Tax amnesty for undeclared offshore income

The ATO has launched a voluntary disclosure initiative known as “Project DO IT: disclose offshore income today”. The Tax Commissioner, Chris Jordan, has warned that the initiative is a last chance opportunity for individuals who have not declared their overseas assets and income to come back into the tax system before 19 December 2014 in order to avoid steep penalties and the risk of criminal prosecution for tax avoidance.

The Commissioner says eligible individuals who make disclosures will only be assessed for applicable periods of review (generally only the last four years). A shortfall penalty of 10% (plus interest) will apply for these disclosures, although low-level disclosures will attract minimal or no penalties.

Individuals will also be able to obtain additional certainty (where circumstances call for additional surety) and seek assurance regarding the ATO’s tax treatment of repatriated offshore assets. In addition, Commissioner Jordan says individuals will not be investigated or referred for criminal investigation by the ATO on the basis of their disclosures under Project DO IT.

TIP: The ATO notes that in order to receive the benefits of Project DO IT, individuals must make a “truthful disclosure” and lodge their disclosure statement before 19 December 2014. The ATO further notes that until the individual lodges the statement, the ATO’s normal compliance activities will continue – if the taxpayer is detected first, they will not be able to benefit from the initiative.

ATO targeting online sellers

The ATO has announced a data-matching program targeting eBay online sellers. Broadly, the ATO is looking at and testing correct tax reporting by taxpayers and identifying areas that require improved educational and compliance strategies in order to encourage voluntary compliance by individuals. The ATO says it will gather data from eBay Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd relating to registrants who sold goods and services of a total value of $10,000 or more in either or both of the financial years 2011–2012 and 2012–2013. It is expected that records relating to between 15,000 and 25,000 individuals per financial year will be matched.

TIP: The ATO says it will contact individuals and businesses that it identifies as being at risk of running part of their business “off the books” or in other ways that result in them not reporting all their income. It says individuals will be given the opportunity to respond to the information it collects before any administrative action is taken.

Review of small business tax hurdles

The government has asked the Board of Taxation to conduct a “fast-track review” to identify features in the tax system that are hindering or preventing small businesses from reaching their commercial goals. The government says it wants “small business owners to spend less time on paperwork and more precious time and resources on growing their business”.

The government says the Board’s report should provide business and broader community perspectives on issues in the tax system that are of most concern to small businesses, and identify the short- and medium-term priorities for small business tax reform in Australia. In particular, the government says the report should focus on high priority options for simplification and deregulation.

The Board is due to deliver its report to the government by 31 August 2014. To assist the Board in identifying the most serious tax system impediments that small businesses face, the Board is conducting broad public consultations with the business community. Public consultation closes on 23 May 2014.

Protection from announced but un-enacted tax changes

Treasury has released draft legislation that seeks to implement the government’s announcement that it would legislate to protect taxpayers in relation to previously announced but un-enacted tax amendments. The government had previously stated on 6 November 2013 that “there will be legislated protection for any taxpayer who has self-assessed with announced changes that the government will not proceed with”.

The draft proposes to amend the tax law to introduce a protection provision to ensure that tax outcomes are preserved in relation to income tax assessments in specified circumstances. This protection operates primarily by placing a statutory bar on the Commissioner amending an income tax assessment to the extent that it reflects a taxpayer’s anticipation of the impact of a prior announcement that was then later scrapped (and that meets other conditions set out in the legislation).

Small Business Superannuation Clearing House

The government has announced that the ATO has taken over responsibility for the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. This clearing house is a free online superannuation payments service that helps small businesses with 19 or fewer employees to meet their superannuation guarantee obligations.

The Small Business Superannuation Clearing House was previously managed by Medicare. The government says there are now 58,000 employers registered with the clearing house. It says it is also encouraging the other 700,000 businesses that are potentially eligible to use the clearing house to sign up.

Superannuation guarantee obligations attracting ATO scrutiny

This year, the ATO is targeting the management advice and consulting, hairdressing and beauty, and clothing retail industries to ensure they meet their superannuation guarantee obligations. According to ATO Assistant Commissioner Emma Haines, these industries have been identified as being at risk of not meeting their obligations.

She says extra effort is being made to help businesses get their superannuation guarantee payments correct before audit activity focusing on these industries starts in July 2014. Assistant Commissioner Haines notes that contractors may also be eligible for superannuation contributions, even if they have an ABN.

