Legal news
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).
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.
In December 2015, an article written by Sladen Legal's Sam Campbell was published in the Tax Institute’s Journal, Taxation in Australia.
The article discusses the tax issues raised when creating and dealing with unpaid present entitlements by trusts, including CGT issues, which should always be carefully considered before embarking on a proposed transaction.
In September 2015, Part 2 of a 2 part series written by Sladen Legal's Renuka Somers and Ashleigh Eynaud was published in the Tax Institute’s Journal, Taxation in Australia.
It discusses draft Taxation Ruling TR 2015/D2 and the Australian Taxation Office’s proposed treatment of trust unpaid present entitlements for the purposes of the maximum net asset value test applicable to the capital gains tax small business concessions.
