Winemakers can run into significant tax problems after transferring their businesses to a company or trust structure. While income tax relief may be available on the transfer of the business assets, many winemakers and their accountants fail to realise that such restructures can eliminate or substantially reduce a winemaker’s entitlement to the Wine Equalisation Tax rebate. For winemakers who are heavily reliant on the WET rebate for profitability and cash flow, overlooking such consequences can be disastrous.

Who should read this eBrief:

• Company directors
• Accountants
• Financial Advisors

Proposed changes to Commonwealth legislation could have a significant impact on the potential for transferring assets out of one company into a new company to avoid paying liabilities.

If enacted, the changes will give liquidators, ASIC, and the ATO new powers to prosecute culpable directors and associated persons.

It’s tempting for a company director to not respond to a liquidator’s request to produce financial records if they contain incriminating material, but is it wise?  

Increasingly, formal restructures, whether solvent or insolvent in nature, are closely aligned to court-supervised processes, adding certainty and transparency to the restructuring process.

The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) recently issued draft taxation determination TD 2019/D2 (TD 2019/D2) dealing with the important question of a receiver’s obligation to retain money for post-appointment tax liabilities. A link to TD2019/D2.

Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.

The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.

The Phoenixing Bill

High Court orders the liquidation of CBL Insurance

In line with measures announced in the 2018 Federal Budget, the government has released a package of proposed insolvency reforms: Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2018, Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) Amendment (Restricting Related Creditor Voting Rights) Rules 2018 and accompanying explanatory material, for consultation. Consultation concludes on 27 September.

In late 2015, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.

Key Summary

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has held that the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) formal information gathering powers override the obligation imposed on a party to litigation not to use information or documents disclosed by another party for any other purpose outside the proceedings in which they were disclosed (commonly known as the ‘Harman obligation’1).