TIP: Employers are entitled to a tax deduction for contributions made to a complying superannuation fund or a retirement savings account (RSA) for the purpose of providing superannuation benefits for their employees. The contributions are only deductible for the year in which they are made.

To maximise the deductions available, employers should ensure that the contributions are paid to their employees’ superannuation funds or RSAs before 30 June.

Value of goods taken from private stock

The ATO has updated the amounts that the Tax Commissioner will accept for 2013–2014 as estimates of the value of goods taken from trading stock for private use by taxpayers in certain specified industries. For example, for a restaurant/café (licensed), the Commissioner will accept $4,400 (excluding GST) for each adult or child over 16 years of age. The ATO intends to adjust the values annually.

TIP: If you take an item of trading stock for your private use, you must account for it as if you had sold it and include the value of the item in your assessable income. If you want to, you can keep records of the actual value of goods you take from your trading stock for your own private use and report that amount.

The ATO says it recognises that greater or lower values may be appropriate in particular cases. The ATO says that where taxpayers are able to justify a lower value for goods taken from stock than that determined by the Commissioner, the lower amount should be used. The ATO says that where the value of goods ex-stock would be significantly greater, the actual amount should be used.

Tax planning

There are many ways in which entities can defer income, maximise deductions and take advantage of other tax planning initiatives to manage their taxable incomes. Taxpayers should be aware that in order to maximise these opportunities, they need to start the year-end tax planning process early. Of course, those undertaking tax planning should be aware of the potential application of anti-avoidance provisions. However, if done correctly, tax planning can provide a number of tax savings for entities.

Deferring assessable income

• Income received in advance of services being provided is, generally, not assessable until the services are provided.
• Taxpayers who provide professional services may consider, in consultation with their clients, rendering accounts after 30 June in order to defer the income.
• A taxpayer is required to calculate the balancing adjustment amount resulting from the disposal of a depreciating asset. If the disposal of an asset will result in assessable income, a taxpayer may want to consider postponing the disposal to the following income year.
• Roll-over relief may be available for balancing adjustments arising from an involuntary disposal of assets where replacement assets are acquired.

Maximising deductions

Business taxpayers

• Taxpayers should review all outstanding debts prior to year-end to determine whether there are any debtors who may be unable to pay their bills. Once a taxpayer has done everything in their power to seek repayment of the debt, the taxpayer could consider writing off the balance as bad debt.
• The entitlement of corporate tax entities to deductions in respect of prior year losses is subject to certain restrictions. An entity needs to satisfy the “continuity of ownership” test before deducting the prior year losses. If the continuity of ownership test is failed, the entity may still deduct the loss if it satisfies the “same business” test.
• A deduction may be available on the disposal of a depreciating asset if a taxpayer stops using it and expects never to use it again. Therefore, asset registers may need to be reviewed for any assets that fit this category.
• Small business entities are entitled to an outright deduction for the taxable purpose proportion of the adjustable value of a depreciating asset, subject to conditions.

Non-business taxpayers

• Non-business taxpayers are entitled to an immediate deduction for assets used predominantly to produce assessable income and that cost $300 or less, subject to conditions.
• The self-employed and other eligible persons are entitled to a deduction for personal superannuation contributions, subject to meeting conditions such as the 10% rule.

Companies

• Companies should ensure that all dividends paid to shareholders during the relevant franking period (generally the income year) are franked to the same extent to avoid breaching the benchmark rule.
• Loans, payments and debts forgiven by private companies to their shareholders and associates may give rise to unfranked dividends that are assessable to the shareholders and their associates. Shareholders and entities should consider repaying loans and payments on time or have appropriate loan agreements in place.
• Companies should consider whether they have undertaken eligible research and development (R&D) activities that may be eligible for the R&D tax incentive.
• Companies may want to consider consolidating for tax purposes prior to year-end to reduce compliance costs and take advantage of tax opportunities available as a result of the consolidated group being treated as a single entity for tax purposes.
• Companies should carefully consider whether any deductions are available for any carried-forward tax losses, including by analysing the continuity of ownership and same business tests.

Trusts

• Taxpayers should review trust deeds to determine how trust income is defined. This may have an impact on the trustee’s tax planning.
• Trustees should consider whether a family trust election (FTE) is required to ensure that any losses or bad debts incurred by the trust will be deductible and to ensure that franking credits will be available to beneficiaries.
• Taxpayers should avoid retaining income in a trust because it may be taxed in the hands of the trustee at the top marginal tax rate of 46.5%.

