UPEs and the maximum net asset value test

UPEs and the maximum net asset value test

This article was written by Renuka Somers for the Tax Institute’s Journal, “Taxation in Australia”, and published in April 2014.

This article discusses the complexity associated with a trust satisfying the maximum net asset value test for the purposes of accessing the capital gains tax (CGT) small business concessions, where it is unclear whether an unpaid present entitlement would be classified as a liability relating to the CGT assets of the trust.

Shredding the Corporate Veil: Are you a Shadow Director?

Shredding the Corporate Veil: Are you a Shadow Director?

People are generally aware of the risk of personal liability as a director. For example, directors can find themselves personally liable for debts to employees, for tax debts and penalties owed to the Australian Tax Office or for breaches of The Corporations Act 2001 ("the Act").

However, the Act itself provides little guidance or limitation in defining who is a director. A director may be anyone who acts in a position of a director, or someone who gives instructions or expresses wishes and the directors of the company are accustomed to act in accordance with those instructions or wishes. The result is that a trusted company advisor can, unwittingly, become liable as if they were a formally-appointed director.

Bullying in the modern workplace – how far can it extend?

Bullying in the modern workplace – how far  can it extend?

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has handed down an important interpretive decision concerning when a worker is bullied “at work”, for the purposes of the workplace bullying provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

Current working practices now shadow the traditional workplace model, through increased mobility, work done outside of normal hours and the prevalence of social media.  As a result, in recent years courts have been required to make findings about what performing work now looks like in the modern era.

Updated SMSF deed and our new SMSF corporate trustee stakeholders agreement

Updated SMSF deed and our new SMSF corporate trustee stakeholders agreement

Sladen Legal has conducted a major review of our self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) documents including the SMSF deed, the SMSF deed update and the SMSF pension agreements. We are pleased to announce our new SMSF corporate trustee stakeholders agreement.

Sladen Snippet – Draft legislation released for look through approach for LRBAs

Sladen Snippet – Draft legislation released for look through approach for LRBAs

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.

The curtain falls on modern award transitional provisions

The curtain falls on modern award transitional provisions

From 1 January 2010, thousands of state and federal awards were subsumed into 122 modern awards as part of an award simplification process. To allow employers and employees time to adjust, many modern awards contained transitional provisions, allowing employers to phase-in new modern award entitlements over a period of time, including payments in relation to minimum wages, piece work rates, casual or part-time loadings, shift allowances and penalties payable for work done on Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. There were also transitional provisions in relation to accident make-up pay, district allowances, and higher redundancy pay.

Sladen Snippet - Do recent Court decisions point towards leniency in the new SMSF penalty regime?

Sladen Snippet - Do recent Court decisions point towards leniency in the new SMSF penalty regime?

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.