Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Yes, there's a lot of people in a wide range of occupations who have them. As I said in my previous post there is no government or prospective government who will get rid of them.
They're nothing but a tax dodging rort.

"Whatever you do, don't mention the trusts"

But the real power of trusts, the magic, is that they don't actually pay tax. Trust income is only taxed when it is distributed to beneficiaries. "It (use of a trust) does open some of those (tax) opportunities more than a traditional company does," Australian Tax Office deputy commissioner Michael Cranston says in an exclusive interview with Fairfax Media.

Discretionary trusts – the most common form of trust – are especially rich in tax perks. Most family trusts are discretionary.
They allow breadwinners on high tax rates to split their income and distribute it to family members on low or no incomes, and low tax rates – adult kids at university for example.
The distribution of income can be varied each year. So, if a child leaves university and gets a well paid job their share can be transferred to little brother starting university, or a retired grandmother.
So, a discretionary family trust allows a rich miner or manufacturer – with the right tax agent – to minimise or even extinguish their tax bill by promising money to his kids and his parents. The money doesn't even have to change hands, only the tax bill.
Capital gains discounts are also able to be maximised through income splitting/streaming.

All too good to be true? Yes, but it is true, as the Australian Tax Office acknowledges: "At the margins a trust can still stream income to tax preferred beneficiaries...you might avoid tax at the top marginal rate because some or your beneficiaries aren't in that bracket," says deputy tax commissioner Cranston.
And while the data is limited, such tax perks do appear to be enjoyed primarily by the wealthy. The claim is often made that cracking down on trusts would hurt farmers and small businesses most of all. Mr Turnbull reiterated this view on 3AW on Friday.
Yet farming businesses account for fewer than 5 per cent of all trusts. There are more than twice as many in construction for instance
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 2014/15 indicate that households in the lowest 80 per cent of earners average less than $20,000 in trust assets. Households in the top 20 per cent average almost $90,000.(These figures take in other private trusts including fixed trusts)
When he launched the last, ultimately doomed, bid at trust reform in 1998, then Howard government treasurer Peter Costello summed it up this way: "Wealthier individuals with access to legal and accounting advice can target particular investments and structures to take advantage of differences in tax treatment. The rest of the community subsidises the wealthy taxpayer."

A bit disingenuous the article here.

Breadwinners on high tax rates splitting income? *smile*. You can't channel personal earnings through a trust. Business earnings or profit distributions yes, personal earnings - no.

And unpaid distributions are owed. You better make sure you've got a good relationship with your children/family if you aren't paying the dough. You might wind up with a significant beneficiary liability.

There are lots of rules regarding Trusts, the article makes out like its some sort of tax free golden ticket which it isn't (in the main).

And is it such a shock that people on low incomes don't have trusts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
As a contractor I worked for a business that had a lot of contractors like me in one of the energy providers.

My contract was with the "such and such Family Trust". My work was essentially generating profit for a rich family's trust fund so they can avoid paying tax on the business, while I'm slaving away as a PAYE taxpayer.

That tells me our taxation system is sick and needs major reform.
Wait a sec - so a business (and all its associated risks) should only be run as an individual?

Were there multiple owners in this business? How would you deal with that?

What happens if he got sued because of a dodgy contractors actions? Should he have his other assets at risk?

Generating a profit for a rich families trust? How would you even know what they ended up making? Did he send you the financials?

Business structures are important in many ways. The taxation system has flaws, way too generous CGT rules being one. And negative gearing. And imputation credit refunds for non-tax paying superfunds. But trusts have their place. The reality is the ATOP needs more enforcement about the rules, more audits and better compliance. The problem with that is no one wants to be the subject of an audit. And they are costly to run.

I'd be banning anyone from setting up new companies once they have been involved in multiple failed companies that failed to pay subcontractors and had existing tax debts (the ATO is seen as a funding entity to many dodgy operators, especially in the building industry).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The system sucks. I use a family trust to rort the system and justify it by telling myself that huge multi nationals are paying bugger all tax in Australia despite huge profits so the tax system can get stuffed.

Whole thing needs a complete overhaul.

