Bills Digest no. 79 2006–07
Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 7) Bill
2006
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
Financial implications
Individual Measures
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures
No. 7) Bill 2006
Date introduced: 7 December 2006
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Treasury
Commencement: On Royal Assent
The Tax Laws
Amendment (2006 Measures No. 7) Bill 2006 is an omnibus bill which
proposes amendments to facilitate changes to:
-
the small-business capital gains tax
concessions
-
the exemptions from interest withholding
tax
-
the fund and integrity arrangements for
deductible gift recipients
-
deductible gift recipient status of certain
organisations
-
depreciation rules applicable to the life of
tractors and harvesters
-
non-primary production income threshold and the
total deposit limit for farm management deposits, and
-
the capital protected borrowings rules.
The Bill contains seven different measures. As
the measures are very diverse, each measure will be dealt with
separately under the heading Individual Measures
below.
To increase the readability of this Digest in
tandem with the
Explanatory Memorandum, the discussion of the Main Provisions
to each measure will follow the structure chosen for the
Explanatory Memorandum.
The financial implications as specified in the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, will be dealt with as part
of the discussion of the individual measures under the heading
Individual Measures.
Back to top
The measure proposes changes to the small
business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions. These concessions can
be found in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act
1997 (ITAA 1997).(1) In its Report
Post-implementation review of the quality and effectiveness of the
small business capital gains tax concessions, released in
October 2005, the Board of Taxation (Board) stated:
Division 152 provides significant CGT concessions
for eligible small business entities. [ ] The basic eligibility
criteria that must be met to access the concessions are:
-
a limit of $5 million on the net value of assets
that the business and related entities own;
-
the CGT asset must be an active asset;
-
if the asset is a share in a company or an
interest in a trust, there must be a controlling individual just
before the CGT event and the entity claiming the concession must be
a CGT concession stakeholder in the company or trust.
Some of the concessions have additional,
specific conditions that also must be
satisfied.(2)
The concessions for small businesses set forth
in Division 152 have been summarised by the Board to include:
-
a 15 year exemption which treats a capital gain
as totally tax-free, provided the asset was held continuously for
15 years and the relevant person is over 55 and retiring (or
permanently incapacitated) at the time of the CGT event
happening;
-
a 50 per cent reduction in the taxable amount of
the gain;
-
the ability to use up to a life time limit of
$500,000 towards the retirement funding of the relevant individual;
and
-
the ability to defer paying tax on the gain
where it is used to acquire replacement business assets. In this
case, the gain is not recognised until the replacement business
asset ceases to be an active business asset in its own
right.(3)
There is general agreement that the rules
relating to the CGT concessions available to small business were
complicated and difficult to apply. The senior tax counsel of the
Australian Taxation Institute, Michael Dirkis, has been cited
saying that:
one of the difficulties with the law... Was the
rules surrounding access to the concessions were fairly clunky...
The major area of difficulty has been the entrance requirement into
the concession. If you look at areas people were getting wrong,
this was one of them.(4)
And the Sunday Canberra Times commented
that:
one of the most complex pieces of legislation pertains to the
CGT small-business concessions that apply when a business is sold.
Originally enacted in 1999, that legislation has attracted
criticism for its complicated matrix of rules that require a very
clear head to decipher. This was nonsense because the Government
wanted small-business to be eligible to the concessions.
The CGT small-business concessions cause a capital gain made on
a sale of a business to be tax-free. But because of the many tests
that must be satisfied, many small-business proprietors tripped at
the last hurdle and failed to enjoy the
concession.(5)
-
fine-tuning [of] a small number of the
provisions relating to the application of the eligibility criteria
to improve the current outcomes of the legislation; and
-
minor legislative changes to address unintended
consequences and administrative changes to assist understanding of
the law.(6)
With these changes, the Board considered, the
tax environment in which small-business operates could be improved,
providing:
incentives to small business generally to invest
their capital to maximise employment, investment returns, and
innovation.(7)
accepted all but one of the legislative
amendment recommendations, 3 with minor amendments favouring the
taxpayer [ ]. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has accepted all
recommendations relating to administrative
matters.(8)
This Bill is the legislative response by the
Government to the Board s Report.
