Disputed Debts with the ATO – teamwork makes the dream work?
AAT strikes a blow against the ATO’s NALI crusade
The ATO has taken an aggressive approach on non-arm’s length income (NALI) for a number of years now, both in its public documents and via its audit teams. This has culminated in an approach that puts a high expectation on SMSF’s in relation to proving arrangements are on an arm’s length basis – in particular, in relation to benchmarking such arrangements.
Sladen Snippet – ATO takes aim at SMSFs and property development (again)
The ATO’s attacks on SMSFs conducting property development continues! The ATO has released Taxpayer Alert TA 2023/2 (the Alert) confirming that the ATO will review arrangements where related entities of a SMSF are conducting a property development (or including where property development is undertaken on SMSF owned assets) and where a special purpose vehicle (SPV) is used. The SPV being a company or trust which will be a related party to the SMSF through which generally a member of the SMSF may provide property development services to the SMSF for a commercial arm’s length fee and acquire and manage building materials used for the development.
Sladen Snippet – ATO issues a draft legislative instrument to ensue directors (and politicians) can make personal deductible contributions
Sladen Snippet – ATO warns on SMSF gift and loan back (asset protection) arrangements
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.
TR 2022/3: personal services income: key changes from draft ruling TR 2021/D2
On 23 November 2022, the Australian Tax Office (ATO) released Taxation Ruling TR 2022/3, finalising its views on personal services income (PSI) and personal services businesses (PSB).
Section 100A: if you want BBlood, you’ve got it: 100A and capital amounts
On 19 September 2022, Justice Thawley of the Federal Court handed down his decision in BBlood Enterprises Pty Ltd v FCT [2022] FCA 1112 (BBlood), the most recent decision on section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) was successful in arguing that section 100A applied.
Sladen snippet - AAT upholds super guarantee charge assessments and refuses further remission of penalties
In the recent decision of Signium Pty Limited and FCT [2022] AATA 2824, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) upheld super guarantee (SG) assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and refused to remit Part 7 penalties further.
The taxpayer operates a small pig farming business. The business is run by a general manager, and at relevant times it employed two or three people.
The ATO conducted an audit of the taxpayer’s SG obligations and issued 16 SG charge assessments for quarters ending 30 September 2013 to 31 March 2017. The Commissioner also issued a Part 7 penalty assessment of 200% of the SG charge (Part 7 penalties are automatically incurred under Part 7 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act) for failure to lodge SG charge statements within the relevant timeframe).
The taxpayer disagreed with the ATO’s calculation of the shortfall amounts on the SG charge assessments. However, the Tribunal accepted the ATO’s calculations as they were more thorough than those provided by the taxpayer. The taxpayer asked the Tribunal to remit the shortfall interest component of the SG charge, but the Tribunal declined, noting that the Commissioner has no discretion under the SG Act to remit the shortfall interest component.
The Part 7 penalties were remitted to 35% during the review process, and the Commissioner agreed that a further 25% remission was appropriate. The taxpayer argued that the penalties should be reduced further due to various factors including the general manager’s age, his health conditions, the impact of COVID-19, drought in 2018-2019, bushfires in 2019 and flood in 2021, all of which put the business under considerable pressure. However these factors all arose after the relevant quarters which were the subject of the audit, and therefore did not impact on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not persuaded to remit the Part 7 penalties further.
Key takeaways from this decision:
While a taxpayer should confirm the accuracy of the calculations making up an SG charge assessment, and cross-reference these with their own records, a taxpayer cannot argue for remission of the shortfall interest component, as the Commissioner has no discretion in this regard;
Part 7 penalties are incurred automatically under the SG Act at 200% of the SG charge for late or non-lodgement of SG charge statements. The Commissioner has discretion to remit Part 7 penalties with regard to various mitigating factors. Where the taxpayer is arguing that these factors impacted on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations, it is key to show a nexus between these factors and the quarters in question.
Phil Broderick
Principal
M +61 419 512 801 | T +61 3 9611 0163
E: pbroderick@sladen.com.au
Philippa Briglia
Senior Associate
T +61 3 9611 0173
E pbriglia@sladen.com.au
Jan Oh
Graduate Lawyer
T +61 3 9611 0158
E joh@sladen.com.au
TD 2022/11: ATO finalises views, relief for some taxpayers but a sting for others
We wrote about Draft Taxation Determination TD 2022/D1 (Draft TD) on Division 7A and unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) here. On 12 July 2022, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) finalised the Draft TD as Taxation Determination TD 2022/11 (Final TD).
Lecturer found to be employee for super guarantee purposes
In the recent decision of JMC Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 750, the Federal Court found that an ‘independent contractor’ was an employee for super guarantee purposes.
"Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" - the changing landscape of year-end tax considerations
The Latest developments with NALI and NALE Podcast
PCG 2017/13: sub-trust arrangements – welcome (continued) relief from the ATO
Draft Taxation Determination TD 2022/D1 sets out the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) views on when an unpaid present entitlement (UPE) with a corporate beneficiary is a loan for the purposes of Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. We wrote about TD 2022/D1 here.
Sladen Snippet – ATO confirms NALE practical administration approach is extended to 30 June 2023
The ATO has confirmed that its current administrative approach to the non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE), as set out in Practical Compliance Guide PCG 2020/5, will be extended to 30 June 2023.
Sladen Snippet - Key changes to super guarantee rates and thresholds from 1 July 2022
As discussed here, one of the key superannuation announcements in the May 2021 budget was the removal of the minimum $450 threshold for super guarantee purposes.
Sladen Snippet - you haven’t made super contributions on time – now what?
Section 100A: welcome Media Release by the Assistant Treasurer
We wrote that 2022 is the ‘Year of 100A’ after the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released three guidance products, two in draft, on section 100A and the ATO’s appeal to the Full Federal Court from the decision of Logan J in Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v FCT [2021] FCA 1619 on section 100A.
Super contributions payable to contractor plumber - a call for action for businesses
In the recent Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) decision of Trustee for Virdis Family Trust t/a Rickard Heating Pty Ltd v FC of T [2022] AATA 3, the AAT relied on the decision in Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (Moffet) to find that a plumber who was engaged as a contractor was an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).
Tribunal upholds penalties for an SMSF’s breach of the borrowing restrictions
In the recent decision of FYYB v FC of T 2021 ATC 10-592; [2021] AATA 3567, 5 October 2021, the Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) decision to disallow an objection by the taxpayer to an administrative penalty of $7,500 imposed on a self managed superannuation fund (Fund) under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (SIS Act).