If you are channelling personal exertion income through that entity and not declaring it properly you could be in some trouble TBR. I'd be making sure you got the correct advice.
Many tax agents rely on the fact the ATO does very few audits on these things, but read the fine print when you sign your tax returns and financials, all the responsibility falls on you.
 
:LOL:

I can see that in some cases family trusts have some merit. But if you are running a large consulting business that employs a lot of highly paid consultants working for a big corporate and you are paying little/no tax on the profits, then that's dicked up.

Meanwhile us PAYE guys get shafted. This year I've become a sole trader, I've had enough of paying through the nose when other much wealthier people avoid paying tax altogether.
How the hell do you know that? Did they show you their financials?

You know if you run a personal services business through a trust or as a sole trader if you do everything by the book you will end up with the same net income? And pay the same amount of tax? Actually you will pay less tax with a trust because you'll have a $2000 more in fees for the trust.
 
How the hell do you know that? Did they show you their financials?

I know that they are a large consulting business. How do i know that? Because I worked for them. I know that they employed a bunch of consultants working for this one company and probably other companies. How do I know that? Because I signed a contract with them, and others who worked there also had contracts with them.

How the trust actually worked, and what mechanisms it used to avoid tax, I don't know. But I reckon those mechanisms existed. Why run it through a family trust otherwise?

You know if you run a personal services business through a trust or as a sole trader if you do everything by the book you will end up with the same net income? And pay the same amount of tax? Actually you will pay less tax with a trust because you'll have a $2000 more in fees for the trust.

Yeah, I'm yet to plough my way through that gnarly tunnel yet MD. Any advice on tax minimisation would be appreciated :cool:
 
Wait a sec - so a business (and all its associated risks) should only be run as an individual?

Were there multiple owners in this business? How would you deal with that?

What happens if he got sued because of a dodgy contractors actions? Should he have his other assets at risk?

Generating a profit for a rich families trust? How would you even know what they ended up making? Did he send you the financials?

Business structures are important in many ways. The taxation system has flaws, way too generous CGT rules being one. And negative gearing. And imputation credit refunds for non-tax paying superfunds. But trusts have their place. The reality is the ATOP needs more enforcement about the rules, more audits and better compliance. The problem with that is no one wants to be the subject of an audit. And they are costly to run.

I'd be banning anyone from setting up new companies once they have been involved in multiple failed companies that failed to pay subcontractors and had existing tax debts (the ATO is seen as a funding entity to many dodgy operators, especially in the building industry).

Sorry, saw this earlier post after the later one MD.

1. I didn't say anywhere that businesses should be run only as an individual. Where did you get that idea? My issue is that this business was run by a family trust, presumably for tax minimisation and other purposes.

2. see 1. A normal company structure can have multiple owners right? It doesn't have to be a family trust. Is a family trust the only business structure that can have multiple business owners? Seems weird if that's true.

3. This is why consulting companies have professional indemnity insurance. If I stuffed up so badly that the family trust got sued, they have insurance to cover that.

4. Nope, and maybe the business was not profitable. It's still in existence about 8 years later, so I assume it hasn't been running at a loss for 8 years.

5. Yes business structures are important, and agree on your other examples of dodginess. I guess there could be a completely innocent explanation for why I as a consultant was employed by a family trust to work for a big energy retailer - I'm not sure what that reason is apart from financial gain/tax minimisation. Maybe you know why?
 
He made the great point that Australia's main defence problem is our mindset that we want security from Asia, not security in Asia. Looking forever to France/UK/US is a doomed policy.

What gets me about the whole submarine kerfufle and China is the surprise the Australian government seems to be feigning at the Chinese response.

Australia has just dropped a contract for diesel powered subs which clearly have the range to protect our own borders, and replaced that (well, with the eventual promise, sort of, you get the vibe) with nuclear subs. Now, the nuclear subs have one difference - they can go a lot further, all the way to the seas around China.

China is a major world power, Australia, a middle power, has taken a decision to purchase weapons which have one major feature, the ability to get near China. WTF did we expect as a reaction? That they would sit back and go, yeah, fine, you can take your weapons a long way from home and near us, no problem. Of course they will react. Any country would.

