Skip to content

Wolters Kluwer | Central

Update from the IGTO

In a webinar sponsored by Wolters Kluwer, Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (IGTO) Ms Karen Payne spoke on the role of the IGTO and provided an update on reviews in progress.
With the introduction of COVID-19 stimulus measures administered through the ATO, the webinar was a timely reminder of the avenues available when raising a tax administration complaint. This article gives an overview of the IGTO’s role in handling tax complaints and recent developments from systemic reviews.
Role of the IGTO
The IGTO is an independent statutory office that seeks to improve the administration of tax laws for the benefit of all taxpayers. It provides assurance to taxpayers through investigating, reviewing and reporting on how Australian tax administration laws are operating. The IGTO also helps taxpayers with complaints about administrative actions of the ATO and the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB).
Lodging a taxation complaint
Before making a complaint to the IGTO, a taxpayer should first seek to resolve the issue with the ATO. The IGTO will not commence an investigation where a taxpayer has not raised a complaint directly with the ATO.
At the first instance, taxpayers unsatisfied with an administrative decision or action should request internal review through the relevant ATO business line. At this stage, the decision will be reviewed by a decision maker or more senior member within the same ATO business line.
If a taxpayer is unsatisfied with the first review, they can proceed to lodge a formal ATO complaint. Formal complaints are handled by a separate team within the ATO, however Ms Payne notes that complaints tax officers may allocate the investigation to the original ATO business line responsible for making the decision.
Taxpayers who are unsatisfied with the outcome of the formal ATO review can then raise a complaint with the IGTO. The IGTO will independently investigate whether the original decision made was appropriate. Investigations are free of charge to taxpayers and undertaken privately, subject to same tax secrecy provisions as the ATO.
The IGTO has limited discretion to decline to investigate. Circumstances include where a taxpayer has not raised the complaint with the ATO or TPB or where the matter is more than twelve months old.
Complaints & COVID-19
The IGTO can investigate any tax administration matter, including day to day issues associated with payment arrangements, review of ATO debt recovery action, investigating delays and understanding decisions taken by the ATO. It can also investigate more complex procedural matters, such as assisting taxpayers in ensuring an ATO audit has been undertaken fairly and transparently.
It is important that eligible people and businesses are able to quickly and easily access COVID-19 related financial support offered through the tax system. Common complaints that the IGTO has assisted with relate to:
delays and other issues with receiving payments from the ATOissues with understanding the COVID-19 measures themselves, such as eligibilitylodgment and processing issuesdebt collection actionsregistration issues, such as ABNs
The IGTO has direct access to ATO records, personnel and systems when undertaking an investigation. Following an investigation, the IGTO will provide a recommendation on the disputed decision. This can include recommending that a decision is cancelled, that further reasons are given for a decision or that a particular course of action is taken to rectify the decision. The IGTO can also recommend that a matter is referred to another body for a decision, for example the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Recent reviews
As the Office of the Inspector-General of Taxation, the IGTO also performs systemic reviews on the operation of tax administration laws and systems.
In its latest report Death and Taxes, the IGTO identified opportunities to improve the administration of deceased estates for surviving relatives, executors and tax agents. Issues raised with the current process include complex tax compliance obligations, the requirement for grant of probate to engage with the ATO and refunds of franking credits. Key recommendations that the ATO is considering include:
implementing a system for digital notification of deathdigitisation of interactions required to manage affairs of a deceased person, anddeveloping an easier approach for simple estates that do not have a probate or letters of administration.
The IGTO’s current review is an investigation into the effectiveness of ATO communications of taxpayers’ rights to complain, review and appeal. The review seeks to identify opportunities to improve the clarity and adequacy of such information in line with principles of procedural fairness and the Taxpayers’ Charter. The IGTO welcomes all taxpayers, advisers and professional bodies to make submissions on how to improve communication and awareness of taxpayers’ rights of review.
If you missed this webinar, you can access the CCH Learning recording here.
[This article was published in CCH Tax Week on 10 July 2020. Tax Week is included in various tax subscription services such as The Australian Federal Tax Reporter and CCH iKnow. CCH Tax Week is available for subscription in its own right. This article is an example of many practitioner articles published in Tax Week.]
The post Update from the IGTO appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Workplace manslaughter laws take effect in Victoria

Victoria’s new workplace manslaughter offences became effective on 1 July 2020, bringing in significantly higher fines and jail terms for occupational health and safety contraventions that result in death.

Subscribers to the Workplace Health and Safety practice area on CCH Pinpoint® can access more detailed commentary on Victoria’s workplace manslaughter laws.

