WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1997
Date
Introduced: 29
October 1997
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Treasury
Commencement: The Act which may
be cited as the Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 6) 1997,
commences on the day it receives Royal Assent. The amendments made
to specified Acts commence on the date specified in each Schedule
to the Bill and will be indicated under the main provisions of each
Schedule in this Bills Digest.
The purpose of
the Bill is to introduce the following measures.
- Deny deductibility of certain capital losses artificially
created by large corporate groups in a scheme of tax avoidance, as
announced by the Treasurer on 29 April 1997 (Schedule 1 of the Bill
and Chapter 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum).
- Align company loss and debt deduction provisions with two
concessional rules which will be available to trusts under the
proposals in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other
Deductions) Bill 1997 (Schedule 2 of the Bill, Chapter 2 of
the Explanatory Memorandum and Bills Digest No. 98 of
1997-98).
- Implement Government's response(1) to the recommendations of
the Small Business Deregulation Task Force made in November 1996 in
relation to fringe benefits tax (FBT) for small business by:
simplifying and extending the existing exemption of taxi travel;
exempting car parking benefits and simplifying the 'arranger'
provisions (Schedule 3 of the Bill and Chapter 3 of the Explanatory
Memorandum).
- Overcome a deficiency in the sales tax law which allows the
avoidance of sales tax on goods originally imported on a temporary
basis pending export and subsequently re-importing them. This
measure was announced by the Treasurer in the 1997-98 Budget on 13
May 1997 (Schedule 4 of the Bill and Chapter 4 of the Explanatory
Memorandum).
- Assist company tax instalment taxpayers classified as 'small'
by allowing them to pay their final tax liability for an income
year later than currently required (Schedule 5 of the Bill and
Chapter 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum).
- Remove the unintended advantage that life insurance companies
presently have on the tax treatment of franking credits and debits
in respect of Retirement Savings Accounts (RSAs) in comparison with
entities such as banks, building societies and credit unions which
also offer RSAs to customers (Schedule 6 of the Bill and Chapter 6
of the Explanatory Memorandum).
- Prevent taxpayers from including an amount of expenditure in
the cost base or indexed cost base of an asset for capital
gains/loss purposes, if such expenditure has qualified for a
deduction for income tax purposes, in accordance with the
announcement by the Treasurer in the 1997-98 Budget on 13 May 1997
(Schedule 7 of the Bill and Chapter 7 of the Explanatory
Memorandum).
- Correct a deficiency in the current formula used to calculate
the passive income of controlled foreign companies of Australian
life and general insurance companies (Schedule 8 and Chapter 8 of
the Explanatory Memorandum).
- Ensure that life insurance companies use average calculated
liabilities, instead of liabilities at the end of the year of
income, as the basis of determining income from annuity policies
and income that is attributable to policies issued by overseas
branches (Schedule 9 of the Bill and Chapter 9 of the Explanatory
Memorandum).
- Clarify the operation of the depreciation provisions for
periods prior to 3 July 1995 when an exempt entity becomes subject
to tax on any part of its income, for any reason (Schedule 10 of
the Bill and Chapter 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum).
As the Bill deals with disparate measures in
each Schedule, for ease of reference, the background to the
measures with significant revenue impact will be discussed with the
main provisions.
Schedule 1 - Denial of Certain
Artificial Capital Losses
At 3 pm on 29 April 1997, the Treasurer
announced(2) that recent audit activities by the Australian
Taxation Office (ATO), have revealed flaws in the existing law
which allow large corporate groups to artificially multiply an
actual economic loss several times over. This was possible through
manipulation of the capital gains tax (CGT) provisions relating to
rollover relief available on the transfer of an asset from one
company to another related company. The artificial losses including
the actual economic loss are then set off against any subsequent
actual capital gains to reduce the amount of CGT payable on the
actual capital gains.
An example of how losses can be artificially
created was included in the attachment to the Press Release of 29
April 1997. This example illustrates how an actual economic loss of
$0.7 billion incurred by one company in a chain of companies can be
artificially increased to $3.5 billion, by liquidating in
succession 4 interposed companies in the group of companies - the
liquidation of each company giving rise to an additional artificial
loss of $0.7 billion. The Explanatory Memorandum(3) too gives a
similar example involving the liquidation of two companies whereby
the actual economic loss of $0.7 billion is increased artificially
to $2.1 billion by the liquidation of two companies in the chain of
companies. This technique is referred to as unbundling group
companies in a 'chain' before liquidating that chain.
