This recently released Tax Advice from the ATO may be of interest:
TA 2005/1
Profit washing scheme using a trust and loss entity http://law.ato.gov.au/pdf/tpa0501.pdf
This Taxpayer Alert describes an arrangement where the taxpayer seeks to minimise tax payable by seeking to use tax losses in an unrelated entity. The business of the taxpayer is restructured so that the income of the business passes through a chain of trusts and on to a loss company. The income, less an amount for promoter fees, remains effectively under the control of the taxpayer, or associates.
Terryw
Discover Home Loans
Mortgage Broker
North Sydney [email protected]
If the business is in a trust then another trust can be the benificary.
I couldn’t open the link but I believe this to be true if the trust is flexible enough. I know many who do it, one being a highly regarded accountant who has about 60 IP’s and many businesses.
From memory, this scheme involved using companies that had accumulated losses and stopped trading. The losses were just sitting there wasting away waiting to be offset by a capital gain. So promoters set up various structures where unrelated companies were made into related companies artificially and gains from the trusts were distributed to the companies and tax was avoided.
Dear Terryw and Cata,
I read the TA and seems to me that ATO does not like the hybrid trust? If this is the case, what type of Trust would be better to start investing on properties?
Best regards,
Eleven
I can’t see anything where the ATO doesn’t like hybrid trusts in that TA (or elsewhere). This is about a scheme anyway, so is different to property investment. And I have seen a private ruling from the ATO where they were happy with a hybrid trust owning an investment property. So I think you have nothing to fear, especially if you ask an accountant to properly set up your structure.
I think the ATO dosen’t like anything that saves taxpayers from paying tax.
Hybrid trusts are good but my preference is a Discertionary Trust.
I believe that the hybrid trust is used alot when it is not needed. My opinion only.
Different circumstances for different trusts, but I am a big fan of discretionary trusts.
Cata
Asset Protection Specialist
CATA Asset Protection
So when you say your preference is for a discretionary trust, would you include a hybrid trust provided no units are on issue?
If so, then ISTM that a hybrid trust would be more flexible, being the same as a discretionary trust if no units are issued, but with units available if circumstances favour their issue (eg. negative gearing).
Not something I normally do but I think it sounds ok. I would have to look into it further though.
I usually use the negative gear as an offset to a positive in another related trust as I am not a fan of negative gearing(personal opinion only). I perfer positive or netural gear with good growth potential.