The workplace manslaughter offences appear under Pt 5A of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) (the OHS Act). In particular, s 39G sets out the offence.
The offences apply to anyone who has a duty under Pt 3 of the OHS Act, except volunteers and employees who are not officers.
The relevant duty holder commits the offence if conduct constituting a breach of the applicable duty is negligent and causes the death of a person.
The penalties for workplace manslaughter are significantly greater than the penalties for other offences under the OHS Act. Body corporates that commit workplace manslaughter face a fine of up to $16.5m, while individuals face imprisonment sentences of up to 25 years.
It is because of the level of penalties attached to these offences that their introduction is controversial.
Victoria has become the fourth jurisdiction in Australia to introduce these offences, which are generally labelled industrial manslaughter offences. Industrial manslaughter is also a part of Western Australia Work Health and Safety Bill that is currently being considered by the state parliament.
Victorian Workplace Safety Minister Jill Hennessy said the new offences send a clear message to employers that putting lives at risk will not be tolerated.
At the same time, Ms Hennessy announced that the criteria for workplace death was being expanded in Victoria from 1 July 2020:
“From today, fatalities that occur on the road while working, suicides attributable to a workplace health and safety failure, deaths from industrial diseases such as silicosis, and workplace deaths resulting from a criminal act, will all be recognised in the WorkSafe toll.”
“The change means more Victorians will be entitled to WorkSafe family support services following the death of a loved one at work and broader reporting will bring increased focus to workplace health and safety issues.”

The post Workplace manslaughter laws take effect in Victoria appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Government Issued Warning: Large scale cyber campaign targeting Australian public and private sector

By John Moran, Reece Corbett-Wilkins and Richard Berkahn of Clyde & Co
It has been announced that the Australian Government is responding to a sustained targeting of the Australian public and private sector by a sophisticated state-based actor. The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) has issued a warning to Australian organisations, to both be aware of this threat and take immediate steps to enhance the resilience of their networks.
We set out below a summary of the notice and what organisations need to do in response to this government issued public warning. Given the highly public nature of this warning (coming from the Prime Minister’s Office and Minister for Defence) we recommend that all organisations pass this warning to their IT team or managed service provider for actioning.
ACSC public warning of cyber threat
The Australian Government has explained that it is currently aware of, and responding to, a sustained targeting of Australian governments and companies by a sophisticated state-based actor.
The ACSC’s investigations have labelled this cyber campaign as “copy-paste compromises”. The threat actor is understood to be utilising tools copied from open source, to leverage a number of initial access vectors.
The threat actor has been observed to be targeting public-facing infrastructure, particularly through vulnerabilities in unpatched versions of Telerik UI, Microsoft Internet Information Services, 2019 SharePoint and 2019 Citrix.
There is also evidence that the threat actor is utilising ‘spearphishing’ techniques, including:
links to credential harvesting websites;emails with links to malicious files, or with the malicious file directly attached;links prompting users to grant Office 365 OAuth tokens to the actor; anduse of email tracking services to identify the email opening and lure click-through events.
Consistent with its mission of supporting the private sector enhance its resilience against cyber risk, the ACSC has provided the community with a list of indicators of compromise detailing the tactics, techniques and procedures identified. This is so that steps can be taken to prevent against identified cyber risk, which we set out below.
We also recommend that any active cyber incident investigations have regard to this public issued warning to identify whether activity can be linked to this notice, and ensure appropriate action is taken. This may include contacting the ACSC for further assistance, through the online reporting portal: https://www.cyber.gov.au/report.
What do organisations need to do?
The ACSC has recommended the following two key risk mitigation steps which organisations should implement now to reduce the risk of compromise:
Patch internet-facing software, operating systems and devices within the next 48 hours – All exploits used by the actor in the course of its campaign are publicly known and there are patches or mitigation steps available. Where possible, use the latest versions of software and operating systems.Use multi-factor authentication across all remote access services – Multi-factor authentication needs to be applied to all internet-accessible remote access services, including:web and cloud-based email, including Microsoft Office 365;collaboration platforms;virtual private network connections; andremote desktop services.
Beyond this, the ACSC strongly recommends:
implementing the remainder of the Australian Signals Directorate Essential Eight controls; andimplementing and reviewing its guidance on Windows Event Logging and Forwarding and System Monitoring. A lack of comprehensive logging can reduce the overall effectiveness and speed of incident containment and investigation.
More information is available here:
For the complete advisoryFor assistance in the protection of informationFor further strategies to mitigate cyber security incidents
How can we help?
Clyde & Co has the largest dedicated and rapidly expanding cyber incident response practice in Australia and New Zealand. Our experienced team have dealt with over 700 data breach and technology related disputes in recent times, including a number of the largest and most complex incidents in Asia Pacific to date.
From pre-incident readiness, breach response, through to defence of regulatory investigations and proceedings, as well as recovery actions against wrongdoers, we assist clients in Asia Pacific across the full cyber lifecycle. Our team is also highly regarded for their expertise and experience in managing all forms of disputes across sectors including advising on some of the most newsworthy class actions commenced in Australia.
Our 24 hour cyber incident response hotline or email allows you to access our team directly around the clock. For more information, contact us on:
Australia: + 61 2 9210 4464New Zealand: 0800 527 [email protected]
Thanks to Emily Wood for her contributions to this article.
This article was published on the Clyde & Co website and is republished with permission.
The post Government Issued Warning: Large scale cyber campaign targeting Australian public and private sector appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Has receiving a JobKeeper payment put you in the Commissioner’s crosshairs?