This technique of artificially creating capital
losses is made possible mainly by the potential for manipulating
the rollover relief provisions in section 160ZZO of Part 111A the
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) dealing with
capital gains. Section 160ZZO provides that where an asset is
transferred from a company to a related company, the general
capital gains tax provisions do not apply to the disposal and
acquisition. Instead, the company acquiring the asset is considered
to have acquired it at the time and for the cost base or reduced
cost base that applied to the company disposing of the asset. The
Bill seeks to prevent the abuse of section 160ZZO by the specific
provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 1. It is also
envisaged that other provisions of Part 111A of ITAA 1936, could
also be used to create artificial capital losses. To prevent such
abuse the Bill strengthens the general anti-avoidance provisions in
Part IVA of ITAA 1936 by the provisions in Part 2 of
Schedule I.
Part 1 of Schedule 1 as
mentioned earlier is a specific anti-avoidance provision and
inserts proposed section 160ZPA which denies the
use of certain capital losses incurred by a company. Part
1 does not apply if the company is a small business. The
small business test provided in paragraph
160ZPA(4)(a)is that the sum of the net value of the assets
of the company making the rollover loss as well as the net value of
the assets of
entities connected with the company and
associate partners do not exceed $5 million. Part
1 does not also apply where the asset which would create
the loss is plant, machinery or building
used in a manufacturing business immediately
both before and after the transfer and the transferee company used
the asset for at least 12 months after the asset was transferred
(proposed paragraph 160ZPA(5)(b)).
Part 2 of Schedule 1 amends
Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 to enable it to apply to capital losses
in the year in which they are created, rather than when a capital
loss is set off against capital gains in that income year or a
later income year. Part IVA contains the general anti-avoidance
provisions and it confers on the Commissioner the power to cancel
tax benefits under subsection 177F(1) when certain criteria set out
in that Part are satisfied. Proposed paragraph
177C(1)(ba) extends the definition of 'tax benefit' to
include a capital loss created by a scheme. Where a tax benefit is
denied to one taxpayer under subsection 177F(1), the Commissioner
has also the power under subsection 177F(3) to make compensating
adjustments to another taxpayer if a different benefit would have
arisen if the scheme had not been entered into. Item
9inserts proposed paragraph 177F(1)(c) to
authorise the Commissioner to cancel a tax benefit which is
referable to a capital loss and proposed paragraph
177F(3)(c) authorises the Commissioner to make a
consequential compensating adjustment in respect of any taxpayer.
Item 12 amends subsection 177F(2G) to enable a
taxpayer to object against a determination in relation to the
cancellation of a capital loss.
It may be argued that the arrangements should be
caught by the general anti-avoidance provisions contained in Part
IVA of the ITAA 1936, particularly as the application of Part IVA
was considerably expanded in the recent High Court decision in
Spotless Services Ltd v Federal Commissioner of
Taxation(4). However, as the operation of Part IVA depends on
the existence of a scheme, it may also be argued that such
transactions are not part of a scheme by an individual taxpayer and
so are not covered by Part IVA. While the introduction of specific
anti-avoidance schemes may be necessary in circumstances such as
those addressed by this area of the Bill to ensure that schemes by
large corporations will be 'caught' if there are doubts about the
application of Part IVA, it will add to the complexity and
compliance costs of all taxpayers. In this connection it should be
noted that while Part 1 does not apply to small
business and manufacturing business assets, there is no such
exclusion of small business and manufacturing business assets from
the operation of Part 2 which amends Part IVA. The
applicability of Part 2 to small businesses may add to their
compliance costs.
Financial Impact
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the
measures will protect approximately $100 million in revenue per
year, commencing in 1997-98.
Application
Part 1 will apply where the
rollover of the asset subsequently disposed of occurred before 3 pm
on 29 April 1997.
Part 2 will apply to capital
losses resulting from schemes entered into after 3 pm on 29 April
1997. Where both measures could apply Part 1would
apply before Part 2.
Schedule 2 - Concessional Tracing Rules
for Company Loss etc. Provisions
Under the income tax law a company has to
satisfy certain tests before prior year losses can be recouped in a
later year of income. These tests are contained in sections 80A to
80F of the ITAA 1936 and Divisions 165, 166 and 175 of the ITAA
1997. The company can carry forward a loss if there is continuity
of majority beneficial ownership of certain dividend, capital and
voting rights of the company in the year the loss is incurred as
well as in the year when the loss is recouped or set off against
profits. This is referred to as the continuity of ownership test.
