The Federal Court has held that a resolution to distribute a $14m capital gain from a family trust was "special income" derived by a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) under former section 273(6) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA36) (taxable at 47%), notwithstanding that the amount was not actually received by the SMSF: SCCASP Holdings as trustee for the H&R Super Fund v FCT.Stuart Jones, Thomson Reuters
The taxpayer (SCCASP Holdings) is the corporate trustee of the H&R Super Fund, an SMSF with husband and wife directors who are the only members of the fund. The husband and wife are also directors of a trustee company for a family trust which carried on the Super Cheap Auto business.
In July 2000, the trustee company transferred the Super Cheap Auto business to a wholly owned company and elected to obtain CGT rollover relief under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA97). As part of the restructure, shares in the company were issued to the family trust which later transferred the shares to a group holding company, and the family trust elected rollover relief.
On 30 June 2004:
The SMSF's income tax return for the 2004 income year:
On 6 May 2009, the Commissioner amended the SMSF's assessment to treat the $9.3m net capital gain as "special income" of the fund (which is taxable at 47% instead of 15%). This increased the tax payable by the SMSF by $3,114,512. The Commissioner disallowed the taxpayer's objection against the amended assessment, and the taxpayer appealed to the Federal Court arguing that the amended assessment was excessive.
The taxpayer sought to distinguish the finding in Allen v FCT where the Full Federal Court had ruled that "income derived" in section 273(7) refers to both statutory income (for example, net capital gains) and income according to ordinary concepts.
The taxpayer claimed that:
The Commissioner argued that seeking to limit the ratio of Allen to the finding that "income derived" in section 273 is limited to that part of the income included in assessable income that was actually or constructively received (or the subject of a trust distribution) would ignore the proper application of section 97(1)(a) relied upon by the Full Court. That is, the Commissioner contended that the ITAA36 looks at the section 97(1)(a) amount and treats that amount as being derived, not the amount of the income of the trust estate to which the beneficiary is presently entitled.
In upholding the amended assessment, the Federal Court said:
"Income derived" The Court considered that "derived", for the purposes of "income derived" in section 273(6), must accommodate how a particular type of assessable income (which can form part of the net income of the trust estate) is included in the assessable income of a beneficiary pursuant to section 97 of the ITAA36. That being so, the Court said "derived" extends to include "attributed to" or "imputed to".
The Court considered that the effect of section 97 is that the assessable income of a beneficiary of a trust estate includes so much of that share of the net income of the trust estate as is attributable to a beneficiary. That is so whether or not that share has been received, applied or dealt with by or on behalf of that beneficiary. It is enough that the beneficiary is presently entitled to that share, the Court said. In this respect, the Court considered that it would make no sense to construe the word "derived" in section 273 in a way that included some types of assessable income but excluded others.
Net capital gain, statutory income and assessable income The Court noted that the reference to section 6-10 in FCT v Bamford evidences the recognition by the High Court that statutory income forms part of assessable income. In turn, the reference to section 102-5 evidences recognition by the High Court that one such form of statutory income is the net capital gain which section 102-5 includes in assessable income. The Court said it is any such net capital gain which is included in the net income of the trust estate within the meaning of section 95(1) of the ITAA36. According to the Court, this is in harmony with the observation in Bamford that, "Once the share of the distributable income to which the beneficiary is presently entitled is worked out, the notion of present entitlement has served its purpose, and the beneficiary is to be taxed on that share (or proportion) of the taxable income of the trust estate".
Net capital gain as "special income" As a result, the Court upheld the amended assessment to include the $9.3m net capital gain as "special income" of the SMSF (and reduced the SMSF's exempt current pension income by $856,882), thereby increasing the tax payable by the SMSF by $3,114,512.
For the 2007-08 and later income years, the special income rules in former section 273 of the ITAA36 have been rewritten into sections 295-550 of the ITAA97 and special income has been renamed "non-arm's length income". Non-arm's length income is taxed at the rate of 45%.
Source: This article was first published in Thomson Reuters' Weekly Tax Bulletin. To subscribe to Weekly Tax Bulletin, or for more information, please:
You can read:
  FCA 1052 (Federal Court, Logan J, 26 September 2012, to be reported in ATR).
 Subdivision 122-A.
 Subdivision 124-G.
  FCAFC 118; (2011) 195 FCR 416.
 sections 6-10(2) and (3), 10-5 and 115-215 of the ITAA97 (and sections 95 and 97(1) of the ITAA36).
 (2010) 75 ATR 1.
Julian Smith is a partner in the Maddocks Commercial team.
Julian advises extensively in the following areas:
Julian advises clients ranging from public companies servicing the wholesale financial services market to high net worth individuals and their advisers.
Julian has been with Maddocks since undertaking articles in 2001.
The legal information and commentary on this site is general only. Documents ordered through Cleardocs affect the user's legal rights and liabilities. To assess their suitability for the user, legal accounting and financial advice must be obtained.
For more information, contact Maddocks on (03) 9258 3555 and ask to speak to a member of their team.