Sladen Thoughts
Legal industry latest news and insights
Stay up to date with legal industry news and updates. Sladen Legal provide regular updates on changes and news in the Australian Legal Industry.
If you are looking for our papers and journal articles including Taxation in Australia, The Tax Institute and SMSF Association, these are available in our Sladen Smart Membership Platform, become a member or login to gain exclusive access.
Author
- Alicia Hill
- Andrea Lin
- Daniel Smedley
- Daniel Smedley
- Dean Beaumont
- Edward Skilton
- Edward Hennebry
- Jake Cole
- James Gao
- Jan Harnischmacher
- Jasmine O'Brien
- Jordan Bauer
- Kaitilin Lowdon
- Kseniia Gasiuk
- Magdalena Njokos
- Matthew Davis
- Meagan O'Connor
- Michelle Dowdle
- Neil Brydges
- Nicholas Clifton
- Phil Broderick
- Philippa Briglia
- Sarah Wedd-Elliot
- Sladen Legal
- Sladen Legal
- Thomas Howell
- Victor Di Felice
- Will Monotti
Categories
- Asset Protection
- Business Contracts
- Business Law
- Business Structuring
- Business Succession
- Commercial Contracts
- Commercial Disputes
- Commercialisation
- Conference Papers
- Copyright
- Corporate Advisory
- Cryptocurrency
- Digital Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Employee Share Schemes
- Employment Law
- Entertainment and Sports
- Entrepreneurial
- Estate Disputes
- Estate Litigation
- Family Business
- Federal Taxes
- Franchising
- IP Disputes
- Insolvency
- Intellectual Property
- Inventions
- Land Tax
- Landholder Duty
- Learning
- Managing IP
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Payroll Tax
- Personal Succession
- Probate
- Property & Development
- Property Disputes
- Publications
- Sladen Legal News
- Sladen Snippet
- Small Business
- Stamp Duty
- Startups
- State Tax Disputes
- State Taxes
- Superannuation
- Tax Consolidation
- Tax Disputes
- Taxation
- Technology
Hobby, investment or business? The ATO finally rules on individuals in TR 2026/D2
Hobby, investment, or business? The ATO finally rules on individuals.
For almost thirty years, individuals and their advisers have taken the general business indicators from TR 97/11, a ruling written about primary production.
Tax on trusts: to what extent did Treasury adopt our recommendations? The minimum tax Bills measured against our submission
Bills for the minimum tax on discretionary trusts are now before Parliament. Employee share trusts are now excluded, and excess franking credits are refundable. The mechanics have improved, but the regime's scope and design largely stand.
Why the ATO had to pay a judgment exceeding $15m (plus $20m in interest), a strict application of the equitable rule in Barnes v Addy concerning knowing receipt of trust property.
The decision of Commonwealth of Australia v Kupang Resources Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 161 demonstrates how the ATO is not immune from the equitable principles set down in Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 concerning the knowing receipt of trust property.
Tax on trusts: what is a “minimum tax trust”? The definition that decides everything
Treasury's draft 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts turns on one classification: is the trust a minimum tax trust? The definition works by exclusion, so every trust is caught unless it fits one of the carve-outs or an EET is made. Here is what that means before 1 July 2028.
Testamentary trusts and the minimum tax: did the Government change its position, or was it just a misstatement?
The Government said testamentary trusts would be "excluded" from the minimum tax. The exposure draft says otherwise. Our article explains the income-level relief, its three conditions, and what practitioners should review now.
Tax on trusts: the EET election: relief from the minimum tax, but at what cost?
The EET election lets discretionary trusts avoid the 30% minimum tax without restructuring, but the price is steep. One wrong distribution ends the election for good. This article examines the election: its conditions, its limits, and its risks for trustees and their advisers.
Minimum tax on discretionary trusts: the drafts arrive, the questions remain
Elect, restructure or pay 30%. Treasury's exposure drafts give trustees of discretionary trusts two ways to avoid the minimum tax, but both carry strict conditions. This article explains the new rules and tracks how they respond to the points we raised in our July submission to Treasury.
From Bendel to Budget reform: Treasury targets trust tax planning
Family trusts, bucket companies, and UPEs are back in the spotlight. Treasury’s consultation paper on a 30% minimum tax for discretionary trusts gives tax advisers a short window to be heard.
Our preliminary thoughts on the Treasury Consultation paper on “minimum tax on discretion trusts’ are below.
Death, deceased estates, and family trust elections: Schedule 2F and succession
The death of a family trust's test individual creates significant difficulties under the family trust election (FTE) rules Schedule 2F. This article examines the FTE rules in the context of succession.
David and Goliath: capital and revenue lessons from Morton
The Commissioner has not applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court the Full Federal Court decision of Commissioner of Taxation v Morton [2026] FCAFC 31.
XLZH - discretionary trusts and pre-CGT assets - more on this to come?
The ART decision in XLZH v FCT looked at whether pre-CGT assets owned by a discretionary trust kept that status under Division 149 and to the extent to which ATO Ruling IT 2430 can be relied upon in applying Division 149.
#CGT, #Division 149, #discretionary trusts, #Tax, #IT 2430
Bendel Part III: summary of the parties’ submissions
The article explains the arguments contained in the parties’ submissions to the High Court in the appeal by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) from the Full Federal Court’s (Full Court) decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel).
FCT v Bendel: one more piece but uncertainty remains
On 12 June 2025, the High Court granted the Commissioner special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Full Court Decision) that we wrote about here.
FCT v Liang: Full Federal Court reaffirms taxpayer burden of proof
The Full Federal Court case of Commissioner of Taxation v Liang [2025] FCAFC 4 serves as a reminder that when challenging an ATO decision at a court or tribunal, it is the taxpayer who carries the burden of proving that an assessment is excessive and what the assessment should have been.
AusNet v FCT and back-to-back rollovers: nothing else matters?
This article considers the views of the Full Federal Court in AusNet v FCT on the “nothing else” condition in Division 615 and what those views may mean for proposed ATO guidance on sequential transactions and the “nothing else” condition of a rollover.
Sladen Snippet - Bendel: special leave and updated DIS - ATO fires a warning shot
On 19 February 2025, the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15. On 18 March 2025, the ATO applied for special leave and, on 19 March 2025, the ATO updated its interim decision statement (DIS) on the case.
We review the updated DIS below.
#Division 7A, #UPE, #Unpaid present entitlements, #Tax, #Trusts, #TD2022/11, #Bendel, #109D #Special leave #Decision Impact Statement
Bendel – UPEs as loans – are the curtains closed?
On 19 February 2025, the Full Federal Court, in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel), held that an unpaid present entitlement (UPE) with a corporate beneficiary is not a loan under subsection 109D(3) of Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).
Sladen Snippet - PCG 2024/D2 - PSI and Part IVA
On 28 August 2024, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) published Draft Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2024/D2 (Draft PCG) on Personal services businesses and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
Imbree Appeal - NSW taxpayer denied stamp duty exemption for transfer from SMSF to member
A taxpayer has lost an appeal in New South Wales on the ground that a potential exemption did not apply to agreements to transfer. This has wide implications for other transactions.
Oliver Hume Appeal - Victorian Landholder Duty Applies on Capital Raising
On 8 August 2024, the Victorian Court of Appeal in Oliver Hume Property Funds (Broad Gully Rd) Diamond Creek Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] VSCA 175 confirmed that landholder duty applied on the separate acquisition of shares by 18 investors under a single capital raising. The Court held that that capital raising amounted to substantially one arrangement and therefore was a relevant acquisition for landholder duty purposes.