Tag Archives: deeds

Declarations of trust and stamp duty on disguised conveyances

declare

Each of the state and territory duty jurisdictions include declarations of trust over dutiable property (typically real estate) as dutiable transactions in one form or another. Without a declaration of trust head of duty, or an apt anti-avoidance provision, conveyancing duties that would by paid on a transfer of the dutiable property to B can be avoided by A declaring that property is held on trust for B though still held legally (on title) by A. Duty on a declaration of trust generally applies at full rates chargeable against the value of the dutiable property and differs from the head of duty which applies to declarations of trust which are not made over dutiable property to which a concessional duty or, in some states and territories, no duty will apply.

Duty eagerly assessed on the mention of a trust

So the Commissioners of State Revenues Australia wide are eager to assess any document to duty which purports to contain a declaration of trust over dutiable property which could be viewed as either:

  • a transfer of beneficial interest in the property in substance; or
  • a disguised transfer.

Integrity of the state revenues

That zeal can be understood in the context of the integrity of state revenues. In New South Wales, where a “declaration of trust” is a dutiable transaction under section 8 of the Duties Act 1997, Revenue NSW will treat documents which foreshadow or even just mention a trust over dutiable property as dutiable. Hence those who have an eye to the duty implications of deeds and documents that impact dutiable property are justifiably cautious about using the expression “on trust” in a deed or document where dutiable conveyance of the beneficial ownership of dutiable property by that document is not intended.

Ambit declaration duty rejected in W.A.

A recent case in Western Australia shows that duty on documents that state that dutiable property is held on trust can be too readily assessed as a declaration of trust by state revenue. The W.A. Court of Appeal in In Rojoda Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of State Revenue (WA) [2018] WASCA 224 decided against the Commissioner where two deeds of dissolution of partnership in that case explicitly stated that a partner, the surviving registered owner of land, held dutiable property on trust for other surviving partners of the partnerships. The Court of Appeal found that the dissolution of two partnerships involving family members, whose business included property ownership and investment, were not declarations of trust and were not dutiable as declarations of trust over dutiable property.

It was determinative in Rojoda that the trusts recited in the deeds were confirmatory of trusts that already existed. It was significant that the Court of Appeal, in overturning a decision by the State Administrative Tribunal, was prepared to examine the equitable implications and the relevant legal and beneficial interests of the partners just before and on the execution of the deeds of dissolution of the partnerships. The Court of Appeal found that the legal and beneficial interests of the partners, just before the deeds were executed, were sufficiently comparable to the interests set out to be on trust in the deeds and thus held the deeds established no new trusts and thus did not declarations of trust in the context of the W.A. head of duty.

Identifiable new trust needed for a dutiable declaration of trust

The land had been used as partnership property of the partnerships. The Court of Appeal found that the wife, who was the surviving registered proprietor of the land, already held the land for the partners, which included the children of the wife and the husband, or their representatives. They thus had specific and fixed beneficial or equitable interests in the partnership properties before the deeds prepared for the dissolution of the partnerships were executed. These interests, reflecting their respective proportionate share of partnership property, were comparable interests to those said to be held on trust in the deeds. Thus the Court of Appeal found the trusts set out in the deeds were not new trusts declared over property dutiable in W.A.

The High Court has granted the Commissioner of State Revenue special leave to appeal in Rojoda. This case will likely inform what amounts to a declaration of trust dutiable in state and territory stamp jury jurisdictions.

Should more than one family share a family discretionary trust?

pointatdeedFrom time to time a family discretionary trust is set up for the benefit of two or more families who may be pursuing a business or a venture in common.

Risk of unequal returns from the discretionary trust!

A double (or more) -throated family discretionary trust is unwise on a number of levels and often reflects misunderstanding of the tax and civil dispute realities that can apply to trusts.