For ease of readability, the discussion of the
main provisions of this measure follows the structure for the
Explanatory Memorandum.
Schedule 1, item
39 of the Bill proposes to change the current controlling
individual 50% test with the new significant individual 20% test.
It will also change the calculation of the small business
participation percentage, that is, under the new regime the 20%
participation percentage can be made up of direct and indirect
percentages. In the past, the 50% of the controlling individual 50%
has had to be made up of direct participation percentages (proposed
sections 152-50 to 152-55 ITAA
1997). The
Explanatory Memorandum contains a number of examples of how to
calculate whether a person fulfils the significant individual
test.(9) The implementation of this measure will also
require a number of consequential amendments.(10) The
Treasury prepared a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the
significant individual test. The RIS sets out the policy objective,
the options considered by the Department and their expected costs;
it is included in the
Explanatory Memorandum at pp. 40 44.
Proposed section 152 60 will
introduce a test to ascertain whether a person is a CGT
concession stakeholder of a company or trust. The test is
based on the definition of a significant individual
contained in proposed section 152-55.
The maximum net asset value test will
be prescribed by item 22, proposed section
152-15. This provision prescribes that a person will
justify the maximum net asset value test if the sum of the
net value of all CGT assets of:
-
the taxpayer
-
any entity connected with that taxpayer,
or
-
any small-business CGT affiliate of that
taxpayer or entities connected with that person's small-business
CGT affiliates
does not exceed a prescribed amount. The
prescribed amount remains set at $5 million, it has not yet been
increased to $6 million as announced in the 2006/07
Budget(11) and the amount is not indexed.
The key term of the maximum net asset value
test is net value of the CGT assets. The meaning of this
term is defined in proposed subsection
152-20(1).
Items 24 to
29 contain special rules concerning the
calculations of the net value of the CGT assets, including
specific rules in relation to:
-
a taxpayer's dwelling (proposed
subsection 152-20(2A))
-
the net value of the CGT assets of others
(proposed subsection 152-20(3) and
(4), and
-
so-called small-business CGT
affiliates.
The
Explanatory Memorandum contains examples in relation to the
maximum net value test and a variety of calculations to
which the reader may refer.(12)
Items 31 to
37 proposes changes to the active asset
test, stipulated in proposed section 152-35.
This section will stipulate that a CGT asset will satisfy the
active asset test:
-
if it was owned for 15 years or less
if it was an active asset for periods totalling half of the period
to specified in proposed subsection 152-35(2)
(proposed paragraph 152-35(1)(a)).
-
if the asset was owned to more than 15
years if the asset was active for a total of at least 7.5 years
during that period (proposed paragraph
152-35(1)(b)).
There will be no requirement any more
that the asset is to be active immediately before the CGT
event.
The term active asset is defined in
item 32, proposed subsection
152-40(1) to include tangible or intangible CGT assets
owned by the taxpayer and which are used, or held ready for
use:
-
in the course of carrying on a business,
or
-
in the course of carrying on a business by the
taxpayer s small-business CGT affiliates or another entity
connected with the taxpayer (proposed subparagraphs
152-40(1)(a)(i) and (ii)).
In relation to intangible assets, the asset is
considered to be active if it is:
-
owned by the taxpayer, and
-
inherently connected with the business that the
taxpayer, a small-business CGT affiliate or another entity, that is
connected with the taxpayer, carries on (proposed paragraph
152-40(1)(b)).
Item 33 will substitute
existing subparagraph 152-40(3)(b)(ii) with proposed
subparagraph 152-40(3)(b)(ii). This will allow
seeing through a corporate entity to establish the level of active
assets in a company or trust.
Items 36 and
37 will amend existing subsection 152-40(4) and
introduce proposed subsection 152-40(5),
establishing special rules for widely held companies as well as
trusts that are listed on an approved stock exchange or have more
than 50 members (with some exceptions applicable to trusts with
less than 20 members (proposed subparagraphs
152-40(5)(b)(i) to (iv)). The reader may refer to the
examples listed in the
Explanatory Memorandum.(13)
Where the CGT event occurs in relation to
shares in the company or interest in a trust (the so-called
object company or trust), then the proposed
subsection 152-10(2) will add two additional basic
conditions which must be satisfied just for the CGT event occurs.
