Meet the (HDT) Knockers!

But Nigel, I think the deed provider ought to have some sort of ATO approval of the tax treatment of a certain type of deed before making claims as to their tax effect. Otherwise, why are these people making these claims without testing them first?

I only give advise to clients that I know has already met ATO approval, and I expect others making tax claims to have done the same.
 
NIgel,

The site does give the case law and legislation that support the concept and an explaination. The only incentive to buy the kit is to get a copy of my ruling from the ATO, a letter for your employer and their accountant and the form that you have to sign and put your name on to get your own ruling. Nothing relevant is withheld there is enough information on the site to work it all out for yourself it is just easier and cheaper to buy the kit and have it all done for you.

Fair enough if people don't want to answer my questions that is their right. But if someone will then we would all have a much better understanding and that would be great. So I ask in hope.
 
Just like GSJ, I have difficulty in understanding what ‘capital return’ means in the PBR. Does it mean the market value of units at some point in time or at redemption, or just the value of the initial purchase price of units? Can someone clarify that for us?

Looks like 'capital return' as in the following clauses includes capital growth, not only the initial capital that is used to purchase units.
An interest expense is not fully deductible in those cases where the expected return from the units, both income and capital growth, does not provide an obvious commercial explanation for incurring the interest

...., it is necessary to apportion the interest expense for the following reasons:
as the capital return under the trust remains discretionary, the expected capital return from the units cannot be quantified.

This means, to be able to deduct interest fully, the unit holder should be entitled not only to the income but also to the capital growth (at redemption? at market value?). The consequence of this is, as alexlee pointed out earlier in this thread, it undermines the asset protection and CG streaming ability of the trust. On the other hand, if the unit holder is not entitled to the capital growth, as ATO puts it where 'the capital return under the trust remains discretionary', then the interest is not fully deductible, affecting the negative gearing value of HDTs. This looks like a real problem at least for the deed in question.

I think this is another point that may have an affect on HDTs in general.

as you have advised, there is a private purpose or motive for establishing a hybrid trust and purchasing units in this trust, where the capital return is discretionary. Your purpose is to obtain the private advantage of asset protection given because due to your occupation you have a high exposure to legal action against you. Therefore, the nature of your interest outgoing will not have the character of an outgoing fully incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income.

In conclusion, apportionment of the interest expenses is necessary in respect to your purchase of units in the trust because the nature of your interest payments do not have the character of an outgoing fully incurred in producing assessable income or of an outgoing fully incurred in a transaction with an obvious commercial explanation. This is because your motives for purchasing units in a trust where the capital return is discretionary include the private purpose of asset protection. Being so, your interest expense is only deductible up to the extent of the assessable income actually received.

Now does this mean for the interest expenses to be fully deductible, the purpose of the cost/expense should only be for gaining or producing assessable income, but there cannot be another purpose or motive, such as asset protection?

I’d like see what others think.
 
Last edited:
Now does this mean for the interest expenses to be fully deductible, the purpose of the cost/expense should only be for gaining or producing assessable income, but there cannot another purpose or motive, such asset protection?

Asset protection is used as an argument that an arrangement was not entered into with the dominant purposes of a tax benefit so not caught by Part IVA. This is an interesting twist that if the purpose of the arrangement is partly for asset protection then some of the costs are not deductible because asset protection is a private expense.
The ATO is playing hardball but I have got to admit it is a clever move.
 
Asset protection is used as an argument that an arrangement was not entered into with the dominant purposes of a tax benefit so not caught by Part IVA. This is an interesting twist that if the purpose of the arrangement is partly for asset protection then some of the costs are not deductible because asset protection is a private expense.
The ATO is playing hardball but I have got to admit it is a clever move.

Julia, does this mean I am now allowed to borrow money from say a LOC and on-lend it to the trust at a lower interest rate?
Alex
 
You've got me Alex. I cannot work out the link between your last post and mine. Some how I suspect it is very clever but too clever for me.
 
You've got me Alex. I cannot work out the link between your last post and mine. Some how I suspect it is very clever but too clever for me.

Sorry, I was thinking borrow money from a LOC at 7% and on-lend it to the trust at 5%. The 2% loss I take could be construed as for asset protection purposes since it gets into the trust and is protected.
Alex
 
Alex,

You hit the nail on the head of what they are trying to say in the PBR. They are saying there must be an income producing purposes to qualify for a tax deduction and asset protection is not an income producing purposes so the cost of protecting your assets is not deductible.
 
Sorry, I was thinking borrow money from a LOC at 7% and on-lend it to the trust at 5%. The 2% loss I take could be construed as for asset protection purposes since it gets into the trust and is protected.
Alex

Or for income purposes if the 5% increases over time to be greater than the 7%, so the interest would be fully deductible?

GSJ
 
julia said:
so the cost of protecting your assets is not deductible
If the unitholder was getting all income and capital gains, with a complete right to both, then presumably he would be entitled to a full interest deduction.