If there is a dispute between the business/venture principals then backing out of this kind of structure it can lead to complications where there are assets in the discretionary trust still to be divided and distributed to beneficiaries. One of the principals controlling the trustee may die or become incapacitated and the other principal may take the opportunity to distribute the assets of the trust solely to his or family! The other family may claim, say, that they should get 50% of the assets of the trust, or the value of the work contributed by them to the trust, but the trust document, being based solely on discretion, will disavow that any family has a 50% or other set interest in the trust.

A family discretionary trust is often funded by gift from the beneficiary family or by the unrewarded work of a member of the beneficiary family. That may be but there is no obligation on the trustee to return the capital or the income of the discretionary trust in proportion to those contributions to that family. The families are highly reliant on the arrangements for control of the trustee, who holds the discretion to distribute the income and capital of the trust, to ensure members of each family will participate in the income and capital of the trust on any equal basis.

A hybrid trust is an alternative to a multi family family discretionary trust which addresses such problems but hybrid trusts have their own separate set of commercial and tax difficulties.

Reimbursement agreements

Multi-family family discretionary trusts can be at high risk of audit under the “reimbursement agreement” provisions in s100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Income distributions by the trust could be used to shift value between the families tax effectively however, if section 100A is applied, the distributions are void for tax purposes. The principals and their families, as beneficiaries, can’t resist a section 100A assessment with the usual defence based on the definition of “agreement’ in sub-section 100A(13) viz. that the distribution reflects an ordinary dealing within the family, because it does not. They are dealing between families.

Sometimes these structures are used to save establishment costs notably stamp duty which in NSW is as much as $500 to establish a trust where the trust holds no dutiable property. Such savings may prove inadvisable due to later considerable cost.

Bringing trusts to a timely ending

MovingOnEnding a trust is straight forward, isn’t it? Vest all interests in the trust in beneficiaries and make the right accounting entries and the trust is terminated? Not quite.

That word “vest”. What does it mean? Vest is a technical legal term. Broadly it means to imbue with ownership of property. So, when a trust ends and the property of the trust vests, the beneficiaries of the trust succeed the trustee of the trust as entitled to the property in the trust.

But not all trusts end that way. For instance a unit trust or an unpaid present entitlement may already be vested in a beneficiary or beneficiaries. Clearly something other than vesting is needed to bring trusts of that type to an end. In those cases property that has already vested in beneficiaries may need to be paid to or put in the possession of the beneficiaries too for the trust to end.

Ending is all in the timing

In most states and territories of Australia trusts must vest within a statutory perpetuity period, typically 80 years. From this point this post relates to jurisdictions where a statutory perpetuity period applies.

Trusts that are fully vested, such as bare trusts, fixed trusts, some sorts of unit trusts and “indefinitely continuing” superannuation funds may continue for longer than the perpetuity period. A discretionary trust must vest no later than the perpetuity period, that is, discretions to distribute all income and capital of the trust must be taken and sunset once the time for vesting has been reached otherwise it will be too late and the formula for distribution for “takers-in-default” set out in the trust deed will apply to the property then left in the trust. The divesting of those interests, which are then held by the trustee outright for those beneficiaries, by payment over to, or at the direction of, the beneficiaries, can happen later after the expiry of the perpetuity period.

Bringing forward the ending of a trust

The trust deed should also set out how the time for vesting can be brought forward from the expiry of the perpetuity period. That time of expiry will usually be the “default” time for vesting, or a time just before it, (the last vesting time) in a well-crafted discretionary trust deed.

An objective of winding up a trust is to satisfy all parties with interests, in the wider sense,  in the trust, including creditors, trustees, beneficiaries and the Commissioner of Taxation.

Failure to address these interests of the parties interested, or the trust deed requirements and formalities for the bring forward of the time of vesting, can mean that the trust, or its aftermath, will remain a matter in contention or dispute which is diametrically not what a trustee will want to occur following their effort to bring the trust to an end. A trustee can face difficulty in the converse case too where a trust is inadvertently brought to an end prematurely. In other words trustees can face problems where a trust has a mistimed ending either way. A trust may go on longer than planned or it may be inadvertently brought to an end before the trust should end. An example of the latter is to be found in trust deeds which set an inexplicably early time for vesting many years prior to the expiry of the perpetuity period.

