The Government has issued for comment draft legislation proposing to implement its 2012 Budget announcement that it will remove the capital gains tax (CGT) discount for non-resident individuals on taxable Australian property, such as residential and commercial real estate and mining assets.

Under the current law, individual taxpayers are generally entitled to a 50% discount on capital gains made from assets they have held for at least 12 months, regardless of the individual’s residency status. The proposed changes will introduce new residency requirements.

Under the changes, non-residents will still be entitled to a discount on capital gains that accrued prior to 9 May 2012 (ie, the day after the Government’s announcement), provided they obtain a market valuation of the asset as at 8 May 2012.

Note that, if implemented, the changes will apply to affected individuals irrespective of whether the gain resulted from an asset owned by the individual or was a gain from an asset held by a trust and attributed to the individual.

In summary, the effect of the measure will be to:

• retain the full CGT discount for discount capital gains of foreign resident individuals to the extent that the increase in value of the CGT asset occurred prior to 9 May 2012;
• remove the CGT discount for discount capital gains of foreign and temporary resident individuals that accrued after 8 May 2012; and
• apportion the CGT discount for discount capital gains where an individual has been an Australian resident and a foreign or temporary resident during the period after 8 May 2012. The discount percentage will be apportioned to ensure the full 50% discount is applied to periods where the individual was an Australian resident.

The Government has released draft regulations that propose to give effect to an earlier announcement made in October 2012 that it will provide certainty to the beneficiaries of superannuation death benefits. The changes will allow the tax exemption for earnings on assets supporting superannuation income streams to continue following the death of a fund member who was in the pension phase until the deceased member’s benefits have been paid out of the fund. If implemented, the changes will apply from 1 July 2012.

The proposed changes appear to be a response to industry concern with the Tax Commissioner’s draft ruling on superannuation income streams issued in a 2011. In that draft ruling, the Commissioner took the position that a superannuation income stream ceases as soon as the member in receipt of the income stream dies, unless a dependent beneficiary of the deceased is automatically entitled to receive an income stream.

According to the Commissioner’s preliminary view, tax would generally apply to a fund’s investment earnings, including realised capital gains, following the death of a pension member. However, the proposed new regulations will ensure that this is not the case.

In a recent decision, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decided that a taxpayer’s interest in a business was disposed of when a “heads of agreement was executed”, and not when the formal contract of sale was executed.

An agent had testified that it was long-standing practice in the industry for an intending purchaser and vendor to enter into an “in-confidence” period of exclusivity during which the intending purchaser would use professional advisers to carry out due diligence.

Despite evidence suggesting that the industry did not regard the heads of agreement as a binding contract, the AAT was of the view that the parties to the heads of agreement had agreed to the sale and purchase of the business in question. As a result, as it was found that it was the date of the heads of agreement that was the applicable date of the transaction for CGT purposes.

As a result, the taxpayer was not entitled to access the CGT small business concessions because he did not satisfy the relevant test for the concessions just before that date.

The Government has announced the “cents per kilometre” rates for calculating tax deductions for car expenses for the 2012–2013 income year. Note that they are unchanged from 2011–2012 and are as follows:

• Small car (non-rotary engine up to 1600cc, or rotary engine up to 800cc): 63c/km.
• Medium car (non-rotary engine 1601–2600cc, or rotary engine 801–1300cc): 74c/km.
• Large car (non-rotary engine 2601cc and above, or rotary engine 1300cc and above): 75c/km.

With the changes to the living-away-from-home rules (effective from 1 October 2012) affecting employees who are required by their employers to live away from home for work, greater care needs to be taken in assessing the fringe benefits tax (FBT) implications of living-away-from-home allowances (LAFHAs). With a narrower scope for eligibility for concessional treatment and increased substantiation requirements, the level of risk is greater.

The Commissioner has recently determined the amounts that he considers reasonable for food and drink expenses incurred by employees receiving a LAFHA fringe benefit for the FBT year commencing on 1 April 2013. Broadly, if an employee’s food or drink expenses exceed the amount the Commissioner considers reasonable, the employee will have to substantiate all the expenses incurred, or the employer will be liable to FBT on the amount of LAFHA paid to the employee that is in excess of the reasonable amount.

In response to a number of high profile cases lost by the Tax Commissioner, the Government has introduced legislation into Parliament that proposes to ensure the effective operation of the income tax general anti-avoidance law. In those cases, the taxpayers successfully argued that the income tax general anti-avoidance law did not apply as tax was a legitimate consideration in commercial decision-making, and where the tax cost of a transaction was considerable the taxpayer would have done nothing. The changes, once enacted, will apply retrospectively from 16 November 2012.

