner has agreed to adopt a similar approach to that set out in Income Tax Rulings IT 328 and 329 in respect of ‘present entitlement’ to trust income.

That is, for trusts with a 30 June balance date the Commissioner will accept that a relevant record made in respect of a franked distribution by 31 August 2011 meets the requirements of the new law for the 2010-11 income year in any case where ITs 328 and 329 would permit the trustee to take steps within that same period to make beneficiaries presently entitled to trust income for the purpose of Division 6.

For trusts that balance earlier than 30 June 2011 (or later than 30 June 2011 but before 31 August 2011) the Commissioner will likewise accept a relevant record made by 31 August 2011.

As the new law (if enacted as passed) will permit relevant records to be made in respect of capital gains no later than two months after the end of the relevant income year, there is no need for this arrangement to be extended to a beneficiary’s specific entitlement to capital gains.

It should be noted that the arrangement outlined above concerning a beneficiary’s specific entitlement to franked distributions will apply only for the 2010-11 income year.

Further, the Commissioner intends withdrawing ITs 328 and 329 for the 2011-12 and later income years.

Compliance action

Staff will also be instructed not to select cases for review or audit in respect of the 2010-11 income year for the sole purpose of determining whether the purported streaming of capital gains or franked distributions by a trustee is effective.

This instruction will not apply where there has been a deliberate attempt to exploit weaknesses or deficiencies in the law. In those cases we will apply the law as we understand it to operate.

We will also apply the law as we understand it to operate in any case that has been selected for review or audit for other reasons, and in preparing rulings or objections, and in arguing cases before the Tribunal or the courts.


At this stage the next post will be Monday week.

Unpaid present entitlement warning

As those of you who sat through our webinars over the last few months in relation to unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) would know, there can be a number of traps in relation to the provisions of a trust deed in the context of the Tax Office’s approach in this area.

Arguably, the most concerning trust deed provision that we have seen in recent times is a clause in the deed of a relatively high profile provider that on a plain reading of the deed automatically causes any UPE to become a loan at call.

Obviously, this provision can have significantly adverse consequences, particularly for those clients wishing to 'quarantine' UPEs that existed as at 16 December 2009.

Until next week.

Business licences

The combination of the Bamford decision and the Tax Office’s attitude in relation to unpaid present entitlements have meant that we have spent a significant amount of time recently looking at optimal structures for business and investment purposes.

One approach that we have seen an increasing number of clients and advisers consider where a business is owned by a discretionary trust, is the licensing of that business to a trading company.

Obviously, there are a number of tax and stamp duty issues that need to be considered in relation to this approach.

A recent case however seems to confirm that at least in relation to the philosophical legal questions, this kind of approach is now available.

For those who are interested to learn more, a copy of the decision is at the link below. One of the most important paragraphs in the decision is number 42, which highlights the distinction between a goodwill licence and a business licence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2010/279.html

Until next week.

UPE deadline day rapidly approaching

Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen a significant increase in the level of enquiry about the appropriate strategies to adopt for clients that have trusts with unpaid present entitlements (UPE) owing to corporate beneficiaries.

For some months leading advisers have recommended that any specific steps be delayed for as long as possible on the basis (and hope) that there might be some relaxation or unwinding of the position adopted by the Tax Office. Indeed, there have also been rumours of a test case being run.

Given that it now appears increasingly likely that there will be nothing of substance changing the current rules before 30 June 2011, advisers and clients in this area now have less than eight weeks to have adopted one of the 'safe harbours' provided by the Tax Office.

Until next week.

Government review of trusts – the journey continues

As most will know, the ongoing saga in relation to the taxation of trusts took another turn last week with Bill Shorten retracting his previous promise to ensure that post Bamford amendments would be implemented before 30 June 2011.

The government has now indicated that other than in relation to the streaming of income all other issues will not be considered further until the wider taxation review scheduled for October. This review has already been postponed once.

Practically the latest announcement may cause trust advisers to proceed with ‘core’ amendments (for example, ensuring that trustee minutes can be made after the end of a financial year) to trust deeds before 30 June 2011.

Two other important issues to note from last week in relation to trusts are that:

1. it now appears unlikely that there will be any change to the unpaid present entitlement rules released by the Tax Office before 30 June 2011.

2. the announcement that the Coalition will look to re-invigorate entity taxation (i.e. taxing trusts as companies) if they win the next election.

Until next week.

Unpaid present entitlement warning

There can be a number of traps in relation to the provisions of a trust deed in the context of the Tax Office’s approach in relation to unpaid present entitlements (UPEs).

Arguably, the most concerning trust deed provision that we have seen in recent times is a clause in the deed of one provider that on a plain reading of the deed seems to automatically cause any UPE to become a loan at call.

Obviously, this provision can have significantly adverse consequences, particularly for those clients wishing to 'quarantine' UPEs that existed as at 16 December 2009.

Until next week.

Complete unity in relation to tax reform for trusts

Many of you will have seen the announcement last week that each of the major taxation professional bodies have called for proper reform to the taxation of trusts.

Undoubtedly, the ongoing angst caused by the ATO’s approach on UPEs has been a significant catalyst for the call, however the reality is that the piecemeal approach to taxation of trusts has been a longstanding problem.

A full copy of the press release providing more context in this regard is set out below.

Until next week.


Four of Australia's leading professional tax and accounting bodies, representing over 100,000 accountants and tax advisers, have united to call for sweeping reforms of the antiquated laws governing the taxation of trusts.