Ending by depletion and merger

Depletion and merger are two other ways a trust may be brought to an end even where the intent of the trustee and beneficiaries is, and the trust deed may suggest that, the trust is to go on for longer.

Depletion is where the trustee no longer holds property on trust. If trust property is depleted and the trustee acquires more property on trust, the arrangement is treated as a new and separate trust. A “resettlement” occurs as well as likely confusion about which trust is which. Hence the device of a “settled sum” for a discretionary trust, which remains as trust property, to ensure continuity of the (original) trust even where the trust is in deficiency and has no other identifiable property.

Merger also brings a trust to an end in an untimely and premature way. Merger occurs where the trustee and the beneficiary are or become the same person. In the case of a merger the trust obligation of the trustee under the terms of the trust is no longer owed to the beneficiary so the trust does not continue.

Merger and SMSFs with individual trustees

Merger can be an interesting issue in the case of a self managed superannuation fund with individual trustees. There is no merger while the fund has two trustees: Trustee A has trust obligations to member B and trustee B has trust obligations to member A. However if a trustee/member dies and the surviving sole trustee is also the sole member of the fund with a fully vested beneficiary account of the entirety of the fund, the fund likely merges. It follows that the fund is no longer a trust. The Commissioner of Taxation has not addressed how the doctrine of merger may apply in these cases, and, as I understand it, the Commissioner treats a fund in this situation as continuing on as a matter of administrative convenience. If the Commissioner’s approach, which may be tantamount to a recognition of a self managed superannuation fund that is not a trust, came before the courts, it is unclear how it might be explained or permitted.

Some starting points

Trusts that require winding up usually commence by and are governed by a trust deed. I am not writing here of testamentary trusts. A trust deed will usually state the requirements to wind up the trust including how the time of vesting must be brought forward. A trust deed may also provide for other things which complicate vesting or winding up, or both. The trust deed may require that a party’s consent is required before either can happen. There may be other forerunner steps which haven’t been taken which must be taken before the trust can vest under the deed. A grasp of the design or method of the trust provisions in the trust deed will build confidence that all requirements for a winding up raised in a trust deed have been identified and addressed.

If the accounts of the trust have been correctly prepared then the current balance sheet, in particular, gives a list of activity to be addressed before the trust can be wound up. For a company liquidation, liabilities need to be satisfied with the balance of assets (property) distributed to owners. Trusts are no different. The more assets have been converted to cash and liabilities have been met the simpler the contemporary balance sheet and the winding up will be.

Tax planning

The conversion of assets to cash can give rise to taxable capital gains and assessable balancing charges but the alternative, their distribution to beneficiaries on a winding up inevitably does so too. It is generally simpler or more tax effective, or both, if these CGT events are contemporaneous with the trust coming to an end.  In the cases of a fixed trust or a unit trust CGT event E4 can occur where a non-assessable part of a capital gain is distributed to a beneficiary when the interest of the beneficiary in the capital of the trust persists.

Errors frustrate the ending

Correct accounting in the trust will follow correct treatment of interests, assets or liabilities in the trust by the trustee. But correct treatment of interests, assets or liabilities doesn’t always happen. Notable examples where correct treatment doesn’t happen include:

  • the elimination of entitlements of family beneficiaries in the course of a winding up. Trustees of discretionary trusts distribute trust income to family members on lower tax rates (A) which remains unpaid and which is treated in the accounts of the trust as an unpaid present entitlement under terms in the trust deed. On winding up the distribution may revert to or may be paid to the principals of the family (B) instead without explanation. That suggests that the present entitlement of beneficiaries to former income of the trust was a sham or misunderstood with potential tax liability for the trustee;
  • distribution in the course of a winding up to individuals where the trust holds money or property sourced from a private company to which Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies. This may be inconsistent with repayment of the money or property to the relevant company and could trigger a “deemed dividend” tax liability; and
  • backdating and forgiveness of loans – it can be tempting for a trustee to purge debts to related parties in the accounts of a trust but the purge is unlikely to be legally effective. A more nuanced treatment, which actually addresses the nature of the original transaction, is more likely to be accepted.