By Michael Parker, Partner, Rachel Law, Senior Associate and Bradley White, Graduate Lawyer, Hall & Wilcox
With the announcement of the JobKeeper payment, a lot of struggling businesses were able to breathe a sigh of relief after accessing some of the billions in funding to (hopefully) get them through these trying times. However, for those businesses that have or are tempted to engage in schemes to artificially qualify for JobKeeper, the message from the ATO is simple, they see you and they are ready for you.
We anticipate there will be considerable audit activity in the coming months. Taxpayers will need to be prepared to defend their claims for JobKeeper, including demonstrating how they determined they met the fall in turnover requirements, as well as showing they did not engage in any schemes to artificially qualify.
In a joint statement made on 6 April 2020, the Tax Practitioners Board and the ATO stated:
We ask that tax agents and businesses be mindful that it is not acceptable to backdate or artificially change a business structure or employment arrangements, including changing the characterisation of payments, in order to obtain a benefit or payment that would not otherwise have been paid. The TPB and ATO will take firm and swift action should this be the case.
The Commissioner of Taxation has a power under s 19 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 (Cth) (the Act) to protect the integrity of the JobKeeper payment regime. It targets taxpayers who may technically meet the JobKeeper eligibility criteria, but only do so because they implemented an arrangement for the sole or dominant purpose of accessing the JobKeeper payment.
On 1 May 2020, the Commissioner released Practical Compliance Guidance PCG 2020/4 ‘Schemes in relation to the JobKeeper payment’ which gives insight into when the Commissioner will apply compliance resources to investigate a particular arrangement in order to determine whether or not it breaches the integrity provisions.
While PCG 2020/4 does not tell us exactly what arrangements will breach the integrity provision in section 19 of the Act, it gives us a risk framework and tells us what factors the Commissioner will consider when deciding whether or not to investigate a particular arrangement.
The Commissioner’s powers
Section 19 of the Act provides the Commissioner with the power to address contrived schemes engaged in with the sole or dominant purpose of gaining (or increasing) the JobKeeper payment. The Commissioner can make a determination where the recipient will be treated as though they were never entitled to the payments. This means amounts received will have to be paid back in whole or in part. The Commissioner may also impose significant penalties and the general interest charge.
When making a decision under section 19, the Commissioner will take into account the following:
how the scheme was entered into or carried outthe scheme’s form, substance, duration and the time it was entered intothe result that would be achieved by the schemeany change in the financial position of the recipient of the payment that resulted from or could be expected to result from the schemeany change in the financial position of an entity that is connected to the recipient (whether the relationship comes from a business, family or some other context) that resulted from or could be expected to result from the schemethe nature of any connection between the JobKeeper recipient and any connected person, andany other consequences for the recipient or the connected entity due to the scheme being entered into or carried out.
These are the same factors that the Commissioner considers when making a determination under the general anti-avoidance provisions in Pt IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
PCG 2020/4
PCG 2020/4 does not tell us what arrangements will be a scheme that contravenes the anti-avoidance provisions in section 19 of the Act. Instead, it tells us whether certain entities and arrangements are at a high or low risk of being investigated by the Commissioner.
According to PCG 2020/4, there is a higher risk that the Commissioner will apply compliances resources where an entity receives a JobKeeper payment in the following circumstances:
the entity’s business is not significantly affected by external environmental factors beyond its control (which includes COVID-19) and/orthe payment was in excess of that which would maintain pre-existing employment relationships.
Conversely, there is a low risk that the Commissioner will apply compliance resources to review an entity that received a JobKeeper payment where it satisfies each of the following:
the external operating environment is affected by factors beyond the control of the entity (and its related parties) (which would include COVID-19)that affected external operating environment significantly impacts the business of the entity (or another entity that the entity’s employees serve in)the entity enters a scheme in response to that impact and satisfies the decline in turnover test, andthe JobKeeper payment the entity receives is for individuals who were employed and serving in the significantly impacted business prior to the time it was impacted, and remain employed because of JobKeeper.
PCG 2020/4 does not define ‘significantly affected’ and does not indicate how the Commissioner will determine whether an entity was affected by factors outside of its control. However, it seems that if an entity is in an industry that has broadly been able to continue operating despite the COVID-19 restrictions, it is at a higher risk of drawing the Commissioner’s attention.