Under item 20, to access the small business CGT
concessions proposed in this measure, the object company or
trust must be either a:
-
CGT concession stakeholder (proposed
paragraph 152-10(2)(a)), or
-
CGT concession stakeholder with a small
business participation percentage of at least 90% (proposed
paragraph 152-10(2)(b)).
The
Explanatory Memorandum contains examples which demonstrate how
the two prerequisites operate.(14) The reader is also
referred to the example added to proposed subsection
152-10(2).
The proposed new measure will introduce the
requirement that for an individual to access the 15-year
exemption on shares or interests in trusts, the company or trust
must have had a significant individual, for periods
totalling at least 15 years or more. The
Explanatory Memorandum emphasises, that it is not necessary
that the significant individual is the same person at all
times.(15) This is also clear from the proposed
provision.
For a company or trust to access the
15 year exemption, the respective entity must have had a
significant individual for a total of at least 15 years
during which it owned the CGT asset (proposed paragraph
152-110(1)(c)). Item 45, proposed
section 152-120, will make
specific arrangements for discretionary trusts. Such trusts will
require a significant individual in a loss year or nil
income year. Proposed section 152-125 will
stipulate that payments made to a CGT concession stakeholder are to
be disregarded as an exempted amount.
Subdivision 152‑D implements the small
business retirement exemption. Section 152-300 explains that a
taxpayer can choose to disregard a capital gain from a CGT event
happening to a CGT asset of his or her small business if the
capital proceeds from the event are used in connection with the
taxpayer s retirement. Item 55, proposed
subsection 152-325(7), will deem a payment made in
view of the retirement of an employee or another CGT concession
stakeholder to be a termination payment. However, as this provision
is a deeming provision,(16) actual termination of the
employment is not a prerequisite.
Currently, taxpayers who receive payments that
can trigger the retirement exemption, but are under the age of 55,
are required to roll-over the exempted amounts into a
superannuation fund. Item 47, proposed
paragraph 152-305(1)(b), will be amended to allow
a person under the age of 55 to receive such payments, as
long as the choice to use the retirement exemption (according to
the
Explanatory Memorandum usually with the lodgement of an income
tax return) occurs after the taxpayer turns 55.
Further changes made to the retirement
exemption include rules in relation to receiving capital proceeds
in instalments; items 49 and 55,
subsections 152-310(2), (3) and
section 152-325 respectively, and
the gifting of active assets.
Subdivision 152-E regulates the small business
roll‑over. According to section 152-400, a small-business
roll-over allows a taxpayer to defer the making of a capital gain
from a CGT event happening in relation to one or more small
business assets if you acquire replacement assets .
Item 57, proposed
section 152-410, will abolish some of the current
prerequisites for the roll-over, including that a taxpayer may
choose to obtain a roll-over if:
-
within the period starting one year before, and
ending 2 years after, the last CGT event during the year for which
the taxpayer chooses a small business roll-over, the taxpayer
chooses one or more CGT assets as replacements (the so-called
replacement asset), and
-
this replacement asset satisfies
certain further conditions.
After the amendment, the small-business
rollover may be chosen merely on the basis that the basic
conditions as stipulated in subdivision 152-A are satisfied in
relation to the gain. According to proposed section
152-415, choosing to roll-over will allow the taxpayer to
choose to disregard all or part of the capital gain.
Further, the amendments will include CGT
events J5, J6 and J2 for the purposes of the small business
roll-over. Items 12 and 13,
proposed sections 104-185,
104-190, 104-197 and
104-198, will facilitate the inclusion of these
CGT events. The
Explanatory Memorandum contains detailed examples in relation
to the proposed rules applicable to the respective
event.(17)
Item 39, proposed
section 152-80, will make rules for the treatment
of the CGT assets that are part of the estate of a deceased person.
Proposed subsection 152-80(1) sets out the
requirements which must be fulfilled cumulatively for this section
to apply. Proposed subsection 152-80(2) will allow
a legal personal representative or the beneficiary to access the
same concessions available to the deceased.
