The recent decision by the QLD Supreme Court in Williams v Robba illustrates the importance of conducting a ‘claim-staking process’ to demonstrate that an SMSF trustee has given real and genuine consideration in exercising its discretion to pay superannuation death benefits.

Testamentary discretionary trusts can still be an effective estate planning tool for global families when carefully structured, with consideration given to residency of beneficiaries, control and tax treatment across jurisdictions.

The Appeal Panel within the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal determined whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the Trust Deed before them set out the trust as a special trust rather than a fixed trust within the meaning of section 3A of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW).

Many will be familiar with the use of bare trusts by SMSFs as part of a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA), but there are other ways in which an SMSF might invest via a bare trust, providing different structuring opportunities. This article considers the use of ‘non LRBA bare trusts’ by SMSFs and the superannuation law implications.

The court has powers under legislation and under its inherent supervisory jurisdiction to vary trusts to ensure that they may be duly executed in certain circumstances.

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). 

The Victorian Supreme Court has held that acquisitions of units in hybrid unit trusts are potentially subject to landholder duty.

The case has wide impact with potentially absurd outcomes for some taxpayers.

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

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).

In the West Australian case of Dryandra Investments Pty Ltd v Hardie by her guardian Ian Yorrington [2024] WASC 248 (Dryandra case) the trustee sought orders, pursuant to section 90 of the Trustees Act 1962 (WA), that the Court approve and assent to variations to the trust deed of the Dryandra Trust (Trust).

In November 2024, the Government introduced a consultation paper proposing the incorporation of a licensing regime for the franchising sector.

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.

The power to remove and appoint a trustee is widely accepted to be fiduciary in nature, exercised for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust, not the benefit of the appointor.

On 31 July 2024, the ATO released draft TD 2024/D2 and draft PCG 2024/D1 on aspects of section 99B.

While we welcome the ATO guidance on section 99B, it is not what taxpayers and advisors want– section 99B requires legislative amendment. However, is the draft ATO guidance what advisor’s need?

If you are selling an asset to a trust, don’t forget about CGT event E2…

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) has held in Quy v FCT [2024] AATA 245 that a taxpayer, who was physically in Australia for less than 2 months each year, was a resident of Australian tax purposes.

A recent Full Federal Court decision reflects the diversity of issues which can arise in the complex world of discretionary trusts.

The Full Federal Court in the BBlood appeal found for the ATO on section 100A and the taxpayer dividend stripping (albeit on a technical, non-substantive basis).

The 100A analysis was limited to ‘tax avoidance purpose’ with the Full Court holding that, in certain circumstances, the purpose of advisors can be relevant.

It has become common practice to make family trust and interposed entity elections to deal with carry forward losses and franked distributions without considering the impact on the future of the group.