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).

Discretionary trusts are commonly understood to be efficient structures for asset protection and tax minimisation, and are widely used in modern-day business.  What isn’t so well understood are the obligations of trustees in administering trusts, particularly with regard to providing reasons for their decisions to beneficiaries.

The end of 2014 is fast approaching and as we don our dancing shoes and toast to the successes of the year that was, employers need to remain mindful of the legal and HR risks that work parties can pose.

Whilst the end-of-year work party is a great way to reward staff and promote team bonding, the combination of alcohol and festive cheer can be a recipe for disaster. There are some precautions that employers can take to minimise the risk of a post-party ‘HR hangover’.

The Franchising Code of Conduct will be repealed and replaced with a new Code (Code) on 1 January 2015. The Code applies to all franchise agreements that are entered into, renewed or transferred after 1 January 2015 and will affect all businesses that are franchised.

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.

This article discusses some of the taxation and trusts issues encountered when structuring family law settlements. Managing these issues appropriately through careful planning and the preparation of appropriate documentation can ensure the best financial and taxation outcome for clients

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.

Sladen Legal is a proud sponsor of the Women in Property Committee of the Urban Development Institute of Australia (Vic Division) (UDIA).

Last night, Sarah Rizk, a Principal in Sladen Legal’s Property and Development Group and Chair of the Women in Property Committee, moderated a Minute Mentoring event jointly hosted by the Women in Property Committee and Outlook Committees of the UDIA. The aim of the event was to provide young and mid-level members of the UDIA access to senior people in the industry who they may not otherwise have a chance to interact with. The event launched a new series of events to be run by the Committees that will provide greater opportunities for “up and comers” in the urban development industry to make better, more valuable connections.

Many small to medium sized businesses face disputes between shareholders, who can often be family members.  These shareholder disputes can be very expensive to resolve and typically take the form of “oppression” claims commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria, under the provisions of s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Although individual disputes differ, they all have in common allegations that the affairs of a company have been conducted in an oppressive manner.

The Victorian government passed the Justice Legislation Amendment (Succession and Surrogacy) Act 2014  on 16 October, prior to going into caretaker mode leading up to the election.

The Act includes significant amendments to the laws governing the contesting of wills.

Since the removal of any relationship requirement between a claimant and a deceased person in 1996, the courts have dealt with a wide range of claims. These claims are not only by spouses and children of the deceased person, but also grandchildren, nephews and nieces, carers and even neighbours.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently found a director personally liable for misleading and deceptive conduct by reason of the director signing a Letter of Offer on behalf of the company, which contained certain representations. While the case dealt with provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), both the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) and the Australian Consumer Law have equivalent provisions.

“If you’re contracting out, and the price seems too good to be true, someone’s probably getting ripped off. And if it turns out to be the workers, and it turns out you half knew that, then you are in danger yourself of having been involved in a contravention”

These comments were made by Natalie James of the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) last month after the workplace regulator settled its long running prosecution with retail giant Coles, in connection with the unprecedented ‘trolley collectors case’.  In an environment where outsourcing is prevalent and often complex, the prosecution of Coles has been a sobering reminder to the business community that lawmakers and regulators are sharpening their view on chain of responsibility.

The High Court of Australia has handed down its second significant decision on the interpretation of the adverse action provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

In 2012 the High Court made a decision in the case of Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay, which provided employers with guidance on what must be established to defend a claim that adverse action had been taken against an employee for a prohibited reason.  This case informed us that if the person who made the decision to sanction the aggrieved employee (such as a HR or operations manager) could provide cogent and credible evidence that no part of their decision involved a prohibited reason (such as participating in a lawful industrial activity), that would be sufficient to resist the employee’s claim.   

In a recent speech to the Australian Institute of Directors, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) chairman Greg Medcraft outlined ASIC’s expectations for directors. Previous speeches focused on the director’s role as a gatekeeper, and Mr Medcraft has said this will continue to be a focus for ASIC.

The chairman stated that directors should ensure their company has strong internal and audit compliance functions. He stated these functions are worthless unless the directors back it up with supervision and review, and that these processes are ingrained in the company’s culture. He considered culture a very important point and stressed directors should drive the right compliance culture in the workplace.

Proposed amendments to the employee share scheme provisions for start-ups.

On 14 October 2014, the Honourable Bruce Billson, the Honourable Tony Abbott and the Honourable Joe Hockey issued a media release titled "Encouraging employee share ownership and entrepreneurship".

The position of the Government in respect of the application of the employee share scheme (ESS) provisions to start ups has been long awaited, with it being seen as fundamental to the innovative nature of start-up companies, and the need to ensure that they retain a work environment that fosters new ideas.

A Victorian water authority was found to have contravened the no extra claims clause in its enterprise agreement, in a decision handed down by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) last week. The authority made changes to a vehicle policy which provided some employees with limited private use of work vehicles.  The enterprise agreement itself contained no provisions dealing directly with the provision or private use of motor vehicles.

Sladen Legal's managing principal, Dan Simmonds, was recently asked for his thoughts on the priorities for the next state government's agenda.

This article was published in the spring edition of VECCI’s magazine Business Excellence magazine, 2014.

The decision over whether to engage employees or contractors in business is a complex problem that many struggle over. This article highlights a case that illustrates how getting it wrong can evoke dire consequences.

In 2013 the case of Ace Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski came up before the Federal Court. This case dealt with a claim by five insurance agents, who asserted that they were engaged as employees and not contractors. Their payment terms were on a commission basis from premiums they had collected. Each agent carried out their respective duties using their own car, and engaged their own secretarial support. The agents also issued tax invoices for their services and each agent was contracted to the insurer through a company. The insurer deemed them to be contractors, and didn’t pay them any leave entitlements.

Sladen Legal had two recent successful applications to disregard or reallocate excess non-concessional contributions, with the result that significant excess contributions assessments were extinguished or reduced to a nominal amount.

In the first case the client inadvertently triggered the bring forward rule by paying what she thought was an insurance premium, but was in fact a contribution to a retail superannuation fund (that in turn funded an insurance policy held by the fund). The client also made a $150K non-concessional contribution in that year followed by a $450K in the following year (causing excess non-concessional contributions of over $150K). The Commissioner of Taxation agreed that special circumstances existed and agreed to reallocate the “insurance” contribution to the second year reducing the excess contributions tax from over $70K to approximately $1,500.