The measure requires a number of consequential
amendments. These further amendments are set out and briefly
discussed in the
Explanatory Memorandum.(18)
The measures proposed in this Schedule will
apply from the income year 2006-07 onwards.(19) However,
the
Explanatory Memorandum points out that the proposed tests will
have implications for CGT events that happened before the income
year 2006-07.(20)
The financial impact of this measure is
estimated to be $303 million for the financial years 2007-08 to
2009-10. However, the
Explanatory Memorandum refers to additional measures, the costs
of which are difficult to quantify but which are expected to be
minimal.
The Australian Law Review cited the Senior Tax
Counsel of the Taxation Institute of Australia, Michael Dirkis, who
remarked that:
the five amendments to the CGT small-business
concessions meant the requirements were clearer and the hurdle to
qualify for the concessions were lower.(21)
However, the measures have also attracted some
criticism. First, it has been noted that the measure does not raise
the net assets threshold from $5 million to $6
million.(22) Second, the Business of Small Business
Organisations of Australia noted that it would be preferable if the
thresholds would be permanently indexed.(23) Finally, it
must be borne in mind that, further changes to the small business
concession rules as part of the announced standardisation of the
eligibility criteria for the new small business concessions will be
made in the near future,. These changes will come into force in 1
July 2007. This new framework will harmonise eligibility tests for
GST, the simplified tax system, CGT, Fringe Benefits Tax and the
Pay-as-You-go concessions.(24) Experts have commented
that business should be cautious and delay major decisions until
the whole package has been introduced and
passed.(25)
Back to top
Schedule 2 of the Bill
proposes changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
(ITAA 1936), modifying some of the sections concerned with interest
withholding tax.
Interest payments to non-residents are,
subject to a number of exemptions, taxed with withholding tax. As
the Australian Master Tax Guide explains:
this means that an amount representing the tax
payable is withheld from the payment [of interest] and is remitted
by the payer direct to the ATO.(26)
Sections 128F and 128FA ITAA 1936 stipulate
the exemption that applies where debentures meet the so-called
public offer test. The proposed amendments will modify these two
sections to tighten the eligibility requirements for this
withholding tax exemption. The tightening is necessary because,
according to the
Explanatory Memorandum:
on a strict legal form assessment of the term
debenture, it is possible that certain financial instruments that
have not traditionally been regarded as debentures could be
interpreted as such.
Schedule 2, item
1 to item 3 will amend section 128F to
narrow the range of company debentures or debit interests eligible
for interest withholding tax exemptions. Specifically, the
amendments will stipulate eligibility for interest on a
non-debenture debt interest that is:
Item 4, proposed
subsection 128 F(1C) will introduce the regulation
making power under which other, future forms of debentures and
debit interests can be described as non-eligible for the purposes
of section 128F. This will enable the Treasurer to counteract any
judicial expansion of the term debenture.
The proposed amendments to section
128AF, items 5 and 6,
will prescribe the same scope for unit trust debentures or
debt interests. Item 7 will introduce the regulation power for the
purposes of this section.
The majority of provisions in this measure
will apply in respect to debt interests issued from the day this
Bill was introduced into Parliament, namely 7 December 2006. The
regulation making power will apply from the bill receiving Royal
Assent.
The financial impact and compliance costs are
estimated to be nil.(27)
Back to top
For an overview of the background on
Deductible Gift Recipients (DGRs), the reader is referred to the
explanations contained in the Bills
Digest to the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 6) Bill
2006.(28)
Schedule 3 of the Bill
proposes changes to the legislative framework applicable to DGRs.
These changes are based on the announcement made by the Assistant
Treasurer on 9 May 2006.
Under the current law, DGRs are required to
maintain separate gift funds into which gifts and contributions to
the recipient are to be recorded. For gift funds that are endorsed
as a DGR, items 1 and 2, proposed
subsections 30-125(1) and (2),
will change this requirement so that these entities need not to
have separate gift funds in the future. Entities that are not
endorsed as DGRs, but maintain gift funds that have been endorsed
as deductible funds, will still be required to maintain a separate
gift fund. However, where these entities maintain more than one
endorsed gift fund, item 7, proposed
subsection 30-130(3) will allow these entities to
consolidate these gift funds into one.
