Share transfer to family partnership ineffective

A husband and wife have been unsuccessful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in arguing that they had transferred shares in a family company to a family partnership, and that therefore they should not be assessed on dividends issued by the company to themselves. The AAT examined the partnership agreement and was of the view that, under the terms of the agreement, the couple was not required to actually transfer their shares in the family company to the family partnership. It was also emphasised that the couple remained the full registered owners of the shares. In doing so, the AAT affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision that the couple were each assessable on the dividends of some $1.8 million. The taxpayers are seeking to appeal the decision in the Federal Court.

Property developers and use of trusts under scrutiny

The ATO is examining arrangements where property developers use trusts to return the proceeds from property development as capital gains instead of income on revenue account. ATO Deputy Commissioner Tim Dyce said the ATO has “begun auditing property developers who are carrying out activities which conflict with their stated purpose of capital investment”. He said a “growing number of property developers are using trusts to suggest a development is a capital asset to generate rental income and claim the 50% capital gains discount”. Mr Dyce warned that penalties of up to 75% of the tax avoided can apply to those found to be deliberately using special purpose trusts to mischaracterise the proceeds of property developments. The ATO said it has made adjustments to increase the net income of a number of trusts. It said penalties will be significantly reduced if taxpayers make a voluntary disclosure.

Residency depends on facts and circumstances of each case

The ATO has issued a Decision Impact Statement following an individual’s legal win in arguing that he was not a tax resident of Australia during the 2009 to 2010 income years. The taxpayer had moved to Saudi Arabia to work on a project for a number of years before moving back to Australia. Key factors that were taken into account by the AAT in deciding in favour of the taxpayer were the man’s intentions at the relevant time to live and work indefinitely in Saudi Arabia. The ATO said the decision was reasonably open to the AAT. However, it said the decision does not change its approach to residency cases. It said these matters involve questions of fact and degree and different facts may result in different conclusions as to residency. The ATO said it will continue to approach residency cases by weighing all the relevant facts and circumstances and applying the relevant tax law and authorities to those facts.

Billions in lost super waiting to be claimed

According to the ATO, more than $14 billion in lost super is waiting to be claimed. The ATO said $8 billion in super was sitting in accounts that have not received a contribution in five years. A further $6 billion in super was sitting in accounts where funds have not been kept up-to-date with changes to personal details. ATO Assistant Commissioner John Shepherd said it was “easy for this to happen because when people get married or move house, the last thing on their mind is updating their name and address details with a super fund”. However, he said it was important to provide funds with tax file numbers (TFNs) which can help individuals be reunited with their super.

TIP: The ATO’s Superseeker service enables individuals to enter their name, TFN and date of birth to conduct an online search of the Tax Office’s Lost Members’ Register available at www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/SuperSeeker.

ASIC eye on SMSF property investment advice

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has raised concerns about advice being given to self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) to invest in property. ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer said the regulatory body was aware there had been a sharp rise in promoters recommending that investors either set up or use an existing SMSF to invest in property. ASIC is concerned these promoters may not be complying with the law. Mr Tanzer said ASIC was concerned that, with the increased popularity of SMSFs and property investment, real estate agents and property advisers may not realise they may be carrying on a business of providing financial product advice and may need an Australian financial services (AFS) licence, or authorisation under an AFS licence, when making recommendations or statements of opinion to a person to use an SMSF to invest in property. Mr Tanzer said ASIC is now working with individual businesses suspected of engaging in unlicensed conduct to help them understand their obligations.

Bad debt deduction for “unpaid trust entitlements” refused

A taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in a matter concerning bad debt deduction claims for the 2012 income year in relation to certain trust distributions. The taxpayer, a beneficiary of a trust, had claimed bad debt deductions under the tax law for debts he argued were unpaid trust entitlements. He argued the debt written off had the same character as the trust distributions included in his assessable income in the 2005 and 2007 income years. Following analysis of the distribution transaction and the trust deed, the AAT was of the view the taxpayer’s entitlement was paid in the manner prescribed by the deed, and once paid, lost its character as unpaid entitlement. The AAT concluded the debt written off was different in character to the income included in the taxpayer’s assessable income in the 2005 and 2007 income years.

Family fails to prove assessments excessive

Six members of a family have been unsuccessful before the AAT in arguing that various amended and default tax assessments were excessive. The AAT heard details of unexplained moneys flowing through family bank accounts, sums paid from an overseas business arrangement, as well as the acquisition of various residential properties in the names of family members, despite the taxpayers’ claim they earned very little income. The Tax Commissioner used the “asset betterment” analysis to raise the assessments. Despite acknowledging inherent flaws in the method used by the Commissioner to derive the tax assessments, the AAT found the family members had failed to establish that the assessments were incorrect and that the amount of money for which tax was levied by the assessment exceeded the actual substantive liability of the taxpayers.