The Commissioner of Taxation investigates, audits and challenges trusts and the parties involved in these kinds of errors including after a winding up.

Conclusion

The affairs of trusts vary greatly and some have deeply intransigent issues. Getting a trust ready to wind up, and executing that wind up at a custom desired point in time may pose a number of challenges which should be considered and addressed in the process. The legal, accounting, business and practical attributes of the trust and possible errors should be considered through the due diligence process so that a non-contentious consignment of the trust to history can be effectively documented.

Managing the GIC in settling an income tax dispute – Caratti

A general interest charge (GIC), which accrues and compounds daily, applies to compensate the revenue for the time value of unpaid tax debts. That is where a taxpayer has the use and enjoyment of money which should have been paid in tax for a period of time.

Opportunity to dispute GIC

The GIC is imposed on and follows a tax debt and, for a taxpayer, it is difficult to establish a basis in the objection and appeal process upon which the GIC applicable to a tax debt should be dealt with separately and reduced and remitted.

Resolution of a tax dispute by agreement with the Australian Taxation Office is one opportunity where the GIC can be revisited and reduced so long as the Australian Taxation Office is agreeable. By the time this point is reached significant GIC can have accrued if the taxpayer has not opted to provisionally pay a tax debt that is contention.

Dealing with GIC in an agreement with the ATO

So it was, in the Federal Court in Caratti v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 70, where $1,145,639.03 had accrued since 7 August 2015 on a tax debt of $10,948,507.45 which included GIC up to 10 February 2017.

On 23 September 2015 the taxpayer had entered into a deed of agreement with the Commissioner of Taxation under which the Commissioner refrained to recover the “Taxation Debt” defined in the deed as:

the amount of $10,948,507.45, which is comprised of Tax-Related Liability and applicable GIC due and payable by the Taxpayer as at 7 August 2015, subject to any adjustment to those amounts by virtue of the Determination of the Objection Process

However the deed also stated that:

The Taxation Debt will continue to accrue GIC daily from the due date for payment in accordance with and at the rate as may be applied from time to time under the TAA 1953.

So the taxpayer could assert that the “Taxation Debt” was a variable and, further, that that interpretation is sensible as the GIC that accrued after 7 August 2015 related to the same underlying debt or “Tax-Related Liability” which the deed made irrecoverable. Although the deed stated that the “Taxation Debt” will continue to accrue GIC the taxpayer asserted that, as the GIC was a part of the “Taxation Debt”, the deed also made that accrual irrecoverable. The Commissioner contended that the Taxation Debt was $10,948,507.45, as the Taxation Debt was expressly stated to be, and that this figure was the irrecoverable total or ceiling and not just a snapshot in time of the figure.

There were other provisions and context in the deed which supported the position of the Commissioner hence Robertson J. found for the Commissioner in the Federal Court.

Equivocal term in the deed gave the ATO a GIC recovery problem

Moving liabilities like the GIC cause difficulties. $1,145,639.03 was put at stake due to the inadvertent and equivocal use of Taxation Debt (capitalised as a defined term) in the formulation of the term in the deed dealing with the further accrual of GIC. A Federal Court challenge to the ATO might have been avoided by the Commissioner if it had been clear in the deed that the amount of the Taxation Debt (as at 7 August 2015) would continue to accrue GIC as a taxation debt which, in turn, was not part of the Taxation Debt made unrecoverable by the deed.