Keating is right that the number of subs will be too little to have a real impact, but the impact is political - the Chinese know it and so does Australia.

The sad thing is that we are still hanging on to the coat-tails of the USA and UK. Fine, aligning with the UK and USA has history and we are all linked, but we don't do enough to make allies in Asia. We should be prioritising relations with Indonesia, Timor, Malaysia etc and remaining a neutral with China.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Victoria police should be treating all Victorians the same. Time to reopen the investigation.


Couldn't agree more. When the government can control the police force, we're in trouble. State or Federal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Definitely a problem on both sides of politics. Shame we don't have a federal IBAC/ICAC that will actually look into these sorts of issues.

And this one...

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sorry, saw this earlier post after the later one MD.

1. I didn't say anywhere that businesses should be run only as an individual. Where did you get that idea? My issue is that this business was run by a family trust, presumably for tax minimisation and other purposes.

2. see 1. A normal company structure can have multiple owners right? It doesn't have to be a family trust. Is a family trust the only business structure that can have multiple business owners? Seems weird if that's true.

3. This is why consulting companies have professional indemnity insurance. If I stuffed up so badly that the family trust got sued, they have insurance to cover that.

4. Nope, and maybe the business was not profitable. It's still in existence about 8 years later, so I assume it hasn't been running at a loss for 8 years.

5. Yes business structures are important, and agree on your other examples of dodginess. I guess there could be a completely innocent explanation for why I as a consultant was employed by a family trust to work for a big energy retailer - I'm not sure what that reason is apart from financial gain/tax minimisation. Maybe you know why?

Yep, normal (private) companies can have multiple owners.

PI doesn't cover all sorts of things, read the fine print.

Agree, no one generally runs a business for 8 years at a loss. But without knowing specifics it is guesswork to know the eventual tax collected from the business operations. Trusts don't [pay tax but beneficiaries do. Not everyone has adult children without income they can stream income to. In my time in tax most of the income ends up taxed in the hands of individuals - essentially because most people need the money to pay for their personal living expenses. Even if you run a business through a company to access the funds it has to be as wages/dividends or through a loan. And the rules around Loans have been tightened to stop people siphoning money out of companies and not having to declare income or pay it back.

Unit trusts are often used for business partnerships as they can provide greater flexibility from an owners own tax affairs point of view.

Although given the reduced company tax rates, I think people will be opting now for company structures rather than a trust/corporate trustee structure.

In my experience people have this misguided idea that once you have a company or trust that life suddenly becomes tax deductible. Ultimately it doesn't, expenses are usually only deductible if incurred in earning income. So your private car, house electricity, interstate holiday, home TV etc are not tax deductible - you'd be amazed how many people think if the company pays for something it means it can get a tax deduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yep, normal (private) companies can have multiple owners.

PI doesn't cover all sorts of things, read the fine print.

Agree, no one generally runs a business for 8 years at a loss. But without knowing specifics it is guesswork to know the eventual tax collected from the business operations. Trusts don't [pay tax but beneficiaries do. Not everyone has adult children without income they can stream income to. In my time in tax most of the income ends up taxed in the hands of individuals - essentially because most people need the money to pay for their personal living expenses. Even if you run a business through a company to access the funds it has to be as wages/dividends or through a loan. And the rules around Loans have been tightened to stop people siphoning money out of companies and not having to declare income or pay it back.

Unit trusts are often used for business partnerships as they can provide greater flexibility from an owners own tax affairs point of view.

Although given the reduced company tax rates, I think people will be opting now for company structures rather than a trust/corporate trustee structure.

In my experience people have this misguided idea that once you have a company or trust that life suddenly becomes tax deductible. Ultimately it doesn't, expenses are usually only deductible if incurred in earning income. So your private car, house electricity, interstate holiday, home TV etc are not tax deductible - you'd be amazed how many people think if the company pays for something it means it can get a tax deduction.


Good info MD.
 