However, his motive for using a trust would still likely be for things like asset protection and estate planning, yet I gather this "private purpose" would not affect his ability to fully deduct the interest in this case.

So it seems to me that private purpose is only an issue when some of the revenue is not going to the unitholder, or the arrangement is commercially unviable. In other words, the motive of asset protection is not a problem in itself, just something the ATO is dragging out of the closet so that they can disallow full interest deductibility if the unitholder is not getting as much revenue as they think he should be.

GP
 
Hi

Naturally, I have given the issue of HDT’s a lot of thought of late and especially in light of some of the recent private rulings and discussions on this forum.

Before, I comment too far, please understand that:

1. I personally use HDT’s to own some of my IP’s and in doing so; I too have issued Special Income Units to take advantage of the negative gearing aspects of the trust. Therefore, I personally have a problem if this turns as sour as some would have us believe.

2. Secondly, I have publicly supported the HDT concept for a number of years now and so I am obviously biased in my thoughts and this bias needs to be taken into consideration with anything else that I say on the topic…..as I am sure that it is already.

Now, having said that, my thoughts are:

As a generalisation, we seem to be approaching this issue on a “one size fits all” basis. That is, either all HDT’s will fail the Tax Office scrutiny; or, all HDT’s will pass the Tax Office scrutiny.

As a forum we seem to do this regardless of the actual wording of the trust deed involved; how the individual accountants understand the tax law and/or the trust law and of the trust deed involved.

Clearly, that is a crucial mistake in tax law as a simple basis for all tax issues is to look first at the individual facts and circumstances in hand.

Obviously, we are all waiting to see what the Tax Office do when they finalise their discussions with Chris Batten and Chris Balalovski and any comments I make now need to be read with this in mind.

I have no doubt that as soon as Chris Batten knows something more certain and worth sharing, that he will indeed share it. In the meantime, suggesting that he is being unfair or withholding information is close to libel and quite unhelpful to an intelligent debate on the matter. Moreover, we are wasting time, energy and emotions unnecessarily whereas Chris is just waiting and working quietly in the background towards a resolution of this issue with the Tax Office.

So, for what it is worth and with all the preceding comments in mind, what I personally believe that we will see is that:

• Those of us who believe that the HDT concept will fail will be proven right; and
• Those of us who believe that the HDT concept will work will be proven right.

How?

Simply, because of the way that the individual trust deeds are written and used.

So, whilst I know it is frustrating to do so, we are all best to wait and see what comes out of the discussions between Chris and the Tax Office.

I hope that this helps some

Dale
 
Alex,

You hit the nail on the head of what they are trying to say in the PBR. They are saying there must be an income producing purposes to qualify for a tax deduction and asset protection is not an income producing purposes so the cost of protecting your assets is not deductible.

Alex there's just no commercial rationale to borrow at 7% to on-lend at 5% which the ATO could accept (in fact from vaguest memory there is a case about this very tactic where the taxpayer got rightly slaughtered).

Just extemporising here, but what about a PIK Loan, i.e. where interest capitalises and the loan is a bullet repayment?

If you account on a cash basis for interest received rather than an accruals basis (as should be the case for most individuals I would think) then perhaps you could defer the interest income for the period of the loan... thus for the period of the loan you'd be negatively geared to the tune of your personal cost of funds and then have a big hit of interest income on the loan maturity (hopefully in a year when you can offset that with some of other deductions).

Not a tax saving but a deferral (which is always a good thing as you can no doubt make better use of today's dollars than the taxman :cool: ).

Mmmmm must give that some more thought...

N.
 
Would it be unwise to set up a trust for 'asset protection' purposes, or at least, to admit to publicly?

If you admit to putting assets into a trust to protect them, would this place you at risk, as a litigant could say that your structure is designed deliberately to stop them getting the assets.
 
Someone saying that should have their head examined.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think so. Only if you transferred them from your own name to a trust within the time frames of the bankruptcy legislation would there be a risk. Transfers with the intention of defeating specific creditors can be overridden. Initial purchase within the trust should be fine, as long as the trust is not party to the proceedings.

I'd say the recent Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Carey (No. 6) [2006] FCA 813 ('Richstar') case is more worrying for Discretionary Trust owners though.
 
Hi

Yes, the suspense has been killing all of us, too. It is also amazing how you start to doubt your own knowledge as the time ticks by in silence.....

I believe that verbal answers have been given and that a proper written answer should follow shortly. As before, I promise to keep you informed as soon as I know anything tangible.

Dale


Hi Chris or Dale,

It's been about 5 weeks since then. Just curious if there's been any news from the ATO on this front yet?

GSJ
 
Ah, 10 weeks now...the wait continues...

GSJ

Remember this is the Tax Office we're talking about.

You need a request in triplicate to go to the bathroom...so don't expect a prompt reply. In fact the Tax Inspector General recently slammed the ATO (again) for being slow and non-responsive...

Big (and rusty) wheels turn slowly...I'm sure there are some fine people in the ATO, they're just victims of the machine.

Cheers
N.
 
Back
Top