Further, Schedule 3 proposes
changes to provisions in the Tax Administration Act 1953
(TAA 1953), with a view to enhancing the DGR integrity
arrangements. Under the current law, the Australian Commissioner of
Taxation (Commissioner) has different powers to review DGRs
depending upon whether the DGR was endorsed or listed. Item
8 proposes changes to section 353-20 of the TAA 1953 to
provide the Commissioner with the power to request information from
both endorsed and listed DGRs, thus aligning the integrity
arrangements applicable to both types of DGRs (proposed
subsection 353-20(1)).(29) A failure to
comply with this request will be an offence under the TAA 1953.
Further, it is proposed to require the Commissioner to report to
the Minister where the Commissioner is satisfied that a DGR:
-
fails or ceases to use gifts, contributions or
money received solidly for the principal purpose of the relevant
fund, authority or institution
-
changed its principal purpose, or
-
fails or ceases to comply with any rules or
conditions made by the Prime Minister or any other Minister
relating to the recipient being or becoming a DGR (proposed
subsections 353-20(2) and (4)).
Item 10 will introduce a
proposed Division 382-B into the TAA 1953. This
Subdivision will stipulate the record-keeping obligations of
DGRs.
The measure will commence with the legislation
receiving Royal Assent.
The financial impact and compliance costs are
estimated to be nil.(30)
Main provisions
Schedule 4 of the Bill will extend periods
during which deductions will be permitted to certain DGRs
(items 1 to 4). These DGRs are
expressly listed in the ITAA 1997 (sections 30-80 and 30-105). The
Explanatory Memorandum notes that this expansion is given to
support the completion of work of the relevant organisation
.(31) More details in relation to the individual
organisations can be found in the
Explanatory Memorandum to which the reader is
referred.(32)
The
Explanatory Memorandum expects that there to be cost
to revenue of
2007-08
|
2008-09
|
2009-10
|
$2 million
|
$2 million
|
$0.3 million
|
Depending upon the DGR, the measure takes
effect on different dates.(33)
Schedule 5 of the Bill
proposes an amendment to current subsection 40-102(5) of the ITAA
1997 to provide taxpayers in the primary production sector with the
option to use a so-called capped life to work out the
decline in value of their depreciating assets, i.e. their tractors
and harvesters. Generally, capped lives may be chosen by a
taxpayer where the effective life of the asset as determined by the
Commissioner as a safe harbour effective life is longer
than the capped life. The capped life introduced by this
measure in relation to tractors and harvesters will be 6 2/3
years.
It should be noted that the safe harbour
effective life used by the Commissioner for Taxation is
currently also 6 2/3 years. This has not changed since 1956.
However, as a result of the Review of Business Taxation A Tax
System Redesigned (The Ralph Review), the Commissioner may increase
this safe harbour effective life in which case a taxpayer
may choose the then shorter capped life.
The
Explanatory Memorandum indicates financial and complying costs
impacts are nil.
The measure will become effective on 1 July
2007.
Back to top
Schedule 6 of the Bill
proposes changes to Schedule 2G of the ITAA 1936, setting forth
rules relating to farm management deposits (FMD). The
Australian Master Tax Guide explains that:
The farm management deposits (FMD) scheme is designed to allow
primary producers to, in effect, shift income from good to bad
years in order to deal with adverse economic events and seasonal
fluctuations [...].
The FMD scheme allows primary producers (with a limited amount
of non-primary production income) to claim deductions for FMDs made
in the year of deposit (and to reduce their PAYG instalment income
accordingly. When an FMD is withdrawn, the amount of deduction
previously allowed is included in both their PAYG instalment income
and their assessable income in the repayment
year.(34)
The current law specifies the number of
eligibility rules, including, relevantly, that the:
-
total of all deposits (deposit limit) cannot
exceed $300,000, and
-
owner of an FMP cannot claim a deduction equal
to the market amount deposited if the owner and more than $50,000
in non-primary production income.