Capital gains tax

• A taxpayer may consider crystallising any unrealised capital gains and losses to improve their overall tax position for an income year.
• Eligible small business entities can access a range of concessions for a capital gain made on a CGT asset that has been used in a business, provided certain conditions are met.

Superannuation

• For 2013–2014, a $35,000 concessional contributions cap applies for those who were aged 59 years or over on 30 June 2013. The $35,000 concessional cap will apply from 2014–2015 for those aged 49 years or over on 30 June of the previous income year.
• From 1 July 2013, excess concessional contributions tax has been abolished. Instead, excess concessional contributions are included in an individual’s assessable income (and subject to an interest charge).Excess non-concessional contributions tax continues to apply where relevant.
• Individuals who wish to take advantage of the concessionally taxed superannuation environment but wish to stay under the relevant contributions caps should consider keeping track of contributions and avoid making last minute contributions that would be allocated to the next financial year.
• Individuals with salary-sacrifice superannuation arrangements may want to have early discussions with their employers to help ensure contributions are allocated to the correct financial year.
• From 2012–2013, individuals earning above $300,000 are subject to an additional 15% tax on concessional contributions. However, despite the extra 15% tax, there is still an effective tax concession of 15% (ie the top marginal rate less 30%) on their contributions up to the relevant cap.

Fringe benefits tax

• The four rates used in the statutory formula method for determining the taxable value of car fringe benefits are being replaced with a single statutory rate of 20% for fringe benefits.
• The first $1,000 of the aggregate of the taxable values of “in-house” fringe benefits (ie in-house expense payment, in-house property and in-house residual fringe benefits) provided to an employee during a year is exempt from FBT. However, the $1,000 reduction does not apply to an in-house benefit provided on or after 22 October 2012 under a salary-packaging arrangement.

Individuals

• The current government has proposed to cancel the carbon tax-related income tax cuts that are legislated to commence on 1 July 2015, and repeal the associated amendments to the low-income tax offset (LITO). Under these changes, the tax-free threshold would remain at $18,200 and the maximum value of the LITO would remain at $445.
• The 30% private health insurance offset has been means tested since 1 July 2012. For 2013–2014, the singles’ income threshold for the 30% offset is $88,000 ($176,000 for families).
• The medical expenses offset is being phased out and will not be available after 2018–2019. Transitional arrangements allow taxpayers to claim the offset from the 2012–2013 income year until the end of the 2018–2019 income year, subject to limitations.
• From 2012–2013, the principal dependant offset is the dependant (invalid and carer) offset.

The government has proposed to improve taxpayer compliance through new third-party reporting regimes and has undertaken public consultation to seek feedback on possible policy issues. The proposal aims to improve taxpayer compliance by enhancing the information reported to the ATO by a range of third parties. The proposal is currently scheduled to commence from 1 July 2014 (although first reports would not be due to the ATO until after 1 July 2015).

The government notes that some of the elements of the proposal can be implemented by the ATO, whereas other elements will require tax law changes. This would involve the creation of new third-party reporting regimes in relation to:

• sales of real property;
• sales of shares and units in unit trusts;
• sales through merchant debit and credit services; and
• taxable government grants and other payments.

In respect of these transactions, the government suggests that the ATO would initially seek to receive annual reports and then seek to move to quarterly, monthly or real-time reporting.

The government has released several reports prepared by the Inspector-General of Taxation, Mr Ali Noroozi, into the ATO’s compliance approach to individual taxpayers.

The Tax Inspector found that data-matching was generally positively received where the ATO uses it to assist individuals. However, he found that stakeholders were concerned that the data used by the ATO could be inaccurate and not sufficiently vetted before comparisons were made with taxpayer-reported information.

In relation to the ATO delaying tax returns to check refund claims, the Tax Inspector recommended that the ATO improve its processes as well as communication with taxpayers. Among other things,
Mr Noroozi thought the ATO could better differentiate potentially fraudulent claims from mere mistakes. The ATO could also improve the time taken to review cases, and provide clearer reasons for any adjustments made.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has recently reviewed the ATO’s complaints-handling processes. Although the ANAO found that the ATO’s complaints-handling framework is well designed, it found that there are opportunities for the ATO to improve its practices, including by obtaining a better understanding of the issues that are the subject of complaints and the needs of the complainants themselves.