TIP: In making a default assessment, the Commissioner is not required to follow the ordinary processes of ascertaining assessable income and allowable deductions and need not make inquiries of the taxpayer (or the taxpayer’s agent). However, the assessment may be invalid if the Commissioner estimates the taxpayer’s assessable income upon no intelligible basis or simply plucks a figure out of the air.

Tax consequences following marriage break-up

The ATO has recently released a taxation ruling on the tax effects of matrimonial money or property transfers. According to some commentators, the game-changing ruling may affect the manner in which property settlements are able to be arranged for family groups under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975.

In Taxation Ruling TR 2014/5, the ATO confirmed that payments or transfers of property under Family Court orders to a husband or wife from a private company will be considered a distribution of profits from the company. Such transactions will therefore be assessed as dividends either pursuant to the ordinary dividend assessing provisions (s 44 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) or Div 7A in almost every matrimonial property or cash settlement, regardless of whether the parties are shareholders (or associates of the shareholders) in the private company or whether the private company is a party to the Family Court order.

TIP: The rules can be complex and various different taxation consequences could arise depending on the type of Family Court order that has been made. Please contact our office if you have any questions.

Budget Levy from 1 July 2014

The Government’s Temporary Budget Repair Levy is now law. The levy is be payable at the rate of 2% of each dollar of an individual’s annual taxable income over $180,000. The levy is active for three financial years, starting on 1 July 2014 and ending on 30 June 2017. That means the top marginal tax rate is effectively 49% (including the 2% Temporary Budget Repair Levy plus the 2% Medicare levy).

For example: Individuals with taxable income of $200,000 will pay 2% of $20,000 (ie a levy of $400). Those with taxable income of $300,000 will pay 2% of $120,000 (ie $2,400 of levy).

A number of other taxes are also affected by the levy. According to the Government, these other changes are important to maintain integrity and fairness in the tax system. Notably, the fringe benefits tax (FBT) rate will be increased from 47% to 49%. As the FBT year commences on 1 April and concludes on 31 March, the increase in the FBT rate is to be applied from 1 April 2015. The increase in the FBT rate will cease on 31 March 2017.

TIP: High-income earners may want to review salary sacrificing arrangements and the possible effect of the levy. Please contact our office for further information.

PAYG instalment threshold changes

The ATO has confirmed the Government’s recent announcement that the pay-as-you-go (PAYG) instalment thresholds will change with effect from 1 July 2014. Following the Minister’s announcement, the ATO advised the following instalment threshold changes:

• the business or investment income threshold is increased from $2,000 to $4,000;
• the balance of assessment threshold is increased from $500 to $1,000;
• the notional tax threshold is increased from $250 to $500; and
• the requirement for entities registered for GST to remain in the system even if they have a zero instalment rate is removed.

As a result, many taxpayers will no longer have to pay PAYG instalments. According to the Minister of Small Business, around 32,500 small businesses that have no GST reporting requirements will no longer have to lodge a business activity statement (BAS) where to date lodgements have been made only to report PAYG instalments. In addition, around 340,000 small businesses with modest or negative income which are required to lodge a BAS, will no longer have to interact with the PAYG instalment system.

TIP: If taxpayers still wish to pay instalments towards their end-of-year tax liability, they may voluntarily re-enter PAYG instalments by contacting the ATO. Please contact our office for further information.

ATO mining data to find offshore tax evaders

The ATO says it is mining data to identify individuals with undisclosed offshore income and assets. “The net is closing for people who have undeclared offshore income – we’re looking at all our data and will be in touch with financial institutions, advisers and thousands of people over the coming months,” said Deputy Commissioner Michael Cranston. As at 30 June 2014, the ATO’s Project DO IT initiative to encourage voluntary disclosure has received 166 disclosures, raising an additional $13 million in tax liabilities. The ATO has also obtained more than 250 expressions of interests from taxpayers indicating that they will be making a disclosure.

TIP: The last day to make a disclosure under Project DO IT is 19 December 2014. The ATO had previously warned that, until it receives a disclosure, its normal compliance activities will continue. Individual taxpayers detected first by the ATO will not be able to participate in Project DO IT.

Deductions for employee welfare fund denied

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has refused a taxpayer’s claim for deductions for contributions made to an offshore “employee welfare fund”. The taxpayer and a number of related companies carried on an automotive repair and spare parts business. The fund was set up in 1998 and its beneficiaries were the two employee-operators of the business and a spouse. In 1998 the taxpayer contributed $400,000 to the fund. In 1999 the taxpayer contributed a further $25,000 and also claimed carried-forward losses resulting from the contribution from the previous year.