It is proposed to modify both these
eligibility rules.
Item 1 proposes to increase
the threshold of non-primary production income from currently
$50 000 to $65 000 (proposed paragraph
393-10(1)(b)).
Item 3 proposes an increase
of the deposit limit from $300 000-$400 000 (proposed
subsection 393-35(6))
The
Explanatory Memorandum estimates the costs to revenue to
be:
2006-07
|
2007-08
|
2008-09
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
Nil
|
$20m
|
$18m
|
$18m
|
$16m
|
It further states that there will be small
transitional costs, however, there will be no increase in ongoing
compliance costs.(35)
The measure will be applicable from the income
year in which the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The amendments proposed in Schedule 7 will
make changes to the ITAA 1997 and the Income Tax (Transitional
Provisions) Act 1997 to make changes to the law relating to
capital protected borrowings (CPBs). These changes were announced
in April 2003 in response to the Federal Court s decision in
Commissioner of Taxation v Firth [2002] FCA 413.
In relation to the tax implications of capital
protected loans or borrowings, the Australian Master Tax
Guide explains:
The ATO has previously taken the view that
interest payable on capital protected loans used to purchase shares
is not allowable to the extent that it exceeds the amount of
interest calculated at the benchmark interest rates set out in the
ATO website (ATO Media Releases NAT 99/26, 99/45). In
effect, the ATO considered that the excess amount was not interest,
and should be treated as non-deductible capital protection
fee.(36)
This view was challenged in the matter
Commissioner of Taxation v Firth [2002] FCA 413. In this
matter, the question was whether:
A portion of the interest expenses incurred by
[a taxpayer] in respect of so-called protected equity investment
loans (PEILs) should be regarded as having been incurred on capital
account and as such not deductible by the taxpayer under the
general deduction provisions of the Income-Tax Assessment Act
1997 (Cth).(37)
The loans in question allowed the taxpayer to
borrow funds to purchase shares. The loans were structured so that
interest, set at a very high rate, was payable in advance, with the
principal amount being repayable on maturity. Repayment of the
principle was effected by returning the shares to the bank. Any
profit made during the life span of the loan was kept by the
taxpayer. If the shares were returned at a loss, the financial
institution s right to take recourse against the taxpayer was
contractually limited to the value of the shares no personal
liability of the taxpayer arose. The compensation for the risk
taken by the financial institution was the high interest rate.
The taxpayer in the Commissioner of
Taxation v Firth claimed a deduction for the full amount of
the interest paid. The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner)
argued that a proportion of this interest payment was:
referrable to the limited recourse feature of
the PEILs and, to that extent, was an outgoing of capital or of a
capital nature.(38)
Thus, the deductibility of a proportion of the
interest payment ought to be denied pursuant to section 8-1 of the
ITAA 1997.
Justices Sackville and Finn of the Federal
Court of Australia wrote the majority judgment in this decision.
Their Honours found that the loan agreement entered into indicated
that the funds were used to acquire shares, and, therefore, the
taxpayer s expenses to service the interest were wholly revenue
items. Thus, their Honours concluded there was no basis for
requiring an apportionment of the interest liability incurred and
discharged by the taxpayer.(39)
The Government reacted to the decision,
announcing to make amendments to the ITAA to overcome the result of
the Federal Court s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v
Firth.(40)
The interim methodology, now proposed to
legislated as Division 247 of the Income Tax (Transitional
Provisions) Act 1997 was announced by the then Minister for
Revenue and Assistant Treasurer on 30 May 2003.(41)
Item 1 of Part 1,
Schedule 7 will introduce proposed Division
247 into the ITAA 1997.
Proposed section 247-5 will
set out the object of proposed Division 247 whilst
proposed section 247-10 will define the terms
capital protected borrowing (CPB) and capital
protection.