Where the continuity of ownership test is not met, the company can
carry forward a loss, if among other things, it carries on the same
business as it carried on at the time of change in ownership. This
is referred to as the same business test. Similar tests apply to
limit the deductibility of a company's current year losses in
sections 50A to 50N of the ITAA 1936 and Divisions 165, 166 and 175
of the ITAA 1997. The bad debt deduction rules, which are similar
to the prior year losses provisions, are contained in sections 63A
to 63C of the ITAA 1936. It is relevant to note that as part of the
Tax Law Improvement Project (TLIP), the ITAA 1997 contains the
rewritten company loss provisions applicable from the 1997-98
income years. For income years prior to 1997-98 the provisions of
the ITAA 1936 apply. The company debt deduction provisions have not
been re-written as yet.
The continuity of ownership tests contain rules
for tracing ownership through interposed entities where some of the
shares in a company are held otherwise than by natural persons.
Where an interposed entity is a discretionary trust, tracing of
beneficial owners cannot occur as beneficiaries of a discretionary
trust do not have fixed interests in the income or capital of the
company or an interposed entity. Thus a company is unable to carry
forward losses where 50% or more of the interests in a company are
held by a discretionary trust or trusts including family
discretionary trusts. This is referred to as the 50% stake test.
The same business test is not available to a company where the
majority of shares are held by discretionary trusts.
The Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and
Other Deductions) Bill 1997 (trust losses Bill) which was
introduced into Parliament on 1 October 1997 proposes to insert
Schedule 2F into the ITAA 1936. The proposed Schedule
2F contains rules to restrict the recoupment of prior year
and current year losses and debt deductions of trusts. However,
there are concessional tracing rules in Schedule 2F which are
available to family trusts. The amendments in Schedule
2of the Bill will make available to companies two of these
concessional tracing rules that are available to trusts. The two
concessions are the family trust concession and
the alternative condition.
The Family Trust Concession
Part 1 of Schedule 2 will make
amendments to the ITAA 1936 and the ITAA 1997 so that the
family trust concession will be
available to companies. Part 2 of Schedule 2 makes
amendments to Schedule 2F of the trust losses Bill which are
necessary to complement the extension of the family trust
concession to companies.
Under proposed subparagraph
50H(7)(a)(ii) to ITAA 1936 if a family trust owns or has
an interest in any of the shares of a company, the trustee will be
deemed to have a shareholding interest and be deemed the beneficial
owner of shares in the company. If the trustee is a company, it
will be treated as having the same ownership rights as a natural
person. This ensures that the 50% stake test is satisfied if a
discretionary family trust controls a company for the purpose of
the prior year and current year loss rules in ITAA 1936.
Proposed subsection 175-65(1)will have the same
effect for the purpose of the prior year and current year loss
rules in ITAA 1997. Proposed subsection 63A(6A)
will provide that that the trustee of a family trust that owns
shares in a company will be taken to beneficially own the shares
for the purposes of the debt deduction rules.
The Alternative Condition
This Bill will make amendments to the ITAA 1936
and the ITAA 1997 to enable the alternative condition that is
available to fixed trusts under the trust losses Bill to be
available to companies under Part 3 of Schedule 2.
The Bill will make amendments to the ITAA 1936 for the purpose of
the current year loss rules and debt deduction provisions. It will
also make amendments to the ITAA 1997 for the purpose of the prior
year and current year loss rules. The tests contained in the
'alternative condition' were dealt with in Bills Digest No. 98 of
1997-98 to which reference is invited.(5)
Non-resident Trusts
Provisions are included in the Bill to ensure
that the trust loss and company loss measures cannot be avoided
where non-resident trusts are concerned. The Bill also includes
provisions to enable the Commissioner to require a company to give
information about present entitlement to, or distributions of,
income or capital of non-resident family trusts that hold interests
in the company.
Regulation Impact Statement
The Regulation Impact Statement(6) makes an
assessment of the costs and benefits of the measures in
Schedule 2. The salient features of this
assessment are as follows.
- The cost to revenue of extending the family trust tracing
concession will be in the order of $10 million per year. The loss
to revenue associated with the alternative condition concession
will be negligible.
