Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
Sub-trusts ‘redundant’ under final Div 7A ruling
Tax Office homing in property deductions, SMSFs warned
ATO adds indebted sole traders to credit referrals
State and Federal Covid support --- Aug 2022
ATO casts net wide when it comes to taxable business income
Largest natural gas produces by country from 1970-2021
NALI ‘a special problem for SMSFs’
Tax time tips
Census 2021 Data
Single Touch Payroll: Phase 2 deferral reminder
Largest inflation rates by country in Oceania
Write a business plan
Be wary of trust disclaimers, ATO warns
Tax time guide offers path through 100A
Car allowance increase ‘welcome news’
Tax Time Checklists - Individuals; Company; Trust; Partnership; and Super Funds
ATO zeroes in on work expenses, crypto investments
Forget the Tim Tams in your WFH claim, say ‘fun police’
Inflation will force a third of businesses to raise prices
Year-end tax planning
World GDP Ranking (1960~2025)
100A ruling ‘turns tax avoidance logic on its head’
Company directors must register - all you need to know
Be alert for phoenix activity, businesses told
Equifax signs data agreement with ATO
E-invoicing will reduce emissions, says PwC
Largest cities in the world 1500 to 2100
Last chance to claim the loss carry-back
Changes to recovery loan scheme for small and medium enterprises
About the cash flow forecasting template
Articles archive
Quarter 2 April - June 2022
Quarter 1 January - March 2022
Quarter 4 October - December 2021
Quarter 3 July - September 2021
Quarter 2 April - June 2021
Quarter 1 January - March 2021
Quarter 4 October - December 2020
Quarter 3 July - September 2020
Quarter 2 April - June 2020
Quarter 1 January - March 2020
Quarter 4 October - December 2019
Quarter 3 July - September 2019
Quarter 2 April - June 2019
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
100A ruling ‘turns tax avoidance logic on its head’

The ATO’s 100A draft ruling on trusts has turned the logic of “tax avoidance” on its head and may be fundamentally flawed, according to tax law specialist Ron Jorgensen.



The Thomson Geer specialist said the draft shifted the onus onto taxpayers to show an arrangement was “ordinary family or commercial dealing” rather than follow the landmark case of FCT v Newton, in which the definition works the other way around.


“If the intention was to include the Newton test, then the dichotomy is determine tax avoidance and everything that isn’t tax avoidance is ordinary family or business dealings,” he said.


“What the commissioner has done is followed a few other cases that do start to look at it the other way, on questioning what ordinary family dealings are.


“The Newton case was the drafting standard at the time. And after Newton was the high watermark, our tax avoidance generally worked. So why would when you’re doing a specific anti-avoidance rule, would you choose the inverse?


“If I’m right about that, then the entire paper the Commissioner has written is nonsense.”


But either way, problems remained.


“If I’m wrong about that, then we get into the issue of how do we define ordinary family dealings?” he said.


“Because it is lay term or a non-technical term and the analysis that the Commissioner is doing is looking at the tax avoidance arrangements that have the dichotomy built into it – looking at what was then considered ordinary family dealings in the residual position, and then trying to form a definition for ordinary and family dealings.”


Mr Jorgensen’s comments added to a chorus of disapproval from the tax profession since the 100A draft was released in February.


The ATO is currently assessing submissions on the matter and has talked down accusations that it has broadened the scope of the trusts provision. But Mr Jorgensen said the ATO’s comments only compounded the problem.


“What the commissioner has tried to say, I think, is that the idea behind the provision was to avoid impermissible tax minimisation – so family dealings that are tax-structured. So it has tried to force an interpretation that really does broaden out the power,” he said.


“Then we’ve subsequently had a whole raft of public statements – I think there’s two or three of them now – saying, well, we’ll have to have a look at it, because we think people are misinterpreting how broad the provision really is.


“I think the Commissioner from that point of view has now made interpreting the provisions – the draft – quite difficult. Because he seems to be indicating that it is of less scope than a literal reading would be. It applies to fewer things. And I just don’t know how you get to that point.


“As soon as you remove the tax avoidance threshold in the testing and get to tax minimisation, it automatically broadens out. Because tax minimisation is such a low threshold.


“It would seem to me that the government at the time was concerned about tax avoidance – rewriting new tax avoidance provisions in part IVA and all those sorts of things were on the radar – why would you choose a tax minimisation threshold for specific anti-avoidance rule?”


He said the draft achieved trust taxation reform by administration and few taxpayers would be willing to contest it.


“The vast majority of these trusts are being used by middle-class Australia for small business and those sorts of things,” he said.


“And what they’re really doing is taking access to the tax-free threshold of $18,000 per child and maybe some lower threshold rates, marginal rates, but we’re not talking about huge amounts of money per taxpayer.


“Perhaps across the tax base we’re talking about very large amounts of money, if this is pervasive. But because litigation is done on a taxpayer by taxpayer basis, most taxpayers if they’ve got two kids are probably saving tax on $32,000 or $36,000.


“Would you continue to do that, if you have a risk of a piece of litigation is going to cost you a couple of hundred grand? I imagine most taxpayers will just conform.”


But Mr Jorgensen said tax agents would be confronted with difficult situations at the end of the financial year because there were insufficient examples in the draft and a lack of principles to guide them.


“The really conservative thing about just leaving money in the trust each year seems to be within the parameters of the ruling as long as you can show to the tax office that you still intend to call for it,” he said.


“That’s probably going to cover the vast majority of the client base that accountants have. So just keeping working capital in trust to pay off mortgages and things like that seems to be okay.


“The next step is it seems to be ok to discharge amounts to your children, if they’re adults, for actual expenses and things like that.


“But outside those two scenarios, it gets very grey. I get the feeling that most tax practitioners or accountants will just tell the clients not to play in that grey area.”


He said the ATO would have little option but to redraft the ruling.


“I think they have to with the industry response. I think they need to shore up or make it much clearer that there’s egregious elements in this, it’s not your average minimisation arrangements,” he said.


 


 


 


Philip King
31 May 2022
accountantsdaily.com.au




10th-June-2022