It said there is scope for the ATO to:

• improve reporting against complaints-handling timeliness measures;
• implement a more coherent agency-wide quality assurance framework for complaints and other feedback;
• restrict sensitive information about named ATO officer complaints from being included in records on the ATO’s client relationship management computer system; and
• implement measures to periodically check that ATO officers have not accessed client relationship records inappropriately.

The ANAO made three recommendations, all agreed to by the ATO, which are aimed at improving the ATO’s handling of complaints and its monitoring and reporting of performance in managing complaints.

Successful entrepreneurs are a creative and motivated bunch, but it generally takes several attempts to develop a successful business venture. Costs are quickly incurred in determining the viability of, and in pursuing, a business idea. However, careful consideration of the deductibility of such costs needs to be taken. If the idea is a winner and a new business venture is born, a deduction may be available. However, in other cases, the deduction may not be available.

In one recent case, an individual was unsuccessful before the Federal Court in relation to his claims for deductions incurred in pursuing 14 business ventures on a 500-acre property. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had earlier found that although the man’s operations met a number of criteria relevant in determining whether a business was being carried on, none of the activities had advanced much beyond the planning stage.

The AAT held that the individual was not “carrying on a business” and that the claimed deductions were therefore not available. The Federal Court affirmed the AAT’s decision.

The Federal Court has affirmed an excess superannuation contributions tax assessment issued to an individual after finding there were no “special circumstances” to warrant reallocating excess concessional contributions that had been received late via BPAY.

The Court heard that the bookkeeper of the individual’s employer had made two payments on 30 June 2009 via BPAY to the individual’s superannuation fund, and that those payment were received by the fund on 1 July 2009. The Court also heard that the bookkeeper had mistakenly made an early payment to the individual’s superannuation fund on 27 May 2010, which was meant for the following financial year.

As a result of these payments, the total amount of funds received by the superannuation fund in the 2009–2010 financial year exceeded the individual’s $50,000 concessional contributions cap for the year.

The individual argued that there were “special circumstances” and that the Commissioner should reallocate the two late payments to the 2008–2009 financial year, and the 27 May 2010 payment to the 2010–2011 financial year.

However, the Court said late BPAY payments did not amount to “special circumstances”. Further, simple errors such as making a contribution too early also did not amount to “special circumstances”. The Court was also of the view that the individual had been in a position to ensure that the contributions were made in the correct year.

The ATO has released details of “dividend access share” arrangements that it considers to be dividend stripping schemes under the tax law anti-avoidance provisions. These arrangements aim to allow ordinary shareholders of a private company and/or their associates to derive the economic benefit of significant profits accumulating in the private company in a substantially (if not entirely) tax-free form.

These arrangements involve a number of features, but principally include the company issuing a new class of shares to another entity (eg another company controlled by the original shareholders) for nominal consideration, and the company declaring and paying fully franked dividends on the new class of shares of an amount approximately equal to the accumulated profits in the company. The ATO says these arrangements generally result in a reduction or elimination of the taxation liabilities that would normally arise with the payment of dividends (that is, if those dividends were paid to the company’s ordinary shareholders).

The Commissioner is of the view that under such circumstances, he can exercise his power to cancel all or part of the tax benefit obtained from these schemes.

The ATO has previously sought from local government council and shire authorities throughout New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania details of entities who provided contractor services in the 2011 and 2012 financial years. The ATO says it will now acquire details of entities receiving taxable payments from local government council and shire authorities throughout the country covering the 2011 to 2014 financial years.

The ATO says it will electronically match the information collected with its own data holdings to identify instances of non-compliance with tax lodgment and payment obligations. Records relating to 20,000 to 40,000 individuals are expected to be matched under the program.

A taxpayer (the trustee of a trust) has been unsuccessful before the Federal Court in arguing against a capital gains tax bill following a transfer of land it owned to a “joint venture trust”. The transaction took place in August 1998 and the amount in dispute totalled some $7.6 million. The joint venture trust was set up to facilitate commercial development of the land owned by the taxpayer as well as adjacent land owned by other owners.

The taxpayer argued that there was no change in the beneficial ownership of the land and that there should therefore be no tax liability on the transfer. However, the Court held that the transaction was taxable and that the exceptions to the tax liability as argued for by the taxpayer did not apply in the circumstances.  The Court also affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to impose an administrative penalty at the rate of 25% of the tax shortfall.

An individual has been unsuccessful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in a matter concerning losses claimed in tax returns for the 2006 and 2007 income years.