The AAT rejected the taxpayer’s claim that the contributions to the fund were deductible. It also highlighted a number of concerns in the way the fund was set up and how it operated. Among other things, the AAT noted there were no documents to show that the trustee ever admitted anyone as a member of the fund and, furthermore, there was doubt and confusion about the identity of the trustee. However, the AAT found that while the Commissioner could issue amended assessments for the1998 and 1999 income years in 2012, an amended assessment issued for the 2002 income year was out of time to deny a deduction for further carried-forward losses.

Hunger relief organisation wins FBT exemption case

Hunger Project Australia (HPA) has been successful before the Full Federal Court in seeking endorsement as a “public benevolent institution” (PBI) for fringe benefit tax (FBT) purposes. This was despite the organisation being predominantly engaged in fundraising, and not providing aid or relief directly. As a result, the provision of benefits to one of its employees is to be taken to be exempt benefits for FBT purposes.

HPA is a member of a worldwide collaboration of organisations operating under the name “The Hunger Project” whose principal aim is the relief of hunger. The activities of HPA are to raise funds, which are then disseminated to Hunger Project members in the developing world.

The Commissioner argued that an entity that merely engages in fundraising activities and does not materially perform charitable works directly for the benefit of the public is not a PBI. The Full Court rejected the Commissioner’s arguments requiring a PBI to directly dispense relief. The fact that such an institution does not itself directly give or provide that relief, but does so via related or associated entities, is no bar to it being a PBI, the Court said.

Damages assessable to director personally

The High Court has affirmed that damages received by an individual following a failed joint venture project were assessable to him personally. Broadly, the individual and others had sought for the company of which they were the directors to become an equity participant in the project and become the ultimate purchaser of the golf course. However, the other joint venturers in the project disputed this and made other arrangements to purchase the golf course.

The individual then successfully sued the other joint venturers and was awarded damages by the Victorian Supreme Court for the loss of a business opportunity. The Commissioner then assessed the individual on this amount (around $860,000). The individual argued that he had received the money as trustee of the company and it was therefore assessable to the company.

The High Court held the individual was liable to income tax on the damages received in satisfaction of the Supreme Court judgment. It was of the view the individual did not receive the amount as a constructive trustee of the company.

Winemaker not taxable on property sale

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has held that an individual taxpayer who was the controller of several trusts through which he operated a winemaking business, and who was also a beneficiary of the trusts, was not presently entitled to an amount of over $480,000 in profit that one of the trusts made from the sale of business premises.

The profit had been deposited into accounts which the taxpayer controlled for his personal benefit. The Commissioner had issued an assessment to include the profit in the taxpayer’s assessable income on the basis that the amount represented revenue profit of the trust and that, as a beneficiary of the trust, the individual was presently entitled to the amount under certain rules concerning the tax treatment of trust income.

However, the AAT did not agree with the Commissioner’s decision. It concluded that another of the trusts (of which the taxpayer was trustee) was beneficially entitled to the profit as a beneficiary of the trust that made the profit from the sale, and not the taxpayer in his personal capacity.

Tax debt release on serious hardship grounds refused

In a recent case, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) refused an individual’s application to be released from his tax debt of $58,000 on the grounds of serious hardship.

The AAT noted that no explanation was offered for the taxpayer’s failure to meet his tax liabilities as they arose. The AAT said that instead of paying what it considered to be manageable tax assessments, the taxpayer “largely ignored his tax liabilities over the last five or six years, and has allowed the amounts due to accumulate with interest”.

TIP: The Tax Commissioner has a discretion to release individuals from eligible tax debts. However, even if the Commissioner is satisfied that serious hardship would result from payment of the tax debt, he is not obliged to exercise the discretion in the taxpayer’s favour.

Broadly, serious hardship is said to exist when payment of a tax debt would leave an individual unable to provide basic living necessities for themselves and their dependants. Ultimately, it is a question of fact whether payment of an eligible tax liability would result in serious hardship – and the onus is on the taxpayer to prove their case before a tribunal.

GST credits for property development project managers denied

Two taxpayers have been denied GST input tax credits they had claimed in respect of purported acquisitions made in relation to property developments. The Commissioner had refused the taxpayers’ claims for input tax credits on the basis that neither taxpayer carried on an enterprise.

The AAT heard from the taxpayers that they were “principal contractors” in relation to the property developments. However, the AAT said that exactly what the “principal contractors” did in respect of the properties remained the subject of “quite profound mystery”.