- The companies that will be affected are those which have
deductions including prior year losses. The total number of
companies with prior year losses in 1995-96 was 75 000.
- There will be some initial compliance costs as trusts elect to
be family trusts for the purpose of ensuring that associated
companies benefit from the family tax concession to companies, but
this will be minimal as many of these trusts will have made this
election under the measures in the trust losses Bill. There will be
some costs to companies in monitoring whether non-fixed trusts with
interests in a company will pass the tests that apply under the
trust loss measures for the purpose of securing the alternative
condition concession.
- The measures will also affect the ATO which administers these
measures but it is estimated that the additional cost to the ATO
will be minimal.
It is relevant to note that the Taxation
Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions) Bill 1997 and
three complementary Bill: Family Trust Distribution Tax
(Primary Liability) Bill 1997; Family Trust Distribution Tax
(Secondary Liability) Bill 1997 and the Medicare Levy
Consequential Amendment (Trust Loss) Bill 1997 were the
subject of a report by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee
in December 1997. In view of the significance of the
recommendations and observations in the majority and minority
reports to the taxation of trusts generally, in the context of the
Tax Reform agenda, the 'concluding comments' of this Bills Digest
deals with these aspects.
Application
The amendments will take effect generally to
company losses and debts incurred in 1996-97 or later years of
income. These amendments were announced in the 1996-97 Budget of 20
August 1996.
Schedule 3 - Amendments to the Fringe
Benefits Tax
In implementing Government's response to the
recommendations of the Small Business Deregulation Task Force the
amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986
(FBTAA) provide for three measures.
- The existing exemption for taxi travel under section 58Z(1)
will be extended so that taxi travel beginning or ending at an
employee's place of work at any time of the day qualifies for the
exemption under the proposed subsection 58Z(1)
which replaces existing subsection 58Z(1). The Regulation Impact
Statement(7) states that the revenue impact of the simplified taxi
travel exemption is not quantifiable but it is not expected to be
large. The amendments apply in relation to assessments for the FBT
year commencing 1 April 1997 and later years.
- Division 10A of Part 111 of the FBTAA subjects car parking
benefits to FBT. Under the proposed section
58GAcertain car parking benefits other than those provided
in a commercial car parking station will be exempt from FBT. To
qualify for the exemption the employer of the employee must not: be
a public company or a government body or have a sum of ordinary
income and statutory income of $10 million or more in the year of
income immediately before the commencement of the FBT year. The
restrictions on income tax deductions for car parking expenses
incurred by self-employed persons, partnerships and trusts will be
removed for the sake of consistency of income tax and FBT treatment
of car parking. The Regulation Impact Statement(8) provides that
the exemption of car parking by small business employers is
expected to have an ongoing revenue cost of $35 million from
1997-98.
- A fringe benefit includes a benefit derived by an employee
where the employer arranges with a third party for the provision of
that benefit to the employee. The provisions of the FBTAA covering
such benefits are referred to as the 'arranger' provisions.
Proposed paragraph (ea) to subsection 136(1) is
intended to simplify the arranger provisions and to make it easier
for employers to determine whether they are liable for FBT for
benefits provided by third parties to their employees. The Revenue
Impact Statement(9) states that the revenue implications of this
measure are negligible. This measure will be effective from 1 April
1998.
Schedule 4 - Temporary Importation of
Goods
Wholesale sales tax (WST) applies to assessable
dealings with goods produced in Australia or imported into
Australia. Goods previously used in Australia are not liable to the
WST. However, under the law goods can be imported for periods of
less than 12 months free of WST under the special temporary
importation provisions. These provisions have been abused to avoid
WST by exporting such goods and re-importing them back on a
permanent basis. Such re-imported goods are not liable to the WST
being goods previously used in Australia. Proposed sections
9Band 51A to the Sales Tax Assessment
Act 1992 seek to prevent this abuse. The amendments apply to
the re-importation of certain goods which occurred after 7.30 pm by
legal time in the Australian Capital Territory on 13 May 1997. The
Explanatory Memorandum states that the estimated gain in revenue is
$2 million per year from 1997-98 to 2000-2001.
Schedule 5 -
Payments of Tax by Small Companies
Under the existing company tax instalment
system, a company classified as small (ie. likely tax of less than
$8 000) is required to make payment of tax in a single instalment.
