Legal news
As noted previously, the recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision of BPFN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2023] AATA 2330 (28 July 2023) (BPFN) had struck a blow to the ATO’s strict approach to non-arm’s length income (NALI) and taken a more general commercial approach to NALI.
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.
This paper has been built on a previous paper on the superannuation guarantee (SG) regime, titled Super Guarantee – no longer the toothless tiger. That paper was designed to take a holistic examination of the SG regime. In this paper, we have built on that approach and added a number of developments, including:
In the decision of Mackie v Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2024] AATA 619 (3 April 2024), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirmed the decision of the Commissioner to decline to exercise the discretion in section 291-465(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 97) to disregard or allocate to another year the taxpayer’s concessional superannuation contributions.
The Victorian State Government has introduced a highly anticipated bill to implement the new Commercial and Industrial Property Tax with only three months to go until the 1 July 2024 start date. Those looking to acquire commercial or industrial properties or plan restructures within existing corporate/family groups should consider the interaction of the new regime with existing taxes.
In the decision of Kirk as trustee of the Property of Smith (a Bankrupt) v Smith [2024] FCA 240 (15 March 2024) the Federal Court held, among other things, that a transfer of superannuation from the husband to his wife’s superannuation was no longer protected as an interest of the bankrupt in a regulated super fund under section 116(2)(d)(iii)(A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act).
In the decision of Tratter v Aware Super [2024] FCAFC 36 the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal by the deceased super fund member’s mother against the super fund trustee’s apportionment of 30% to the mother and 70% to the deceased’s de facto spouse.
In 2022, the decision of the Federal Court in Minerva Financial Group Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 1092 raised the question that tax benefits emanating from trustee decisions could be subject Part IVA. At that time, we said we think ‘no’ (see here).
As we’ve noted previously, commercial and industrial properties sold or transferred on or from 1July 2024, will enter the new commercial and industrial property regime. Broadly, the regime will operate such that future transfers will not trigger land transfer (stamp) duty but rather the property will be subject to a (further) set of land tax, known as commercial and industrial property tax (CIPT).
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.