The changes aim, among other things, to rectify what the Government considers to be perceived weaknesses in the “tax benefit” concept, which have reduced the effectiveness of the law in countering tax avoidance arrangements. Broadly, the amended law will continue to apply where a taxpayer enters into a scheme with a sole or dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit. However, in considering alternative postulates (ie what the taxpayers might otherwise have done), tax costs will be disregarded under the amended law.

Consequently, it will be necessary to compare the scheme entered into with other ways of achieving the same commercial outcome, regardless of the tax cost. Eliminating the defence that the taxpayer would otherwise have done nothing will broaden the potential application of the rules significantly.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has refused a husband’s argument that he could split his rental income with his (now estranged) wife even though the commercial property was registered under his name only.

The taxpayer had lodged tax returns on the basis that the property was shared equally between him and his wife. However, the Commissioner formed the view that as the property was in the husband’s name only, the rental income from that property belonged to him alone.

The husband claimed that the property was an asset of a “tax law partnership” between him and his wife. He also argued that the property was a “joint marital asset” held by them on a 50/50 basis, that the property was purchased from joint marital funds, and that both he and his wife each applied the income from the property for their own use.

However, the AAT was not satisfied with the evidence presented before it. It noted the absence of the wife from giving evidence, as well as a lack of written documentation, to prove there was a partnership. The AAT found that there was no evidence to show that the property was “jointly owned” or that the couple was in receipt of income jointly.

A taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in seeking a discretion under the tax law to allow her to offset losses from a winery business against her other income.

The taxpayer had sought for the discretion to cover the income years ending 30 June 2010 to 30 June 2018. She argued, among other things, that it was acceptable commercial practice in the winery business to stagger the plantation of vines over such a period.

However, the AAT sided with the Commissioner and held that the vines could be planted and become productive within five years. It therefore held that the taxpayer was unable to satisfy the relevant test for the discretion.

The AAT has affirmed GST assessments levied at two property developers associated with the sale of real property between 2008 and 2009. The taxpayers had purchased property, which was eventually subdivided and on-sold. The taxpayers said they “never had an intention of not including GST in returns or defrauding the Commissioner” and that “they wanted their returns to be correct”.

However, the AAT affirmed the Commissioner’s assessments. It also decided that the margin scheme could not apply in the circumstances as there was no agreement in writing between the vendor and purchaser that the margin scheme was to apply to the property transaction.

The AAT has affirmed an individual’s excess superannuation contributions tax liability. On 27 June 2008, the individual’s employer made a “top-up” superannuation contribution to a clearing account. However, the funds were not allocated to the individual’s superannuation account until 23 July 2008.

The AAT considered that the payment could not be said to have been “made” in the 2008 income year. This resulted in a $69,665 excess superannuation contributions tax liability for the individual, representing an effective tax rate of 93%!

The AAT also decided that there were no “special circumstances” in this case to warrant the Commissioner’s discretion under the tax law to reallocate the amount to the 2008 year. The AAT said that the imposition of a tax under the tax laws – even a large tax such as the effective 93% tax rate in this case – is not in itself “special circumstances”. There must be some “special circumstances” that exist beyond that in order to warrant the Commissioner’s discretion.

The ATO has issued a suite of rulings on:

• how GST applies to supplies of residential premises;
• how GST applies to supplies of commercial residential premises and supplies of accommodation in commercial residential premises; and
• how GST applies to supplies of long-term accommodation in commercial residential premises.

The Government has recently said that the existing fringe benefits tax (FBT) concessions in the law were not intended to allow employees to purchase goods and services (usually sold by the employer to the public) from their pre-tax income through salary packaging arrangements. According to the Government, these employees are receiving tax-free, non-cash remuneration benefits for goods and services, while other employees who do not have access to such salary packaging arrangements must pay for the goods and services from their after-tax income.

The Government has introduced a Bill into Parliament in order to deal with this issue. It proposes to remove the concessional treatment for such “in-house fringe benefits” accessed by way of a salary packaging arrangement.

If implemented, the changes will apply to all salary-sacrifice arrangements entered into on or after 22 October 2012. For pre-existing arrangements, the new measures will not apply until 1 April 2014 – but the renewal of, or changes to, an arrangement will trigger the new provisions.