Thus, a small company with a 30 June balance date must pay the tax
due on 1 December following the end of the income year. For
companies classified as medium (ie likely tax between $8 000 and
$300 000) or large (ie likely tax greater than $300 000), quarterly
instalments of tax are required to be paid earlier than the payment
schedule that applies to companies classified as small. However,
under special administrative arrangements, a small company with a
30 June balance date pays its likely tax on 15 December and the
balance, if any, together with the lodgment of its return on the
following 1 March. These administrative arrangements have been made
possible by the exercise by the Commissioner of discretion under
section 206 of the ITAA 1936. This has contributed to uncertainty
to small business as it was not clear whether the Commissioner
would exercise his discretion in the same manner each year.
The amendments made by Schedule
5 implement Government's response to the report of the
Small Business Deregulation Task Force, which recommended that more
time should be provided for small businesses to meet their tax
obligations. Proposed subsection 221AZK(2)
provides that instalment taxpayers classified as small with a
balance date of 30 June will be required to pay their likely tax on
15 December following the income year and the balance on the
following 15 March. Corresponding dates will apply to small
businesses that balance on dates other than 30 June. This
concession is only available to instalment taxpayers that are
classified as genuinely small. This group of small instalment
taxpayers will include companies, corporate unit trusts, public
trading trusts, superannuation funds, approved deposit funds and
pooled superannuation trusts The concession will not apply to
instalment taxpayers whose actual tax payable for the income year
exceeds $300 000. Such taxpayers with a balance date of 30 June
will pay the full tax liability on 1 December following the end of
the income year (ie 18 months after the commencement of the income
year). The Regulation Impact Statement states that this amendment
will defer only a small amount of tax and, as a result, the
interest cost to revenue will be insignificant.
The proposed amendment to the instalment
schedule are to take effect from the 1996-97 income year. The
amendments also change the classification system with effect from
the 1997-98 income year.
Schedule 6 - Dividend Imputation and
Retirement Savings Accounts
The purpose of the amendments to the ITAA 1936
proposed in Schedule 6of the Bill is to ensure
that no franking credit or debit arises from the payment or refund
of tax where those amounts are attributable to the Retirement
Savings Account (RSA) of a life assurance company. As part of the
tax treatment of RSAs by amendments to the ITAA 1936 introduced by
the Retirement Savings Account (Consequential Amendments) Act
1997 (RSA Act) this consequence applied to other entities such
as banks, building societies and credit unions that are allowed to
establish RSAs. The amendments in Schedule 6 of
the Bill are necessary to provide the same tax treatment to RSAs
established by life assurance companies as the amendments by the
RSA Act did not have this effect . The amendments are to have
effect to franking credits and debits arising for life assurance
companies after the date of introduction of this Bill (ie 29
October 1997).
Schedule 7 - Deductible Expenditure and
CGT Cost Bases
Under the existing law there is nothing to
prevent a taxpayer who has claimed a deduction in respect of an
asset in calculating income for income tax purposes from claiming
the same deduction for capital gains purposes. The amendments in
Schedule 7are designed to prevent taxpayers from
claiming a deduction for capital gains purposes to the extent that
they would be able to claim a deduction for expenditure in
calculating income. Proposed paragraph
160ZJAprevents the inclusion of an amount of expenditure
in the cost base or indexed cost base of an asset to the extent
that deductions are allowable to the taxpayer in calculating
assessable income.
These changes were announced as part of the
1997-98 Budget and applicable to assets disposed of after 7.30 pm
AEST on 13 May 1997. The Government received representations from
the building and property industries that it would be unfair for
measures to apply to expenditures incurred in respect of pre-Budget
assets. Transitional measures included in Schedule
7 that would exclude from the measures, expenditure
incurred on pre-Budget land or buildings only if the expenditure
was incurred before 1 July 1997.
This CGT cost base adjustment measure is
expected to provide a gain to revenue over the five years 1997-98
to 2001-02 of $325 million. This is $135 million short of the
original Budget estimate and represents the cost of the concession
made to representations from the building and property
industries.
Schedule 8 - Passive Income of Insurance
Companies
The amendments proposed in Schedule
8 are designed to correct a deficiency in calculating the
passive income of the controlled foreign companies (CFCs) of
Australian life and general insurance companies. Proposed
section 446to the ITAA 1936 will provide for a new formula
to replace the existing formula for calculating passive income. The
new formula will exclude from a company's passive income only the
income derived on assets referable to insurance policies owned by
non-residents that are not related to the company. The Explanatory
Memorandum sets out clearly the technical changes and illustrates
the use of the new formula.(10) The amendments apply to the passive
income derived by an insurance company on or after 1 July 1997 and
the estimated revenue savings is expected to be $10 million in each
of the 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 financial years.