Proposed section 247-15 will
stipulate the applicability of proposed Division
247. Proposed subsection 247-15(1)
specifies that only particular types of CPB s will be subject to
the operation of this Division, including borrowings for the
acquisition of direct or indirect beneficial interests in shares,
in units of unit trusts, or stapled securities. The
Explanatory Memorandum contains detailed explanations in
relation to CPBs, including:
-
how to distinguish between CPBs to which this
Division will apply and those which are not covered by the proposed
measure,(42) and
-
the most common forms of CPBs, for example,
instalment warrants and capital protected equity
loans and dynamic hedging (the latter was in issue in
the matter of Commissioner of Taxation v
Firth)(43)
to which the reader may refer.
Proposed subsections
247-15(2) and (3) will ensure that
lenders and participants in employee share schemes will not be
subject to the operation of the Division. Subsections
247-15(4) and (5) set out further
limitations to the applicability of proposed Division
247, for example, to exclude some form of project finances
which are based on the purchase of interests in certain unlisted
companies by using funds obtained on a non-recourse basis (proposed
paragraphs 247-15(5)(a) and
(b)).
Proposed section 247-20
provides that an amount which is reasonably attributable to capital
protection is to be treated as a put option . Proposed
subsection 247-20(1) specifies the scope of this
provision. If the CPB was obtained between 16 April 2003 and 1 July
2007, proposed subsection 247-20(2) will refer to
proposed Division 247 of the Income Tax
(Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to work out the proportion
of the borrowing that is capital protection and therewith a put
option (see comments to Item 2 of Schedule
7, below). For CPBs obtained after 1 July 2007, proposed
subsections 247-20(3) to (5) will
set out the method for how to calculate this proportion. The reader
may refer to the
Explanatory Memorandum which sets out detailed explanations to
the individual steps and provides examples to the
calculations.(44)
Proposed section 247-25
stipulates that where capital protection can be invoked on several
occasions during the life of a CPB, each occasion is deemed to be a
separate put option .(45)
Proposed subsection 247-30(1)
provides that:
-
invoking capital protection will be deemed to
equate to an exercise of the put option (proposed paragraph
247-30(1)(a)), and
-
with the deemed exercise of the put option any
interest in shares, unit in a unit trust or stapled security is
taken to have been disposed of (proposed paragraph
247-30(1)(b)).
Proposed subsection 247-30(2)
stipulates when a put option is deemed to have expired.
The Note to proposed
section 247-30 is a reminder that the expiry or
exercise of a put option can give rise to a capital gain and
trigger a capital gains tax event.
Item 2 of Part
1, Schedule 7 introduces proposed
Part 3-10 Financial transactions ,
Division 247 Interim apportionment methodology for
capital protected borrowings into the Income Tax (Transitional
Provisions) Act 1997 (ITTPA).
The reader is again referred to the
explanations and examples contained in the
Explanatory Memorandum. They are of great assistance to enhance
the understanding of this complex area of the Tax Law.
Proposed Division 247 ITTPA
stipulates the interim apportionment method, applicable to CPBs
entered into between 16 April 2003 and 1 July 2007 (see referring
provision in the ITAA 1997, proposed subsection
247-20(2) ITAA 1997 above).(46) The Division
distinguishes between apportionment methods for different capital
protected products, including instalment warrants (proposed
section 247-10 ITTPA) and other capital protected
products (proposed section 247-15 ITTPA).
Proposed subsections 247-10(1) and
(2) ITTPA stipulate the apportionment method for
instalment warrants purchased on the primary market, that
is, directly from a lender .(47) Proposed
subsection 247-10(3) ITTPA, together with the
calculations set forth in proposed subsections
247-10(4) and (5) ITTPA, provides the
method to ascertain the amount reasonably attributable to capital
protection for instalment warrants purchased in the secondary
market.
Capital protected products which do not fall
within the scope of proposed section 247-10 ITTPA
will be caught by proposed section 247-15 ITTPA.
According to this provision, the amount reasonably attributable to
the capital protection will be the greater amount of two amounts
worked out using the so-called indicator method and the percentage
method (proposed subsection 247-15(1) ITTPA). The
two methods are stipulated in proposed sections
247-20 and 247-30 ITTPA.
Parts 2 and
3 of Schedule 7 contain
consequential amendments and application provisions.
The interim apportionment methodologies will
apply to CPBs entered into between 16 April 2003 and 1 July 2007.