The ATO has updated the amounts the Commissioner will accept for 2012–2013 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/cafe (licensed), the Commissioner will accept $4,350 (excluding GST) for each adult or child over 16 years of age. Note that the ATO intends to adjust the values annually.

For victims affected by the Tasmanian bushfires of January 2013, the ATO announced that it will make arrangements to defer lodgment and payment of certain monthly and quarterly activity statements. The arrangements are automatic, which means taxpayers who reside in certain identified postcodes will not have to apply for a deferral.

Taxpayers who are located outside of the identified postcodes and who have been affected by a natural disaster are encouraged to contact the ATO for further assistance.

The TasmanianState Revenue Office has also announced an extension of the time to pay land tax bills for persons affected by the bushfires.

The ATO has warned trustees of self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) to exercise care in ensuring that arrangements entered into to invest in property are properly implemented, particularly those involving limited recourse loans.

The ATO is concerned about arrangements that do not comply with the superannuation law. It warned that such arrangements may not be simple to rectify. Further, it added that unwinding an arrangement may involve a force sale of the asset, which could cause a substantial loss to the fund.

The ATO has announced data-matching programs to identify instances where taxpayers may not be meeting their tax obligations. The ATO says it will collect data from various banks and credit card companies relating to credit and debit cards sales of entities for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. This will assist in identifying circumstances requiring ATO administrative action.

Records relating to approximately 900,000 merchants will be matched. The ATO says it will also collect from state revenue offices and other government agencies the names and addresses of individuals and entities transacting with real property in order to identify non-compliance with the tax law. Records relating to over 10 million individuals will be matched.

In a recent decision, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) allowed a taxpayer’s claim for rental deductions in respect of two properties for the 2008 income year.

The taxpayer owned the properties with her two sons as joint tenants and for part of the year, the properties were rented to her ex-husband and one of her sons. The taxpayer, in her 2008 tax return, declared a 50 per cent share of the rental income. She also claimed a 50 per cent share of the rental deductions.

The Tax Commissioner argued the tenancies were not commercial and therefore the deductions claimed were not allowable. However, the AAT found that there was no evidence that the taxpayer was assisting her ex-husband or her son. Further, the AAT noted the rent charged by the taxpayer did not differ greatly from the figures presented by the Commissioner. In conclusion, the AAT held the rental income was assessable and the expenses incurred were deductible.

The AAT has found that a taxpayer was a resident of Australia and therefore affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to assess the taxpayer’s foreign income earned for the 2006 to 2008 income years.

The taxpayer migrated to Australia in 2005 with his family on a business migration permanent visa. He worked as a pilot, which required him to be away from Australia for extended periods of time.

The taxpayer argued that he was a foreign resident and should not be taxed on the income. However, the AAT said this was a case where the taxpayer was “clearly an Australian resident for tax purposes”. Among other things, the AAT took into account the taxpayer’s desire to live in Australia as stated in his permanent resident visa application, that his family lived in Australia and that he stayed in hotels when working overseas.

The AAT also noted that the taxpayer held an Australian driver’s licence, retained private health insurance in Australia, had Australian bank accounts and owned an investment property in Australia.

A taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in arguing that her “mistaken belief” as to the timing of a superannuation contribution was a “special circumstance” that warranted reallocating excess superannuation contributions to an earlier financial year.

The taxpayer had started salary sacrificing in 2005 to build up her superannuation balance, which was relatively low due to her work patterns being affected by child care responsibilities over her working life. The taxpayer exceeded her $25,000 concessional contributions cap for 2009–2010 by $3,398 and was issued with an excess contributions tax assessment of $1,070.The issue in dispute centred around an employer contribution that was made on 3 July 2009, but which was attributed to the 2009–2010 financial year.

The taxpayer was under the mistaken belief that an employer contribution made before 28 July would be treated as a concessional contribution for June 2009 and therefore allocated to the 2008–2009 year. The taxpayer argued that the timing of the contribution was beyond her control. She also claimed that the superannuation law could not have been intended to adversely affect women in her situation who have had child caring responsibilities.

Although the AAT was sympathetic, it nevertheless upheld the Tax Commissioner’s decision not to reallocate the contribution because it found that the taxpayer’s “mistaken belief” as to the timing of concessional contributions did not, in its view, constitute the “special circumstances” that are required under the superannuation law in order to reallocate a contribution.

The Government has proposed to establish what it calls a fairer administrative penalty regime for trustees of SMSFs for certain contraventions of the superannuation law. Administrative penalties would range from $850 to $10,200. Broadly, the new regime will give the Tax Commissioner another way to encourage recalcitrant SMSF trustees to remedy defects quickly, rather than rely purely on existing heavy-handed enforcement powers.