Schedule 9 -
Average Calculated Liabilities of Life Assurance Companies
The purpose of the amendments proposed in
Schedule 9 is to ensure that average calculated
liabilities are used by a life company to determine the amount of
income that relates to immediate annuity policies; the amount of
income that is attributable to policies issued by overseas branches
and the amount of income and capital gains to be allocated to each
class of assessable income. Under the existing law liabilities for
the above purposes are based on year end liabilities of a group of
policies. Proposed section 114Asets out the steps
that will be used to work out average calculated liabilities for a
category of policies. The proposal to switch to average calculated
liabilities was announced by Government on 29 April 1997 because
using calculated liabilities at year end could distort these
calculations if they do not reflect the respective proportions of
these groups of policies held during the year. The Explanatory
Memorandum sets out examples of the calculation of average
liabilities under the proposed measures.(11) The amendments are
expected to protect revenue in the order of $100 million and the
amendments apply from the first year of income that commences on or
after 29 April 1997.
Schedule 10 - Depreciation
Schedule 2D to the ITAA 1936 inserted by
Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 3) 1996 ensured that
depreciable assets of tax exempt entities which become taxable were
brought into the tax system at their notional written down value
(NWDV) in calculating allowable depreciation. Schedule 2D applied
to depreciable assets of a tax exempt entity which became taxable
after 2 July 1995. The purpose of the amendments in
proposed section 61A is to ensure that depreciable
assets of tax exempt entities which became taxable earlier than 3
July 1995 but not earlier than the start of the year of income in
which 1 July 1988 occurred are brought into the tax system at their
NWDV. The provisions will apply to Government exempt entities which
are privatised either by legislation or sale to private interests
and non-Government exempt entities which cease to be exempt. This
puts beyond doubt the interpretation and administration by the
Commissioner of Taxation of the provisions of section 61 of the
ITAA 1936 for the specified period, prior to the enactment of
Schedule 2D. No additional revenue is expected from this measure,
but failure to implement this measure poses a potentially
significant threat to revenue by way of claims relating to the
period prior to 3 July 1995.
Trust Loss Legislation and Tax Treatment of
Trusts in Tax Reform
The majority report of the Senate Economics
Legislation Committee on the trust loss measures Bill in December
1997 notes the concerns that were raised before it in relation to
the retrospectively of the trust loss measures, its complexity and
the changed arrangements in relation to the definition of family
for the purposes of establishing family trusts. The majority report
recommended that the government should consider the evidence
received by the Committee to determine whether there should be
further amendments to those Bills. These very concerns can equally
apply to the amendments proposed in Schedule 2 to Bill considered
in this Bills Digest.
In the 1997-98 Budget(12) the Government
indicated that it is concerned to ensure that the taxation
provisions relating to trusts do not permit tax avoidance or undue
tax minimisation.12 This followed the identification by
the ATO High Wealth Individuals Task Force (HWITF) of the use of
complex trust structures for tax avoidance or undue tax
minimisation. Government indicated that it will undertake a review
of the taxation of trusts after the ATO and the Treasury issue a
discussion paper expected towards the end of 1997. This discussion
paper has not been issued to date and it appears that this review
will be part of the general Tax Reform agenda of the
Government.
The minority report on the trust losses Bill, by
the ALP members on the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, made
the following specific comments on the extension of the family
trust concession having regard to the focus on tax avoidance by
high wealth individuals in recent years.
The Opposition is resolutely opposed
to the extension of the concession and considers that it will be
regressive in its impact. Wealthy family groups will be able to
continue to traffic in trust losses within the family group
completely immune from the consequences that other taxpayers will
face from this legislation
Evidence provided to the Committee by
the Australian Taxation Office confirmed that the increased
concession will result in less revenue being collected, even though
this will be offset to some extent by tightening of the definition
of family member for the purposes of the legislation.
Although Labor does not support this
unjustified extension of the family trust concession, we recognize
that taxpayers have acted in good faith on the basis of the
official announcement by the Treasurer on this matter and that
therefore it would be harsh and unreasonable to retrospectively
abolish the broader concession.(13).