Business structures are important in many ways. The taxation system has flaws, way too generous CGT rules being one. And negative gearing. And imputation credit refunds for non-tax paying superfunds. But trusts have their place. The reality is the ATOP needs more enforcement about the rules, more audits and better compliance. The problem with that is no one wants to be the subject of an audit. And they are costly to run.
I agree
It still irks me that the last election destroyed the chances of any immediate change to these tax arrangements.
We lost the chance to reform CGT and negative gearing as you say but the one that still annoys me the most is franking credits .
We still hear that Labor wanted to get rid of franking credits which of course is not true. They actually wanted to get rid of cash refunds of franking credits for non tax payers. The ALP simply wanted to return to the reason they introduced franking credits in the 1980s which was to ensure that company profits paid as dividends are ultimately taxed at no more or no less than the higher of the company tax rate or the recipient’s marginal tax rate. Anything else is a rort on the rest of the taxpayers because it means that when dividends are paid to non tax payers the company profits behind those dividends are ultimately not taxed at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The ALP simply wanted to return to the reason they introduced franking credits in the 1980s which was to ensure that company profits paid as dividends are ultimately taxed at no more or no less than the higher of the company tax rate or the recipient’s marginal tax rate. Anything else is a rort on the rest of the taxpayers because it means that when dividends are paid to non tax payers the company profits behind those dividends are ultimately not taxed at all.
I used to deal with clients with SMSF and one lady couldn’t understand how good it was. She called it the magic pudding. They had a good profit generating business (run through a company) so could make extra super contributions (up to $100K in those days). They immediately saved 15k in tax (difference between company and super tax rates) . They were ultra conservative and had excess funds only sitting in the bank earning interest. They were paying 30% on the interest when funds were invested in company name but getting them into super meant the interest was taxed at 15%. They managed 3years of these extra contributions I think. The company had retains profits and plenty of franking credits available to pay as dividends and funds in term deposits they would one day want. I explained once they retired they could pay themselves dividends from the company to access the funds, the beauty being they could get the cash from the company and generate tax refunds at the same time. And if they invested their super money in some dividend paying companies once they retired the franking credits on those dividends would be refunded to the superfund. They didn’t get back every dollar of previously paid company tax but they did pretty well. She initially thought it must be illegal it seemed too good to be true. Obviously their circumstances allowed them to take advantage of the rules but it seemed overly generous then and still now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I used to deal with clients with SMSF and one lady couldn’t understand how good it was. She called it the magic pudding. They had a good profit generating business (run through a company) so could make extra super contributions (up to $100K in those days). They immediately saved 15k in tax (difference between company and super tax rates) . They were ultra conservative and had excess funds only sitting in the bank earning interest. They were paying 30% on the interest when funds were invested in company name but getting them into super meant the interest was taxed at 15%. They managed 3years of these extra contributions I think. The company had retains profits and plenty of franking credits available to pay as dividends and funds in term deposits they would one day want. I explained once they retired they could pay themselves dividends from the company to access the funds, the beauty being they could get the cash from the company and generate tax refunds at the same time. And if they invested their super money in some dividend paying companies once they retired the franking credits on those dividends would be refunded to the superfund. They didn’t get back every dollar of previously paid company tax but they did pretty well. She initially thought it must be illegal it seemed too good to be true. Obviously their circumstances allowed them to take advantage of the rules but it seemed overly generous then and still now.
Legal rorting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I know that they are a large consulting business. How do i know that? Because I worked for them. I know that they employed a bunch of consultants working for this one company and probably other companies. How do I know that? Because I signed a contract with them, and others who worked there also had contracts with them. How the trust actually worked, and what mechanisms it used to avoid tax, I don't know. But I reckon those mechanisms existed. Why run it through a family trust otherwise? Yeah, I'm yet to plough my way through that gnarly tunnel yet MD. Any advice on tax minimisation would be appreciated :cool:
Sorry, saw this earlier post after the later one MD. 1. I didn't say anywhere that businesses should be run only as an individual. Where did you get that idea? My issue is that this business was run by a family trust, presumably for tax minimisation and other purposes. 2. see 1.
Your concerns over the ethics of this bloke didn't stop you signing on though.
 
Virtually every adult Australian is a beneficiary by of a tax advantaged trust. That's how super works. And while the rules are the same for all the richer you are the bigger the advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users