It said that an entity is not a “project manager” simply because someone says it is. Further, the AAT said that to carry on an enterprise, an entity must “do” something, and that in this case, the AAT was unable to identify the activity that the taxpayers were doing in respect of the properties.

TIP: This case demonstrates the need for multiple parties, and in particular related parties, who are involved in large property development projects to clearly articulate and document the role of each party and the agreements they have with each other, particularly if one party intends to seek GST input tax credits.

Individual working overseas not a tax resident

An individual has been successful before the AAT in arguing that he was not a “resident” of Australia for tax purposes for the 2009 and 2010 income years. This was despite being an Australian citizen, maintaining an Australian bank account for his salary, and retaining his house in Queensland.

During the years in question, the taxpayer had signed up with a company to work on a project in Saudi Arabia. The project was expected to last three years and the taxpayer had an expectation that upon completion of the project, he would move on to another project located in Saudi Arabia.

In making various findings of fact, the AAT largely accepted the taxpayer’s evidence. It said that the taxpayer’s presence in Saudi Arabia “was hardly casual or passing”. The AAT accepted that the taxpayer had formed an intention to make Saudi Arabia his home for the duration of the project and beyond.

TIP: This case demonstrates that proving tax residency requires a detailed examination of various facts, and the weighing up of those facts, to come to a conclusion that an individual is (or is not) a tax resident. It also demonstrates the importance of having corroborating evidence to prove the taxpayer’s case.

ATO debt collection approach under review

The Inspector-General of Taxation, Mr Ali Noroozi, has announced that he will review the ATO’s approach to debt collection. To facilitate his review, Mr Noroozi has called for interested parties to submit comments. Public consultation closes on 18 July 2014.

“Despite the ATO’s debt assistance programs, its approach to collecting taxes has been a persistent source of taxpayer complaint”, Mr Noroozi said. He noted that the ATO’s approach to collecting debts accounted for 23% of all ATO-related complaints received by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 2012–2013.

Furthermore, Mr Noroozi said some stakeholders believe that the ATO has recently taken a firmer approach to debt collection despite continuing economic pressures, while others are of the view that the ATO allows debts to accumulate for too long before taking action.

New ATO approach to identifying SMSF risks

Trustees of self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) need to be aware of how the ATO gathers information about them in order for the ATO to assess whether their SMSF poses a tax compliance risk, and how the ATO may respond if it perceives a risk.

The ATO has recently announced that it will take a new risk-based approach to how it treats auditor contravention reports (ACRs). This approach will be based on the overall risk posed by the SMSF. Using new risk models, the ATO will analyse multiple indicators of possible non-compliance, including regulatory and income tax matters, information from the SMSF annual return, ACRs and other data such as trustee and member records. The ATO will then use this information to determine appropriate actions to take regarding each SMSF.

The ATO has also reminded SMSF trustees that from 1 July 2014 it will have more flexibility in how it deals with SMSFs that breach the super law – including new powers to issue penalties. The ATO says that SMSF trustees should therefore rectify any contraventions of the law as soon as possible, or have plans in place by 1 July 2014 to do so.

TIP: While the new SMSF trustee penalties start from 1 July 2014, the ATO has noted that contraventions of the law (such as loans to members or relatives) that exist on 1 July 2014 will come under the new penalty regime.

New integrity rule targeting dividend washing

The government has proposed to amend the law to introduce an integrity rule that will curtail taxpayers’ ability to obtain a tax benefit from “dividend washing”.

Broadly, “dividend washing” is a scheme that allows a taxpayer to obtain multiple franking credits in respect of a single economic interest by selling the interest after an entitlement to a franked dividend has accrued and then immediately purchasing an equivalent interest with a further entitlement to a corresponding franked dividend. The amendments, once formally enacted, are proposed to apply with effect from 1 July 2013.

Administrator of deceased estate breached duty

The Supreme Court of Queensland has ruled that an administrator of a deceased estate breached her fiduciary duty by applying for her deceased son’s superannuation benefits to be paid to her personally, rather than on behalf of his estate.

The Court had granted the woman Letters of Administration over her son’s estate after he died, aged 40, intestate and without a spouse or children. However, she applied to her deceased son’s superannuation funds for any death benefits to be paid to her personally.

The deceased’s father (the woman’s ex-husband) submitted that she had allowed a conflict of interest to occur by seeking the superannuation death benefits for herself personally. In finding against the woman, the Court ordered that she transfer all of the superannuation death benefits in dispute (approximately $450,000) to the son’s estate, where it would be shared equally with her former spouse under the rules of intestacy.

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.