Legal news
The New South Wales Court of Appeal adopted a traditional and technical approach to the interpretation of the terms of a trust deed when dismissing an appeal in the decision in Segelov v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd.
Yesterday, the Fair Work Commission handed down its Annual Wage Review decision.
From 1 July 2015, the national minimum wage will be increased by 2.5% (equating to an increase of $16 per week) and the new weekly minimum wage will be $656.90 (or $17.29 an hour) .
Modern award rates will also be increased by 2.5% from 1 July.
Safe Work Australia has released key statistics on work-related injuries, diseases and fatalities. While the report shows a downward trend in both worker fatalities and in the rates of serious injury over the period 2003 to 2013, the total number of serious workers’ compensation claims (117,815 in 2012-13) and worker fatalities (196 in 2013) are significant.
Digitally stored information, including records, communications, photographs and other details which are held with various internet-based organisations can be difficult to deal with when the account holder dies. Many organisations are grappling with methods of dealing with the problem or simply ignoring it.
Facebook is giving users more control over their social networking afterlives with a “Legacy Contact” setting. This allows account holders to have their account deleted after they die or alternatively appoint a Legacy Contact to manage the account.
The Federal Court, in the decision of Elecnet (Aust) Pty Ltd v FCOT, has ruled that a trust established to pay out redundancy benefits for employees of the electricity industry was a unit trust for the purposes of the public trading trust rules. This was held notwithstanding that the employees’ interest in the trust is not unitised but rather operates in a way that is akin to a superannuation fund. In coming to this conclusion, the Court found, for the purposes of the public trading trust rules, that the employees have a beneficial interest in the property of the trust.
On 23 April 2015, the Supreme Court ordered a party who lodged a caveat without proper grounds to pay the other party’s costs on an indemnity basis. The defendant lodged a caveat on the title of a property claiming an interest pursuant to a purchaser’s contract.
The plaintiff landowner stated that he did not enter into any contract with the defendant and moreover had never met the defendant or had any dealings with the defendant. The Court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on an indemnity basis because the Court inferred that the defendant, at no time, had any valid basis upon which he could claim a caveat over the property.
The President of the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) issued an advisory opinion on 1 May 2015, responding to the Victorian Small Business Commissioner’s request as to whether a landlord of commercial premises can pass on the costs of Essential Safety Measures (ESM) and certain repair and maintenance obligations for retail premises to tenants. Measures prescribed by building law for safety and fire protection are covered by the ESM.
On 1 May 2015 a unanimous judgement was handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court, stating that in deciding the outcome of a case, the court would no longer receive or act upon any agreement as to penalties previously agreed to between parties.
This followed a recent High Court judgement, which held that the regular practice in Victoria of permitting the prosecution to make submissions on the available sentence range or outcome in criminal cases should cease. The High Court held that such submissions by a prosecutor were inadmissible on the basis that they were a statement of opinion not a submission of law.
The Commissioner of Taxation has concluded, in ATO ID 2015/10, that using a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) to hold a life insurance policy for the purpose of a buy sell agreement breaches the sole purpose test and the prohibition against providing a member (or a relative) financial assistance.
So does this mean that superannuation funds cannot be used to hold insurance in buy-sell arrangements? Not necessarily. The position of the Commissioner would appear not to apply to insurance held in public offer superannuation funds and potentially does not apply to SMSFs that don’t have any formal buy sell arrangements.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has held that the existence of a dividend access share (DAS) arrangement did not affect the taxpayer’s ability to apply the capital gains tax (CGT) small business concessions to a capital gain arising from the disposal of ordinary shares in the applicant company.
The primary issue considered in this case was whether the existence of the DAS caused the required small business participation percentage (SBPP) of 90% to be failed.
Charities have a number of ongoing reporting obligations, including the requirement to submit an Annual Information Statement (AIS) and annual financial report to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).
The reporting requirements depend on the size of the charity:
In the decision of Australian Annuities v Rowley Super, the Victorian Court of Appeal has held that over $1.6 million of super contributions made by a discretionary trust and members to a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) could be clawed back to a liquidator on the basis that the director of the corporate trustee breached his fiduciary duties to the corporate trustee.
The recent Federal Court case of Krok v Commissioner of Taxation has provided a reminder that a taxpayer may impliedly waive their right to legal professional privilege by disclosing documents which refer to the purpose and reasoning of legal advice. As a result of the implied waiver, the taxpayer may be required to discover documents that would otherwise have been protected by legal professional privilege.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has set out its view in ATO Interpretative Decisions, ATO ID 2015/2 and ATO ID 2015/3 that the superannuation laws and tax laws prohibit superannuation death benefits from being paid by mere journal entries.
In the ATO IDs, the taxpayer/beneficiary and self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustee wished to effect the death benefit to the beneficiary by the transfer of money from the deceased member's account, to the beneficiary's own account in the SMSF by way of journal entry (to save on transactions costs). The ATO noted that set offs can occur in a superannuation context, but that there needs to be “mutual liabilities between the taxpayer and the SMSF and there is an agreement between those parties to set-off the liabilities”. Here, the ATO found there was “not a mutual liability in this case as the taxpayer does not have a liability to the SMSF”.
Treasury has released a draft bill to enact a “look through” approach to apply to limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) for income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) purposes, with effect from 1 July 2007. Under a LRBA the asset must be held by the trustee of a separate trust (referred to below as a bare trustee). This has raised a number of issues in relation to how the tax laws interact with the holding of the asset, the super fund and the bare trustee.
Two Federal Court decisions from 2014, DCT v Lyons and DCT v Graham Family Superannuation Pty Ltd have demonstrated the Court’s relatively lenient approach to applying penalties under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act) for cases involving multiple numbers of very serious breaches.
Further to the recent Australian Taxation Office (ATO) release of two ATO Interpretative Decisions, ATO ID 2014/39 and ATO ID 2014/40, as outlined in a recent Sladen Snippet, the ATO has released further information on what factors will be considered when applying the non-arm’s length income (NALI) rules to non-commercial limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs).
The ATO has released two ATO Interpretative Decisions (ATO IDs), being ATO ID 2014/39 and ATO ID 2014/40 on the application of the non-arm’s length income rules (NALI) to non-commercial limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs).
On 27 October 2014 the Coroner’s Court of Victoria delivered its finding into the inquest on the death of Kyle Vassil. The deceased was a 12 year old student who, on day one of a school camp, drowned in a dam a few meters from shore. Kyle was a competent swimmer who was swimming with other class members in the presence of supervising teachers and young camp leaders when he drowned. The circumstances surrounding the death were tragic and no doubt traumatic for all persons involved. The purpose of the Coronial investigation was to ascertain, if possible, the cause of death and the circumstances in which the death occurred.
The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No 6) Bill 2014 (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 30 October 2014.
Schedule 1 of the Bill seeks to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to extend the CGT roll-over relief afforded under certain replacement asset roll-overs to revenue assets and trading stock.