The concluding paragraph of the minority report
indicated that Labor in government will review the whole issue of
the taxation treatment of trust losses, but fell short of
indicating whether this would be part of a total review of the
taxation of trusts.
Senator A Murray of the Australian Democrats in
his minority report recommended that
Significant changes to trust taxation
should not be made in isolation of the Government's proposed
overall tax reform package.(14)
Mr Michael Carmody, the Commissioner of
Taxation, recently raised for consideration the application of the
company tax regime to trusts in the Government's proposed review of
the taxation of trusts in the interests of enhancing the integrity
of the income tax system.
Turning more specifically to the
proposed review of the taxation of trusts, the criticisms have
concentrated on an alleged anti-trust bias or lack of understanding
of the commercial use of trusts.
As put in one submission the vast
majority of trust structures have been established or result from
commercial reasons or transactions.
Rather than rebutting the issues we
have raised on trusts, this statement is the very reason we have
raised the question of the appropriate treatment of trusts for
taxation purposes!
As trusts have increasingly become
simply an alternative business structure we believe it is perfectly
valid to raise for consideration what should be the appropriate
treatment for tax purposes.
Both companies and trust structures
can offer the advantages of limited liability and a capacity to
split income (even more in the case of trusts). In these
circumstances we think it is perfectly valid to raise for
consideration the question "why should not the starting point for
this be that companies and trusts be treated the same for tax
purposes". Thus, for example, we believe it is fair to ask why
certain distributions from a business conducted through a trust are
capable of being received free of tax while the same distributions
made from a business conducted through a company are subject to
tax.
For example, where a company pays a
dividend out of profits which have been sheltered from tax because
of, say, deductions for building allowances or accelerated
depreciation, the dividend is taxable in the hands of the
individual shareholder. A distribution in similar circumstances
from a discretionary trust is free from tax.
Similarly, a distribution by a
company from an asset revaluation reserve is treated as a taxable
dividend whereas a similar distribution from a trust is generally
not taxable.
In raising these questions we are not
expressing a view about the appropriateness of the use of trusts
for commercial purposes. Nor are we labelling the use of trusts as
tax avoidance. They are not the issues. The issue is, what is the
fairest and most appropriate tax treatment given their acknowledged
increasing use as a business structure?
In doing this we are not exhibiting
any bias against trusts, we are simply raising what are, in our
view, valid questions that go to the integrity of the tax
system.
The Government has indicated its
intention to release an official's discussion paper on the
appropriate taxation treatment of trusts. There will be plenty of
opportunity to discuss the approaches then. I have no doubt there
will be some in the community who will be lively critics but let's
focus the criticisms on an analysis of the true issues rather than
the distraction of criticising, "labelling" if you like, the Tax
Office's role or motives.(15)
The need for a review of the taxation treatment
of trusts and recommendations that consideration should be given to
taxing trusts as companies to reduce opportunities for tax
minimisation has been commented upon in several reports in the
past. The information and Research Services 1997-98 Budget Review
gives a brief account of the recent reports, commencing with the
Tax Reform Summit of 1985, where the application of the company tax
regime to trusts has been suggested.(16)
- More Time for Business - Statement by the Prime Minister, the
Hon John Howard MP, 24 March 1997, 17
- Press Release No 35: Capital Losses - Denial of Artificially
Created Losses
- Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill
(No. 6) 1997, 10-11
- (1996) 34 ATR 183
- Bills Digest No. 98 of 1997-98, 6
- Explanatory Memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No.
6) 1997, 44-47
- ibid., pp. commencing with the Tax Reform Summit of 1985 61 -
66, paragraph 3.62
- ibid., paragraph 3.62.
- ibid., paragraph 3.78
- ibid., 71-73
- ibid., 101-111
- Budget Measures 1997-98 - Budget Paper No. 2, 172
- Australian Senate - Economics Legislation Committee - Report on
Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions) Bill
1997 and complementary Bill (December 1997) - Minority Report,
3
- ibid, Minority Report of Senator A. Murray, Recommendation
2
- Address by Mr Michael Carmody, commissioner of Taxation, to
CEDA, Adelaide (10 September 1997) 'We cannot Afford, or Accept,
the Role of Passive Administrator'.
- IRS Budget Review 1997-98, 19/25
Bernard Pulle
27 February 1998
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1997
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1997.
Back to top