Thank you for all of your help. The service was outstanding - all of my questions were answered promptly, everything ran smoothly

M. Elliot
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas

Tax Law - Trusts - Bamfords Case - Part 2

Date: August 15, 2011

Authors: Frank Egan B.A., LL.B., A.C.L.A., F.T.I.A. (Notary)

This article is part of a series on Bamfords Case. You may read the earlier article at:

Tax Law - Trusts - Bamfords Case - Part 1

Bamford's Case

It is well-settled proposition in trust law that trust deeds can define what income is, provided there is an adequate definition of income and the trustee has the discretion to determine what is or is not income allowing the trustee to include in income what might otherwise not be income, such as capital gains in Bamford. To put it mildly the ATO did not like the High Court’s decision in Bamford and has put out in a number of statements of their interpretation of the decision and how it will apply. As in all of these cases there are a number of issues that the High Court did not address and are open to interpretation.  Any taxpayer who has or is considering using a trust must get comprehensive legal advice on how it will impact trust deeds.

Recently we produced an article on Bamford, a decision which has far-reaching effects on trusts. As you will see from the earlier article the term share section 91 of the ITAA 1936 has now been determined by the High Court to mean, a proportion of the net income of the trust. One of the consequences of this is that a beneficiary might be liable on amounts not received or distributed to it. In other words where there is an unpaid present entitlement then tax is paid by the trustee and not the beneficiary. Obviously this will impact the trust because where the Commissioner issues an amended assessment obviously it is going to increase the net income of the trust and consequently reduce distributions to beneficiaries including the resultant tax benefits. What this means is that under the proportionate approach each beneficiary will have to pay tax on the increased amount of the proportion that their distribution bears to the net income of the trust before the increase in net income. In other words the trust pays more tax and the beneficiaries less.

A number of commentators have indicated there are approximately one million trust deeds currently in use throughout Australia being used for a variety of purposes but it would be fair to say that they can generally be grouped into three major categories; asset protection, succession and taxation and not necessarily in that order. That said it should be recognized that many older trust deeds are defective because some of the precedents that have been used have not been updated or reviewed and therefore anyone relying upon a trust structure which has not had proper care and maintenance will be at risk not only in respect of the issues raised by Bamford but also because of other cases dealing with a range of trust issues since the date their trust deeds have had effect.

As a result of Bamford all trust deeds which pre-date the decision handed down on 30 March 2010 need to be reviewed to take advantage of Bamford for the following reasons:

  1. The trustee may not be able to determine how income is to be defined in any financial year.
  2. The trustee may not be able to attribute particular expenses to income in a particular category.
  3. The trustee may not be able to distribute property or income to particular beneficiaries.
  4. Some beneficiaries may be required to pay tax on amounts they are not entitled to and have not received e.g. loans.

In other words trustees of discretionary trusts must have their trust deeds reviewed to ensure that the above matters have been addressed as they are in a fiduciary relationship vis-à-vis beneficiaries. It should be noted that beneficiaries normally fall into the following categories:

  1. Primary beneficiaries;
  2. Secondary beneficiaries; and
  3. Default beneficiaries, and their interests need to be properly considered. Laxity is a recipe for disaster particularly where taxation is concerned.

The role of a trustee of a discretionary trust is an onerous one and they need to address their duties assiduously but when it comes down to amending trust deeds they need to ensure that great care is taken to incorporate these changes and the trust is not resettled as it may have capital gains tax or stamp duty consequences.   To reiterate all trust deeds which pre-date Bamford should be reviewed to avoid the punitive aspects of it which will not only include increased taxes but also penalties and interest. This is highly specialist work and will be dependant upon circumstances, length and complexity of the trust deed(s). This is not work which any accountant or financial adviser should attempt to do as it is highly specialist legal work and where they get it wrong it will leave them with a conflict of interest and embarrassing professional consequences. We encourage you to contact us to have your trust deed(s) amended to avoid the problems confronting you or your clients if Bamford is not properly addressed.

 

  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas