The ATO’s Attack on Trusts and Trust Distributions

Clarke McEwan Accountants

Late last month, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released a package of new guidance material that directly targets how trusts distribute income. Many family groups will pay higher taxes (now and potentially retrospectively) as a result of the ATO’s more aggressive approach.

Family trust beneficiaries at risk

The tax legislation contains an integrity rule, section 100A, which is aimed at situations where income of a trust is appointed in favour of a beneficiary but the economic benefit of the distribution is provided to another individual or entity. If trust distributions are caught by section 100A, then this generally results in the trustee being taxed at penalty rates rather than the beneficiary being taxed at their own marginal tax rates.

The latest guidance suggests that the ATO will be looking to apply section 100A to some arrangements that are commonly used for tax planning purposes by family groups. The result is a much smaller boundary on what is acceptable to the ATO which means that some family trusts are at risk of higher tax liabilities and penalties.

ATO redrawing the boundaries of what is acceptable

Section 100A has been around since 1979 but to date, has rarely been invoked by the ATO except where there is obvious and deliberate trust stripping at play. However, the ATO’s latest

guidance suggests that the ATO is now willing to use section 100A to attack a wider range of scenarios.

There are some important exceptions to section 100A, including where income is appointed to minor beneficiaries and where the arrangement is part of an ordinary family or commercial dealing. Much of the ATO’s recent guidance focuses on whether arrangements form part of an ordinary family or commercial dealing. The ATO notes that this exclusion won’t necessarily apply simply because arrangements are commonplace or they involve members of a family group. For example, the ATO suggests that section 100A could apply to some situations where a child gifts money that is attributable to a family trust distribution to their parents.

The ATO’s guidance sets out four ‘risk zones’ – referred to as the white, green, blue and red zones. The risk zone for a particular arrangement will determine the ATO’s response:

White zone

This is aimed at pre-1 July 2014 arrangements. The ATO will not look into these arrangements unless it is part of an ongoing investigation, for arrangements that continue after this date, or where the trust and beneficiaries failed to lodge tax returns by 1 July 2017.

Green zone

Green zone arrangements are low risk arrangements and are unlikely to be reviewed by the ATO, assuming the arrangement is properly documented. For example, the ATO suggests that when a trust appoints income to an individual but the funds are paid into a joint bank account that the individual holds with their spouse then this would ordinarily be a low-risk scenario. Or, where parents pay for the deposit on an adult child’s mortgage using their trust distribution and this is a one-off arrangement.

Blue zone

Arrangements in the blue zone might be reviewed by the ATO. The blue zone is basically the default zone and covers arrangements that don’t fall within one of the other risk zones. The blue zone is likely to include scenarios where funds are retained by the trustee, but the arrangement doesn’t fall within the scope of the specific scenarios covered in the green zone.

Section 100A does not automatically apply to blue zone arrangements, it just means that the ATO will need to be satisfied that the arrangement is not subject to section 100A.

Red zone

Red zone arrangements will be reviewed in detail. These are arrangements the ATO suspects are designed to deliberately reduce tax, or where an individual or entity other than the beneficiary is benefiting.

High on the ATO’s list for the red zone are arrangements where an adult child’s entitlement to trust income is paid to a parent or other caregiver to reimburse them for expenses incurred before the adult child turned 18. For example, school fees at a private school. Or, where a loan (debit balance account) is provided by the trust to the adult child for expenses they incurred before they were 18 and the entitlement is used to pay off the loan. These arrangements will be looked at closely and if the ATO determines that section 100A applies, tax will be applied at the top marginal rate to the relevant amount and this could apply across a number of income years.

The ATO indicated that circular arrangements could also fall within the scope of section 100A. For example, this can occur when a trust owns shares in a company, the company is a beneficiary of that trust and where income is circulated between the entities on a repeating basis. For example, section 100A could be triggered if:

The trustee resolves to appoint income to the company at the end of year 1.
The company includes its share of the trust's net income in its assessable income for year 1 and pays tax at the corporate rate.
The company pays a fully franked dividend to the trustee in year 2, sourced from the trust income, and the dividend forms part of the trust income and net income in year 2.
The trustee makes the company presently entitled to some or all of the trust income at the end of year 2 (which might include the franked distribution).
These steps are repeated in subsequent years.

Distributions from a trust to an entity with losses could also fall within the red zone unless it is clear that the economic benefit associated with the income is provided to the beneficiary with the losses. If the economic benefit associated with the income that has been appointed to the entity with losses is utilised by the trust or another entity then section 100A could apply.

Who is likely to be impacted?

The ATO’s updated guidance focuses primarily on distributions made to adult children, corporate beneficiaries, and entities with losses. Depending on how arrangements are structured, there is potentially a significant level of risk. However, it is important to remember that section 100A is not confined to these situations.

Distributions to beneficiaries who are under a legal disability (e.g., children under 18) are excluded from these rules.

For those with discretionary trusts it is important to ensure that all trust distribution arrangements are reviewed in light of the ATO’s latest guidance to determine the level of risk associated with the arrangements. It is also vital to ensure that appropriate documentation is in place to demonstrate how funds relating to trust distributions are being used or applied for the benefit of beneficiaries.

Companies entitled to trust income

As part of the broader package of updated guidance targeting trusts and trust distributions, the ATO has also released a draft determination dealing specifically with unpaid distributions owed by trusts to corporate beneficiaries. If the amount owed by the trust is deemed to be a loan then it can potentially fall within the scope of another integrity provision in the tax law, Division 7A.

Division 7A captures situations where shareholders or their related parties access company profits in the form of loans, payments or forgiven debts. If certain steps are not taken, such as placing the loan under a complying loan agreement, these amounts can be treated as deemed unfranked dividends for tax purposes and taxable at the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate.

The latest ATO guidance looks at when an unpaid entitlement to trust income will start being treated as a loan. The treatment of unpaid entitlements to trust income as loans for Division 7A purposes is not new. What is new is the ATO’s approach in determining the timing of when these amounts start being treated as loans. Under the new guidance, if a trustee resolves to appoint income to a corporate beneficiary, then the time the unpaid entitlement starts being treated as a loan will depend on how the entitlement is expressed by the trustee (e.g., in trust distribution resolutions etc):

If the company is entitled to a fixed dollar amount of trust income the unpaid entitlement will generally be treated as a loan for Division 7A purposes in the year the present entitlement arises; or
If the company is entitled to a percentage of trust income, or some other part of trust income identified in a calculable manner, the unpaid entitlement will generally be treated as a loan from the time the trust income (or the amount the company is entitled to) is calculated, which will often be after the end of the year in which the entitlement arose.

This is relevant in determining when a complying loan agreement needs to be put in place to prevent the full unpaid amount being treated as a deemed dividend for tax purposes when the trust needs to start making principal and interest repayments to the company.

The ATO’s views on “sub-trust arrangements” has also been updated. Basically, the ATO is suggesting that sub-trust arrangements will no longer be effective in preventing an unpaid trust distribution from being treated as a loan for Division 7A purposes if the funds are used by the trust, shareholder of the company or any of their related parties.

The new guidance represents a significant departure from the ATO’s previous position in some ways. The upshot is that in some circumstances, the management of unpaid entitlements will need to change. But, unlike the guidance on section 100A, these changes will only apply to trust entitlements arising on or after 1 July 2022.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Save your business time and money using cloud accounting

By Clarke McEwan • October 28, 2025

Accounting tasks don’t have to eat into your business time. With the right cloud accounting software and setup, you can save time and money – while also getting tighter control over your finances. #accounting #software #finance