The individual had invested in a forestry managed investment scheme and the losses from that investment, which amounted to $1 million over the two years, had been claimed on the basis that he was a member of a partnership. During an audit of the taxpayer’s affairs, the taxpayer disclosed to the Tax Commissioner that the partnership losses should not have been claimed and that the 2007 return had been lodged by his tax agent without his authority. The Commissioner refused the claims for losses and issued amended assessments. However, the Commissioner also treated the taxpayer as a person who had made a voluntary disclosure and he decided to reduce the shortfall penalty originally imposed by 80%.

The taxpayer objected to the amended assessments and penalty on the basis that an ATO officer had led other taxpayers to understand that the investment he had made in the scheme could be made. However, the AAT affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. It held, among other things, that the returns had been lodged by the taxpayer’s tax agent with his authority and that he had failed to discharge the onus of showing that the scheme had not been entered into or carried out for the sole or dominant purpose of the individual obtaining a “scheme benefit”. This meant that in the circumstances, the Commissioner could, under the tax law, refuse the losses claimed and issue the amended assessments.

An individual has been mostly unsuccessful before the AAT in challenging the Tax Commissioner’s decision to refuse a variety of deductions relating to rental properties. The individual, who worked full-time as an industrial chemist, owned rental properties with her husband and had done so for many years. In the 2003, 2004 and 2005 income years, they owned nine rental properties. The taxpayer declared a net rental loss for those years, arguing that she carried on a business of letting rental properties.

The AAT agreed that the taxpayer was carrying on a business of letting rental properties and allowed some claims, including part of her telephone, computer and other work-related expense claims. However, it refused most of the other disputed expenses, which included car expenses, travel expenses, repair and maintenance costs and the costs of investment courses and seminars. The AAT refused the claims, saying they either lacked the necessary connection with the individual’s income-producing activities, or there was insufficient evidence to support the claims.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has found that two brothers were not in a partnership. The two brothers had spent some 30 years in business together – their businesses included an accounting practice, property development, share dealings, corporate consulting and farming. However, the Court heard that their relationship deteriorated and culminated in a dispute as to whether they were in a partnership in those years – one brother (referred to by the Court as John, who was an accountant and tax agent) said no, while the other brother (referred to by the Court as Tony, who was not an accountant) said yes.

The Court said thousands of documents were filed, but none of them were a partnership agreement between the two brothers. It said the various deeds of settlement establishing trusts presented in evidence provided proof of the brothers’ intentions to trade exclusively through corporate entities and trusts and not to trade as partners. At the time of writing, it is understood that one of the brothers (Tony) is seeking an appeal against the decision.

A married couple has been successful before the AAT in a matter concerning access to the capital gains tax concessions for small businesses. The key issue in dispute concerned a trust (in respect of which the couple were beneficiaries) and the trust’s entitlement to the concessions in connection with a capital gain made on the sale of assets by the trust in the 2008 income year. Specifically, the main issue was whether the trust was controlled, either alone or with others, by the couple’s daughter.

The Commissioner argued that the daughter was a controller of the trust and that, therefore, the trust was connected with other entities controlled by the daughter, with the result that the trust breached the eligibility requirements for any of the capital gains tax concessions sought by the couple. However, the AAT found that the husband alone was the person who controlled the trust for the purposes of the small business concessions. Therefore, entities connected with the daughter, who was found to be a mere “puppet director” of the company trustee, did not have to be taken into account in determining the trust’s entitlement to the concessions claimed by the couple.

In finding that the husband alone controlled the trust, the AAT noted, among other things, that the trust was not accustomed to acting in accordance with the daughter’s wishes independently of her father’s wishes in circumstances where her wishes and directions were actually her father’s.

The Coalition government has decided that it will proceed with a long-standing proposal to improve the current tax treatment of earnout arrangements.

Earnout arrangements are a common way of structuring the sale of a business. Under a standard earnout arrangement, business assets are sold for a lump sum plus a right to further payments that are contingent on the performance of the business for a specified period following the sale.

The earnout right typically reflects the uncertainty surrounding profitability, the value of goodwill and cash flow projections. Under the current rules, the calculation of the tax on the sale is based on the lump sum as well as the estimated value of the earnout right, which means the seller could end up paying tax on an amount not yet received. The proposed changes aim to resolve this, as well as other tax issues.

The government has indicated that it intends to pass legislation to implement this proposal during 2014.

