Legal news
On 28 August 2024, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) published Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/D2 (Draft PCG) on Personal services businesses and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
A failure to document a trust relationship at the time of acquisition may not always be fatal.
Introduction
Typically, but not always, land is legally and beneficially owned by the person registered on the title. However, sometimes the legal owner owns the land as trustee, the terms of which are supported by a written trust deed.
In the absence of a written trust deed, your client may maintain that the land is owned pursuant to a “bare trust” and the person registered on the title is the trustee (the legal owner) holding the land on trust for a beneficiary (the beneficial owner, or owners if there is more than one beneficiary).
Where the bare trust relationship is undocumented, the client might be concerned as to whether expected dealings in respect of the land trigger undesired tax outcomes.
In particular, issues can arise when:
the parties wish to vary the land title deed to record the beneficiary on the title (ie remove the trustee from the title);
a party has passed away and there is uncertainty about whether the land forms part of their estate; or
a party asserts that they qualify for the CGT main residence exemption in respect of the disposal of the land (and dwelling).
Is the absence of a written trust deed or declaration of trust at the time of purchase fatal? As discussed below, not necessarily, as objective facts can be persuasive in supporting the intentions of the parties.
The full paper is available to Sladen Smart Members sign up/login here to continue reading.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) has held in Quy v FCT [2024] AATA 245 that a taxpayer, who was physically in Australia for less than 2 months each year, was a resident of Australian tax purposes.
The Full Federal Court in the BBlood appeal found for the ATO on section 100A and the taxpayer dividend stripping (albeit on a technical, non-substantive basis).
The 100A analysis was limited to ‘tax avoidance purpose’ with the Full Court holding that, in certain circumstances, the purpose of advisors can be relevant.
This time last year, we published an article querying whether the Federal Court decision in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 (First Instance Decision) would ignite an administrative and judicial quest for clarity on the interpretation of section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).
The High Court in Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] HCA 34 culminated a protracted debate on whether to apply the presumption of resulting trust or presumption of advancement in the context of a matrimonial home.
On 19 September 2022, Justice Thawley of the Federal Court handed down his decision in BBlood Enterprises Pty Ltd v FCT [2022] FCA 1112 (BBlood), the most recent decision on section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) was successful in arguing that section 100A applied.
The recent Federal Court decision of Minerva Financial Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 1092 (Minerva) signifies that the Federal Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) can successfully scrutinise a trustee’s discretion under the general anti-avoidance provisions (Part IVA).
We wrote about Draft Taxation Determination TD 2022/D1 (Draft TD) on Division 7A and unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) here. On 12 July 2022, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) finalised the Draft TD as Taxation Determination TD 2022/11 (Final TD).
Actions of trustees in administering trusts are increasingly being challenged by beneficiaries. Such challenges often come to light with disputes as to the validity of amendments to trust deeds and the identity of the appointor. These issues often bring to light other deficiencies in trust administration with some of the most significant being the potential invalidity of the trustee’s year end resolutions concerning the appointment of trust law distributable income.
Both federal and state tax legislations contain different tax rules for different forms of trusts. The recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) decision of Sharlin Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 378 has provided much-needed clarity and insights into relevant considerations to determine whether a hybrid unit trust is a unit trust or a discretionary trust for the purpose of the land tax exemption for primary production land (PPL).
We wrote that 2022 is the ‘Year of 100A’ after the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released three guidance products, two in draft, on section 100A and the ATO’s appeal to the Full Federal Court from the decision of Logan J in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 on section 100A.
In one sense, the High Court judgment in FCT v Carter [2022] HCA 10 (Carter) will come as welcome relief for tax advisors. That is, after dealing with the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) view of the ‘lore’ in the form of practical compliance guidelines, Carter turns minds back to the ‘law.’ Unfortunately, the law in Carter can result in unpleasant tax outcomes for certain trust beneficiaries.