Trust Resolutions – Why Timing and Evidence Matter

By Clarke McEwan • October 10, 2025

As the trustee believed the income was classified as interest (this was challenged successfully by the ATO), the trustee assumed that the income would be subject to a final Australian tax at 10%, under the non-resident withholding rules. This was clearly more favourable than having the income taxed in the hands of Australian resident beneficiaries at higher marginal rates. However, the ATO argued that the distribution resolutions were invalid and the Tribunal agreed. Why? The main reason was a lack of evidence to prove that the distribution decisions were made before the end of the relevant financial years. While there were some documents that were purportedly dated and signed “30 June”, the Tribunal wasn’t convinced that the decisions were actually made before year-end and it was more likely that these documents were prepared on a retrospective basis. The evidence suggested the decisions were probably made many months after year-end, once the accountant had finalised the financial statements. The outcome was that default beneficiaries (all Australian residents) were taxed on the income at higher rates. Timing of trust resolution decisions is critical For a trust distribution to be effective for tax purposes, trustees must reach a decision on how income will be allocated by 30 June each year (or sometimes earlier, depending on the trust deed). It might be OK to prepare the formal paperwork later, but those documents must reflect a genuine decision made before year-end. For example, let’s say a trust has a corporate trustee with multiple directors. The directors meet at a particular location on 29 June and make formal decisions about how the income of the trust will be appointed to beneficiaries for that year. Someone keeps handwritten notes of the meeting and the decisions that are made. On 5 July the minutes are typed up and signed. The ATO indicates that this will normally be acceptable, but subject to any specific requirements in the trust deed. If the ATO believes the decision was made after 30 June (or documents were backdated), the resolution can be declared invalid. In that case, you might find that one or more default beneficiaries are taxed on the taxable income of the trust or the trustee is taxed at penalty rates. This could be an unexpected and costly tax outcome and could also lead to other problems in terms of who is really entitled to the cash. Broader lessons – it’s not just about trust distributions The timing issue is not confined just to trust distribution situations. Other areas of the tax system also turn on when a decision or agreement is actually made, not just when it is eventually recorded. For example, if a private company makes a loan to a shareholder in a given year, that loan must be repaid in full or placed under a complying Division 7A loan agreement by the earlier of the due date or lodgement date of the company’s tax return for the year of the loan. If not, a deemed unfranked dividend can be triggered for tax purposes. If a complying loan agreement is put in place then minimum annual repayments normally need to be made to avoid deemed dividends being recognised for tax purposes. A common way to deal with loan repayments is by using a set-off arrangement involving dividends that have been declared by the company. However, in order for the set-off arrangement to be valid there are a number of steps that need to be followed before the relevant deadline. The ATO will typically want to see evidence which proves: · When the dividend was declared; and · When the parties agreed to set-off the dividend against the loan balance. If there isn’t sufficient evidence to prove that these steps were taken by the relevant deadline then you might find that there is a taxable unfranked deemed dividend that needs to be recognised by the borrower in their tax return. Documenting decisions before year-end The key lesson from cases like Goldenville is that documentation shouldn’t be an afterthought — lack of contemporaneous documentation can fundamentally change the tax outcome. What normally matters most is when the relevant decision is actually made, not when the paperwork is drafted. In practice, this often means: · Check relevant deadlines and what needs to occur before that deadline. · If a decision needs to be made before the deadline, ensure that a formal process is followed to do this. For example, determine whether certain individuals need to hold a meeting or whether a circular resolution could be used. · Produce contemporaneous evidence of the fact that the decision has been made. You might consider sending a brief email to your accountant or lawyer explaining the decision that has been made before the relevant deadline , basically providing a time-stamped record of the decision. · Finalise paperwork: formal minutes of meetings can sometimes be prepared after year-end, but they must accurately reflect the earlier decision. Thinking carefully about timing — and building a habit of producing clear evidence of decisions as they are made — is often the difference between a tax planning strategy working as intended and an expensive dispute with the ATO.

Accessing superannuation funds for medical treatment or financial hardship

By Clarke McEwan • October 10, 2025

Superannuation is one of the largest assets for many Australians and offers significant tax advantages, however, strict rules apply to when it can be accessed. While super is most commonly accessed at retirement, death or disability, there are limited situations where earlier access may be possible. Early access is generally available in two situations: · Financial hardship – where you are receiving a qualifying Centrelink/DVA payment for a minimum period and cannot meet immediate living expenses. · Compassionate grounds – Funding for certain specific scenarios which include preventing a mortgage foreclosure or meeting medical expenses for a life-threatening injury or illness or to alleviate severe chronic pain. Compassionate grounds access requires an application to be made to the ATO which needs to be accompanied by relevant medical certificates or mortgage information. If approved the ATO will provide instructions to the individual’s superannuation fund to release an amount to cover the expense. We have included some ATO links with more detailed information on compassionate grounds and financial hardship below. When accessing superannuation under compassionate grounds you would usually collect the relevant supporting documentation and personally make the application for approval using your MyGov account. It has come to the ATO’s attention that there may be medical and dental providers exploiting this access and assisting super fund members to access amounts for cosmetic reasons (you may have even seen advertisements pop up on your social media showing people with a new sparkling smile – and a lower super balance). The ATO’s concerns are discussed in Separating fact from fiction on accessing your super early. Superannuation fund members and SMSF trustees should be aware that there can be substantial penalties applied when super is accessed outside of the legislated conditions of release. You should never provide another party with access to your MyGov login or allow a third party to make applications on your behalf. Penalties may also apply for making false declarations. Should you have any questions or concerns relating to proposed access to your superannuation please reach out to us. Related links Accessing superannuation under compassionate grounds Accessing superannuation due to financial hardship

Government Review of Supermarket Unit Pricing: What It Could Mean for Your Business