The main measure will apply to such CPBs entered into after 1 July
2007.
According to the
Explanatory Memorandum, the financial impact will be minimal
with lower compliance costs predicted for both, investors and
lenders.
Back to top
Endnotes
- Unless stated otherwise, references to a
section as part of the discussion of Schedule 1 will be references
to sections in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
- The Board of Taxation,
Post-implementation review of the quality and effectiveness of the
small business capital gains tax concessions, Report, p. 4
5.
- Report, p. 5.
- E Kazi, CGT breaks could encourage small
business to sell, The Australian Financial Review, 12
December 2006, p. 4, citing M Dirkis, Senior Tax Counsel, Taxation
Institute of Australia.
- M Bannon, Streamlining Concessions,
Sunday Canberra Times, 19 November 2006,
p. 39.
- Report, p. 10.
- Report, p. 10.
- The Hon P Costello, Treasurer,
Capital Gains Tax (CGT): Government Response To The Board Of
Taxation s Report On The Post-Implementation Review Of The Small
Business CGT Concessions And Other Improvements, Press
release, No. 38, 9 May 2006.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 15 19.
- For a brief discussion of the consequential
amendments, see paragraphs 1.21 and 1.22 of the
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 19.
- See Attachment A 2006-07 Budget Initiatives
to The Hon P Costello, Treasurer, Report of the Taskforce on
reducing regulatory burdens on business final Government response,
Media release, No. 088, 15 August 2006.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 20 22.
- ibid., p. 24.
- ibid., pp. 26 27.
- ibid., p. 28.
- This is the effect of proposed
subsection 152-325(7).
- ibid., pp. 32 38.
- ibid., p. 39.
- ibid., p. 3.
- ibid., p. 39.
- Kazi, op. cit.
- This increase has been announced in The Hon P
Costello, Treasurer, and the Hon F Bailey, Minister for Small
Business and Tourism,
Making tax compliance easier for small business the new small
business framework, Joint Press release, No. 123, 13
November 2006. Kazi, ibid., citing Paul Masters, Partner with
Deloitte.
- Kazi, ibid., citing Tony Steven, Business of
Small Business Organisations of Australia.
- The Hon P Costello, Treasurer, and the Hon F
Bailey, Minister for Small Business and Tourism,
Making tax compliance easier for small business the new small
business framework, Joint Press release, No. 123, 13
November 2006.
- Kazi, op. cit., See also the comment by P
Switzer, Confusion clouds new CGT regulation, The Weekend
Australian, 30 December 2007, p. 26.
- CCH, Australian Master Tax Guide, 38th
edition, CCH Australia Limited, North Ryde, 2006, p. 1315.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 5.
- B Jaggers, Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures
No. 6) Bill 2006, Bills
Digest, No. 61, Department of Parliamentary Services, 2006-07,
pp. 2 3.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 57.
- ibid., p. 5.
- ibid., p. 62.
- ibid., p. 62.
- The application dates are listed in the
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 6.
- Australian Master Tax Guide, op. cit., p.
1175.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 62.
- Australian Master Tax Guide, op. cit., p.
1057.
- Commissioner of Taxation v Firth
(2002) 192 ALR 542, p. 550.
- ibid.
- ibid., p. 560.
- The Hon P Costello, Treasurer, Taxation of
Capital Protected Products,
Media release No. 19, 2003.
- The Hon. Senator H Coonan, Minister for
Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Taxation of Capital Protected
Products,
Media release C045/03, 30 May 2003.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 75.
- ibid., pp. 75 8.
- ibid., pp. 81 6.
- The
Explanatory Memorandum contains detailed examples that explain
the operation of this provision well. ibid., p. 86 7.
- These interim measures were announced by
Senator H Coonan, then Minister for Revenue and Assistant
Treasurer,
Media release C045/03, op. cit.
- ibid., p. 91.
Thomas John
6 February 2007
Law and Bills Digest Section
Parliamentary Library
This paper has been prepared to support the work of the
Australian Parliament using information available at the time of
production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position
of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional
legal opinion.
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 2007
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 Parliamentary Library, 2007.
Back to top