Understanding the Bendel Decision
The Full Federal Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Taxation v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 marks a significant shift in the Australian tax landscape. This is particularly true for businesses using trusts with corporate beneficiaries. Probably the most significant tax case in the last decade, it overturns long-standing ATO interpretations. This opens up new opportunities for tax planning and business structuring.
If your business relies on trust distributions to corporate beneficiaries, this decision could simplify compliance, reduce tax obligations, and provide new funding flexibility.
A Background of the Bendel Case
The Bendel case involved Gleewin Investments Pty Ltd, a corporate beneficiary of a discretionary trust. The ATO had previously treated unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) as loans under Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. This potentially triggers deemed dividends and resulting tax consequences. The Bendel case overturned this position, holding that UPEs are not loans for Division 7A purposes.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
Potential ATO and Legislative Responses: The ATO may consider appealing to the High Court, issuing new guidance, or seeking legislative amendments to restore its previous administrative stance.
Distinction Between Obligation to Pay and Repay: The Court clarified that for an arrangement to be classified as a loan under section 109D(3), there must be an obligation to repay a sum of money. A UPE represents an obligation to pay an amount to the beneficiary, not to repay a loan, and therefore does not meet the definition of a loan.
Rejection of ATO’s Interpretation: The ATO had argued that retaining UPEs constituted “financial accommodation,” effectively treating them as loans under Division 7A. The Court disagreed, stating that such an interpretation could lead to double taxation, which was not the legislative intent of Division 7A.
Reduced Division 7A Exposure: The ruling means that corporate beneficiaries with UPEs are less likely to face deemed dividend consequences under Division 7A.
Need for Compliance Reviews: While UPEs are not loans under Division 7A, other tax provisions, such as Subdivision EA, may still have implications. Trustees should reassess how they manage UPEs to ensure full compliance with all relevant tax laws.
Practical Implications for Your Business
1. Revisit Trust Structures
- Assess how existing UPEs are treated within your trust arrangements.
- Determine if prior Division 7A loan agreements are still necessary.
2. Optimise Tax Strategies
- Explore new opportunities for tax-efficient distributions.
- Ensure compliance with Subdivision EA and other relevant provisions.
3. Plan for the Future
- Stay informed about ATO guidance and potential legislative changes.
- Incorporate the decision into long-term funding strategies.
Partnering with Quantum Advisory allows you to focus on what you do best – running your business – while leaving the financial aspects in capable hands. Contact us today to experience the benefits of working with Quantum Advisory.