By Clarke McEwan • October 10, 2025

Submissions closed just a few weeks later on 19 September 2025, marking the end of a very short opportunity for stakeholders to have their say. A Quick Recap Unit pricing is what allows shoppers to compare costs per standard measure (e.g. $/100g or $/litre) across different pack sizes and brands. Since 2009, large supermarkets have been required to display this information to help customers spot value. While compliance has been relatively low-cost and penalties limited, the Government’s review signals that much tighter rules could be on the way. Why Now? The ACCC’s recent supermarket inquiry highlighted that while unit pricing helps, there are still gaps. The big concern is shrinkflation—when pack sizes quietly reduce while prices remain the same or higher. With cost-of-living pressures dominating headlines, the Government is looking at clearer, fairer pricing to rebuild consumer trust. What Might Change? Proposals considered in the consultation paper include: · Shrinkflation alerts – supermarkets may need to flag when a product becomes smaller without a matching price cut. · Clearer displays – larger, more prominent unit prices both in-store and online. · Wider coverage – expanding the rules beyond major supermarkets to smaller retailers and online sellers. · Standardised measures – eliminating confusing “per roll” vs “per sheet” comparisons. · Civil penalties – introducing fines for non-compliance. The Commercial Impact For suppliers, packaging decisions could come under closer scrutiny. For retailers, costs might arise from updating shelf labels, software, or e-commerce systems. But there are also opportunities: businesses that embrace transparency could build loyalty and stand out in a competitive market. What You Should Do Now that the consultation period has closed, Treasury will consider submissions and the Government is expected to announce its response later this year. Businesses in food, grocery, and household goods should stay alert—the final shape of the rules could affect pricing, packaging, and compliance obligations across the sector. At Clarke McEwan, we can help you model potential compliance costs, assess financial impacts, and prepare for upcoming regulatory change. Reach out to discuss how this review might affect your business.

ATO Interest Charges Are No Longer Deductible – What You Can Do

By Clarke McEwan • October 10, 2025

Leaving debts outstanding with the ATO is now more expensive for many taxpayers. As we explained in the July edition of our newsletter, general interest charge (GIC) and shortfall interest charge (SIC) imposed by the ATO is no longer tax-deductible from 1 July 2025. This applies regardless of whether the underlying tax debt relates to past or future income years. With GIC currently at 11.17%, this is now one of the most expensive forms of finance in the market — and unlike in the past, you won’t get a deduction to offset the cost. For many taxpayers, this makes relying on an ATO payment plan a costly strategy. Refinancing ATO debt Businesses can sometimes refinance tax debts with a bank or other lender. Unlike GIC and SIC amounts, interest on these loans might be deductible for tax purposes, provided the borrowing is connected to business activities. While tax debts will sometimes relate to income tax or CGT liabilities, remember that interest could also be deductible where money is borrowed to pay other tax debts relating to a business, such as: · GST · PAYG instalments · PAYG withholding for employees · FBT However, before taking any action to refinance ATO debt it is important to carefully consider whether you will be able to deduct the interest expenses or not. Individuals If you are an individual with a tax debt, the treatment of interest expenses incurred on a loan used to pay that tax debt really depends on the extent to which the tax debt arose from a business activity: · Sole traders: If you are genuinely carrying on a business, interest on borrowings used to pay tax debts from that business is generally deductible. · Employees or investors: If your tax debt relates to salary, wages, rental income, dividends, or other investment income, the interest is not deductible. Refinancing may still reduce overall interest costs depending on the interest rate on the new loan, but it won’t generate a tax deduction. Example: Sam is a sole trader who runs a café. He borrows $30,000 to pay his tax debt, which arose entirely from his café profits. The interest should be fully deductible. However, if Sam also earns salary or wages from a part-time job and some of his tax debt relates to the employment income, only a portion of the interest on the loan used to pay the tax debt would be deductible. If $20,000 of the tax debt relates to his business and $10,000 relates to employment activities, then only 2/3rds of the interest expenses would be deductible. Companies and trusts If a company or trust borrows to pay its own tax debts (income tax, GST, PAYG withholding, FBT), the interest will usually be deductible if it can be traced back to a debt that arose from carrying on a business. However, if a director or beneficiary borrows money personally to cover those debts, the interest would not normally be deductible to them. Partnerships The position is more complex when it comes to partnership arrangements. If the borrowing is at the partnership level and it relates to a tax debt that arose from a business carried on by the partnership then the interest should normally be deductible. For example, this could include interest on money borrowed to pay business tax obligations such as GST or PAYG withholding amounts. However, the ATO takes the view that if an individual who is a partner in a partnership borrows money personally to pay a tax debt relating to their share of the profits of the partnership, the interest isn’t deductible. The ATO treats this as a personal expense, even if the partnership is carrying on a business activity. Practical takeaway Leaving debts outstanding with the ATO is now more expensive than ever because GIC and SIC are no longer deductible. Refinancing the tax debt with an external lender might provide you with a tax deduction and might also enable you to access lower interest rates. The key is to distinguish between tax debts that relate to a business activity and other tax debts. For mixed situations, you may need to apportion the deduction. If you’re unsure how this applies to you, talk to us before arranging finance. With the right strategy, you can manage tax debts more effectively and avoid costly surprises.

Measuring the health of your business with ratio measures

By Clarke McEwan • October 3, 2025

Business ratios