Thank you kindly for all the work that you've done on my and my wife's behalf. A big pressure has been taken off our chests

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

Taxation Law - The Raftland Decision - Trust Losses, Trust Stripping and Shams - Part 3

Date: January 12, 2011

Authors: Tony Anamourlis B.A., LL.B., MTaxLaw, GradDipLegPrac, SJD Candidate (La Trobe); ATIA

Welcome to our comeprehensive series on The Raftland decision and its implications for Trust Losses, trust stripping and sham transactions. We encourage you to read this article and the rest of the articles in the series;

The Implications for Taxpayers

If transactions and or arrangements are struck down as "shams" it will have ruthless tax and criminal consequences to taxpayers in Australia. The decision of the High Court has opended up and has given the Australian Taxation Office a signifiacant drive to push and strike down a wide range of transactions as "shams".

Kirby J considered that in accordance with established Australian legal doctrine, there was a sham and then went on to state that the doctrine should be extended[1]:

"Doing so would not cut across the language and purpose of the explicit tax avoidance provisions enacted as Pt IVA of the Act. On the contrary, such an approach would be compatible with that contained in Pt IVA and the purposes that led to the enactment of that Part. It would demonstrate, once again, that in the present age, the doctrines of the common law evolve in the orbit of statute".

However, Heydon J, in his judgment, posed the question: had the loss trust sued the income trust for the income in question, what answer would the income trust have made?[2]  The answer that he gave was that apart from sham, there was a defence to such an action as the attempted enforcement would be dishonest and fraudulent[3].

However, it is most interesting to note that Kirby J, who delivered a lecture at the University of Melbourne’ Annual Taxation Lecture on 20th August 2008 on ‘ Of ‘sham’ and other lessons for Australian Revenue Law[4], is quite right in saying that where the “sham” doctrine has been called upon by the Commissioner, he must be quite careful. He also observed that the Commissioner should position himself a “surgeons scalpel rather than a butchers axe”[5]. In other words, if the Commissioner adopts the “surgeon’s scalpel”, this would enable the Commissioner in these types of cases to look behind the documents and to critically scrutinize the real and true arrangements between the litigants. It is only then when the ‘surgeons scalpel’ has been applied the court will look at the very substance of the transaction and or arrangements that was entered into between parties to find out the true meaning of the documents and what they were intended for. On this note, the High Court observed the following passage referred by Edmonds J[6], which is to the very point of the “surgeons scalpel” concept:

"… that many tax schemes are intended to have an otherwise inexplicable legal effect precisely because of the fiscal objectives that are pursued. That is undoubtedly true, but it does not deny the possibility that, in a particular case, documents might not be intended by the parties to have legal effect according to their tenor. The conclusion of Edmonds J was that, far from being a façade or sham, the nomination of the E & M Unit Trust as a tertiary beneficiary of the Raftland Trust 'was at the forefront of the intentions of those charged with responsibility for establishing the Raftland Trust'."

Accumulated Trust Losses

Australian taxpayers who wish to make use of accumulated trust losses must do so with absolute care. As the case demonstrates, its open to the Commissioner to point to the real and true transaction, where a transaction has been alleged by the Commissioner to be a ‘sham’ and the onus is on the taxpayer to prove otherwise. If it is proven that the transaction and or arrangement had no legal effect and was purely set up by the taxpayers adviors to defeat a potential taxation liability, then not only will the taxpayer be in the firing line but more importantly the taxpayers adviors could potentially be held criminally liable on conspiracy and defrauding the Commonwealth of its revenue.

 


 

[1] [2008] HCA at 159
[2] [2008] HCA at 172
[3] [2008] HCA at 177
[4] The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, ‘Of ‘Sham’ And Other Lessons For Australian Revenue Law, The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Law, Annual Taxation Lecture, Melbourne, 20 August 2008.
[5] ibid pp19-20
[6] [2008] HCA at 56
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas