As the holiday season concludes and the countdown to another 30 June begins, we highlight 10 income tax issues that we expect will dominate the Australian private wealth landscape over the coming months.

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). 

Contrary to the Commissioner’s long-held view, the Full Federal Court has unanimously held that unpaid present entitlements owing to corporate beneficiaries are not loans under Div 7A.

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.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement (like a UPE).

In this part 3 of the series we examine how this may play out in the in-house asset rules contained in Part 8 of the SIS Act.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement (like a UPE).

As discussed here, the recent decision of the Full Federal Court (Court) in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel) has been a significant one in the private tax world.

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).

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) recently issued two key updates that could affect private groups using guarantee-backed financial arrangements.

If 16 December 2009 was the beginning of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) treating an unpaid present entitlement (UPE) with a corporate beneficiary as a loan for purposes of Division 7A, could 28 September 2023 be the end of that era?

The recent interest rate rises will result in significant increases in the LRBA safe harbour interest rates, and the Division 7A interest rate, for the 2023/24 year.  The interest rates will be:

• LRBA real estate safe harbour interest rate – 8.85% (was 5.35%)

• LRBA listed share safe harbour interest rate – 10.85% (was 7.35%)

• Division 7A interest rate – 8.27% (was 4.77%)

It is well known that Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 can apply to distributions or benefits provided by a company to a shareholder or associate, or a company that has an unpaid present entitlement from a trust.

When a company becomes presently entitled to trust income, it is imperative that the rules in Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 are front and square in the minds of the trustees and their advisors.

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).

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.

After our semi-serious opening statement on the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) recently released guidance on section 100A and unpaid present entitlements, this is one of a series of deep-dive articles on that guidance. These articles look at each of the ATO guidance products separately and then we discuss what the overall impact may be.

On 26 June 2020, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) announced a streamlined process for COVID-19 affected borrowers to make applications under section 109RD to extend the time to make minimum yearly repayments (normally required to be made by 30 June 2020) under Division 7A.

As part of its response to COVID-19, on 13 May 2020 the Australian Taxation Office announced that it has extended the time for lodgment of 2019 tax returns for certain companies and trusts and made changes to its administration of Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.