The Inspector-General of Taxation, Mr Ali Noroozi, is reviewing the ATO’s administration of valuation matters.

“Australia’s tax and superannuation laws are increasingly relying on concepts such as market value”, Mr Noroozi said. Valuations may be required for a variety of assets, transactions, businesses and liabilities for taxation purposes. For example, market valuations may be required in order to access the capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.

“Whilst there may be sound economic reasons for using such concepts, their use has resulted in a growing need for taxpayers to undertake significant valuation work”, Mr Noroozi said. The Inspector-General said the main source of taxpayer concern is the compliance burden associated with valuations. He said that, “critically, valuations are inherently subjective and can be a source of significant uncertainty leading to ATO disputes which can be frustrating, time-consuming and costly”.

The ATO has announced that it will request and collect data relating to credit and debit card sales of merchants for the periods from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2014 from various financial institutions, including the four major banks in Australia: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corporation.

The ATO says the data acquired will be matched with certain sections of its data holdings to identify non-compliance with various tax obligations, including under-reporting or omitting business income. Records relating to 900,000 merchants are expected to be matched under the program.

A motel business has been mostly unsuccessful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in a dispute with the ATO concerning claims for input tax credits.

Following a tax audit, the Tax Commissioner refused the taxpayer’s input tax credit claims of around $88,500 for the quarterly tax periods from 1 January 2007 to September 2010. This was on the basis that there was a lack of documentation to substantiate the claims. The Commissioner had sought documentation from the taxpayer on various occasions, including sampling documentation for the June 2010 quarter.

However, the representative of the motel business was unable to produce all of the relevant documentation. He argued that a substantial amount of the records sought were lost due to flooding of the motel office in December 2008 and that he had been unable to respond to the requests for information as he was overseas.

Based on information provided before the proceedings, the Commissioner accepted that the taxpayer was entitled to some $16,000 of the original claim. The AAT found that this was acceptable in the circumstances. However, it affirmed the Commissioner’s stance on the balance of the claim. The AAT also rejected the taxpayer’s additional input tax credit claim of around $28,000. The AAT said the taxpayer had been given “every opportunity to produce documentation or other evidence to support his claims for imputation credits”. It further noted that the taxpayer was unable to produce documents or other evidence that demonstrated that the credits that the Commissioner had allowed were insufficient.

A director of a company has been unsuccessful before the New South Wales Court of Appeal in arguing that director penalty notices issued to him for some $1 million (including interest) were invalid.

The Court of Appeal heard that the company had failed to pay withheld tax amounts to the Commissioner. The Commissioner then issued notices to the director, which sought to recover penalties alleged to be owing by the director in respect of the company’s failure to pay the withheld tax amounts to the Commissioner.

The director essentially argued that the notices were invalid as they did not state expressly that his liability arose “because of an obligation that he has or had under” the provision in the Taxation Administration Act that deals with directors’ obligations, and that the Commissioner was therefore not entitled to prosecute the proceedings against him. It was argued that because the notice did not make that specific reference, it did not meet all the requirements to be a valid notice under the law. The notices only referred to a specific legislative section concerning director penalty notices.

The Court of Appeal found that while the notices failed to refer expressly to the fact that the obligation arose under the relevant provision, as contended by the director, the notices clearly informed him that he was liable because of statutory provisions associated with the section concerning director penalty notices.

The Coalition government late last year introduced a Bill into Parliament to repeal the mining tax. A number of other tax measures and concessions associated with the mining tax are also proposed to be repealed or revised.

Under the changes, the small business instant asset write-off threshold will be reduced from $6,500 to $1,000. This means that, with effect from 1 January 2014, small business entities (ie generally, those with an aggregated turnover of less than $2 million) will be able to claim a deduction for a value of an eligible depreciating asset that costs less than $1,000 (rather than $6,500) in the income year in which the asset is first used or installed ready for use. If implemented, this proposed change will return the threshold to the level it was prior to changes made by the previous Labor government. The special rules allowing accelerated depreciation for motor vehicles will also be discontinued with effect from 1 January 2014.

The Coalition government also proposes to delay the phased-in increased in the superannuation guarantee charge percentage to 12% by two years. This means that the superannuation guarantee rate would:

• pause at 9.25% for the years starting on 1 July 2014 and 1 July 2015;
• increase to 9.5% for the year starting on 1 July 2016; and
• gradually increase by half a percentage point each year until it reaches 12% for years starting on or after 1 July 2021.