The changes also propose to give the Tax Commissioner a new power to issue SMSF trustees with “rectification directions” and “education directions” for superannuation law contraventions. A rectification direction may require the person to take a specified action to “rectify” the contravention and to provide the ATO with evidence of the person’s compliance with the direction. An education direction may require a person to undertake a specified approved course of education within a specified time frame and to provide the ATO with evidence of completion of the course.

If implemented, the new regime will apply from 1 July 2013.

The Government’s mid-year budget update was handed down in late October 2012. The Treasurer revised down the expected Budget underlying cash surplus to $1.1 billion for 2012–2013 – down from $1.5 billion estimated in the May 2012 Budget.

The Government did not announce anticipated changes to claw-back superannuation tax concessions (much to the relief of many superannuation investors). However, the update did contain a host of small, but not insignificant, tax proposals.

In the mini-budget update the Government announced the removal of the concessional treatment for in-house fringe benefits that are accessed through a salary sacrifice arrangement. The proposal will apply from 22 October 2012 to salary sacrifice arrangements entered into on or after 22 October 2012, and from 1 April 2014 for salary sacrifice arrangements entered into prior to 22 October 2012.

Changes to the Private Health Insurance Rebate were also announced. From April 2014, the premium to which the rebate is applied will move in line with the CPI or commercial premium increase, whichever is lower.

The Government is also widening the circumstances for which monies in “lost” or “inactive” superannuation accounts are to be transferred to the ATO. However, the Government said that from 1 July 2013, interest at a rate equivalent to CPI inflation will be paid on lost superannuation monies reclaimed from the ATO.

The ATO is collecting details of individuals and businesses who have purchased or acquired a vehicle with a transaction value of $10,000 or greater in the 2011–2012 or 2012–2013 financial years. The information will be collected from state and territory motor vehicle registries and matched electronically with the ATO’s records. The ATO is seeking to address potential non-compliance in the following areas:

• income tax;
• superannuation;
• goods and services tax;
• fringe benefits tax; and
• luxury car tax.

AUSTRAC has recently highlighted the growing role of financial intelligence in tackling crime, including tax evasion. In 2011–2012, AUSTRAC reported that information sharing with the ATO assisted with over 3,500 cases that resulted in $252 million in additional tax assessments being raised. The year before, AUSTRAC reported that its information directly contributed to some 1,600 ATO investigations, leading to tax assessments of around $241 million.

A taxpayer has been, in most part, successful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in relation to a matter concerning loans from a private company. These loans were made to him, over various years, as a shareholder and director of the private company. The ATO had treated the loans, which were made in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 income years, as assessable dividends.

The AAT sided with the ATO in relation to the 2005 loans. However, the AAT decided differently in respect of the 2006 and 2007 loans. It found that a discretion under the tax law should be exercised to disregard the deemed dividends because it found that there was an “honest mistake” in failing to properly document the loans.

A recent case before the AAT has highlighted the need for businesses to maintain appropriate records of plant and equipment used in business.

The taxpayer, who was a partner of a box manufacturing business, was partially successful before the AAT in relation to claims for depreciation for certain items of plant and equipment used in the business. The AAT found that there was sufficient evidence that some items of plant and equipment were used in the business for the purpose of deriving assessable income. However, the AAT found it was not possible to allow the depreciation claimed for a number of other items. A key problem noted by the AAT “was the fact that the partnership did not keep basic business records”.

A taxpayer has successfully argued before the AAT that there were special circumstances in his situation to allow for the exercise of the Commissioner’s discretion under the law to reallocate superannuation contributions. Accordingly, monies paid into his superannuation account in late July 2009 could be attributed to the 2008–2009 financial year, and this meant that the taxpayer would not exceed the (then) $50,000 contributions cap.

The taxpayer had a salary sacrifice arrangement with his employer, whereby funds were paid on his behalf to his super fund. The taxpayer had the intention of contributing super each month and staying below the relevant cap.

However, the AAT heard that the disputed payments occurred because salary sacrifice amounts for the months of April, May and June 2009 were not transferred by the taxpayer’s employer to the fund until July 2009.

The taxpayer claimed that he had been unaware of the delay because he believed the sums were transferred to the fund, based on his monthly payslips. The AAT found that, in this case, there were “special circumstances” that allowed the reallocation of the monies to the previous year.