In 2009 the ATO introduced a controversial crackdown on "unpaid present entitlements" – distributions by trusts to associated private companies that were not paid, but remained intermingled with other funds of the trust.

The professional bodies believe the Tax Commissioner's technical interpretation of the taxation laws (Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) that apply to unpaid present entitlements is not supportable and is at odds with the original policy intent.

While the practice statement on unpaid present entitlements released by the ATO last week embraced some of the practical recommendations put forward by the professional bodies, the fundamental incorrectness of the ATO interpretation remains. This will increase the cost of a major source of financing typically employed in the SME market.

The professional bodies have called for an urgent test case to challenge the Tax Commissioner's interpretation of the laws that apply to unpaid present entitlements, and will raise the issue again at a meeting today in Canberra of the ATO's peak external stakeholder forum, the National Tax Liaison Group.

The recommendation is for the test case to be heard by the Federal Court and funded under the ATO's test case funding program, to provide judicial guidance on whether the Commissioner's position on this important aspect of the law is correct. The Tax Commissioner has accepted the proposition that a test case is an appropriate vehicle through which to resolve this issue.

The unpaid present entitlement issue, alongside a High Court decision earlier this year on the taxation of trust income and distributions, highlights the need for major review into the taxation of trusts. The Henry tax review, along with recommendations made recently in Treasury’s "Red Book," both indicate that the government should re-write the trust laws which are more than 50 years old and are not adequate to deal with the modern use of trusts as trading and investment vehicles.

Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia National Institute of Accountants Taxation Institute Taxpayers Australia

Unpaid present entitlements (UPE) & the election

Last week, the National Institute of Accountants (NIA) sought to turn the UPE issue into an election topic.

An extract from the Weekly Tax Bulletin released on Friday is set out below.

It highlights, as many have, that the changed approach by the ATO effectively renders the specific provisions under Division 7A in relation to UPEs irrelevant.

Until next week.

The NIA has called on both political parties "to show their small business credentials and intervene to put a stop" to the ATO's changed view of the treatment of unpaid entitlements to corporate beneficiaries. The NIA said that Taxation Ruling TR 2010/3 now confirms the ATO view that unpaid present entitlements (UPE) to corporate beneficiaries will be treated as loans and potentially deeming them as unfranked dividends.

NIA chief executive officer Andrew Conway said this new approach puts an end to a 12 year long standard practice of not treating unpaid entitlements to corporate beneficiaries as loans. "For the majority of cases the use of such funds by the trust is solely for business working capital related purposes. We have been reminded that the mischief which the ATO is trying to address is where these funds are used for private purposes within the trust," he said.

The NIA says there is strong evidence to indicate that it was never the intention of Div 7A to extend to UPEs and that "this latest change of heart by the ATO has no legislative basis". The ruling contradicts the underlying policy intent of Div 7A, the NIA said.

In times of peace - prepare for war

Two weeks ago, I explained the importance of reviewing all loan accounts and unpaid present entitlements in the context of asset protection issues.

As flagged, that particular client situation was also problematic for a further two reasons. Those reasons were:

1. Both the husband and wife were directors of the trading company, even though the wife had no active involvement in the business.
2. Both the husband and wife were shareholders in the trading company.

Aside from the fact that the trading company had a large asset on its balance sheet (being the loan or UPE), the wife was also personally liable (automatically) due to her directorship. This issue could have been avoided by simply resigning her as a director. There is a further related practical tip in this regard that all advisers should be aware of and I will explore this further within the next couple of weeks.

The second issue was that the husband (who had to be a director because of the level of involvement he had in the day-to-day operations of the business) personally owned shares in the trading company.

As a director, the husband carried personal liability and this means that his personal assets (including his shares in the trading company) were exposed.

Unlike the loan account issue, the strategies available in relation to the share ownership were ones that could only really be implemented subject to the bankruptcy clawback rules which (at a minimum) would delay any protection in relation to the shares until four years after divestment.

As usual, until next week.

Matthew Burgess

UPEs and an Asset Protection Trap

This last week I had a timely reminder that while those tax driven issues are critical, they are in fact not as important as the underlying loan or UPE itself.

In particular, I was helping an accountant who had a client whose trading company had been served with litigation proceedings. My role was to help review all structures in the group from an asset protection perspective, although as the litigation lawyer here politely reminded us (I do not get involved in any actual court work if I can avoid it), it was probably not the most opportune time to be doing the asset protection audit - hence Friday's Twitter posting 'in times of peace - prepare for war' www.twitter.com/mwb_mcr

In any event, while the overall structure of the group was fairly sensible, there was one, very large asset on the trading company’s balance sheet. That asset was a UPE (or if the ATO chooses to ignore industry feedback and finalises its draft ruling – a loan) owed to the trading company by a passive investment trust.

Despite bankruptcy clawback rules, there may be a solution for this client that we are currently exploring. The situation they have to address, now urgently, is of course less than ideal and was a timely reminder that all clients should be encouraged to undertake an asset protection 'audit' regularly.

For those interested, the particular solution potentially available to the client here was somewhat unique and fairly complex and I have added it to the list of ideas for presentation topics at a future Intensive or a Master Class by our firm.

Next week (or if another more relevant topic arises, within the next few weeks), I will relay one other difficulty with this client’s structure that is likely to not be able to be addressed – but could have been with some forward planning.
Matthew Burgess