Examples in PCG 2020/4
PCG 2020/4 sets out eight scenarios and the associated risk that the Commissioner will apply compliance resources to investigate them.
It is important to note that these examples do not indicate the likelihood that the Commissioner will ultimately make a determination on whether or not there was a scheme that contravenes the integrity provisions.
The below table provides a summary of the examples:
The activityRisk of ATO resources being appliedCompany A projects that its GST turnover will not be materially impacted by COVID-19. It agrees with customers to defer making supplies. This artificially decreases its GST turnover below the 30% threshold, allowing it to qualify for the JobKeeper payment.There is a high risk the Commissioner will apply compliance resources to investigate as Company A’s operating environment is not significantly affected by COVID-19.Company B projects that its GST turnover will not be materially impacted by COVID-19. It agrees with customers to bring forward its supplies to artificially decrease its GST turnover for the next quarter and qualify for the JobKeeper payment.There is a high risk the Commissioner will apply compliance resources to investigate as Company B’s operating environment is not significantly affected by COVID-19.Company D leases assets to third parties. It has no anticipated decline in projected GST Turnover as a result of COVID-19. Company D transfers all assets to a newly incorporated subsidiary and withholds paying a dividend to Company D to decrease its GST Turnover. There has been no decline in external revenue.There is a high risk the Commissioner will apply compliance resources to investigate as Company B’s operating environment is not significantly affected by COVID-19.Service Company E receives a Service Fee from Operating Company E to pay wages. Operating Company E experiences a reduction in projected GST Turnover. Service Company E does not experience a reduction. Operating Company E reduces the Service Fee to Service Company E proportionate to its decline in GST Turnover, allowing Service Company E to access JobKeeper.There is a low risk of the Commissioner applying compliance resources as the scheme was entered into in response to COVID-19’s significant impact on the group’s external operating environment.The same circumstances as example 4 (ie. Operating Company E experiences a reduction in projected GST turnover). Service Company E stands down its employees resulting in a decrease in the Service Fee received (in accordance with the Service Agreement). The reduced Service Fee means that Service Company E now qualifies for the JobKeeper payment.There is a low risk of the Commissioner applying compliance resources as the scheme was entered into in response to COVID-19’s significant impact on the group’s external operating environment.In the same circumstances as example 4 but no fee renegotiation or standing down of employees is able to occur. Service Company E believes that it is reasonable to estimate that Operating Company E will not be able to afford to pay the Service Fee in full (or at all). Service Company E reduces its projected GST turnover and qualifies for JobKeeper.Provided the estimate was reasonable, there would be a low risk of the Commissioner applying compliance resources. The evidence used to produce a reasonable estimate will demonstrate COVID-19’s significant impact on the group’s external operating environment.Company F is a parent company that derives income from management fees paid by its subsidiary companies. Its subsidiary companies experience significant decline in GST turnover due to COVID-19 and would each individually qualify for JobKeeper. The annual management fee is waived or significantly reduced by Company F such that it qualifies for JobKeeper too. If the fees were reduced on a pro rata basis throughout the year Company F would not have qualified.There is a low risk of the Commissioner applying compliance resources as the scheme was entered into in response to COVID-19’s significant impact on Company F’s external operating environment.Company F is a parent company whose income is derived from management fees paid by its subsidiary companies. Its subsidiaries do not experience a decrease in turnover due to COVID-19. Company F alters the timing of the payment of management fees to qualify for JobKeeper.There is a high risk the Commissioner would apply compliance resources as Company F’s operating environment is not significantly affected by COVID-19.Company G projects that it will not qualify for JobKeeper. It engages subcontractors to perform some of its business activities. Company G defers the payments due to the subcontractors so that they are able to qualify for JobKeeper.There is a high risk the Commissioner would apply compliance resources as JobKeeper is being used to finance Company G’s expenses rather than maintain existing employment relationships. Compliance resources may also be applied to investigate whether the subcontractors are eligible business participants on the basis that they are actually employed by Company G.Company H enters into a scheme with its customers whereby it agree to defer, reduce or waive the consideration receivable from customers. This reduction means Company H now satisfies the decline in turnover test and qualifies for JobKeeper. Company H then uses the JobKeeper payment to finance the temporary deferral/reduction/waiver of consideration received from its customers.There is a high risk the Commissioner would apply compliance resources as Company H is not receiving the JobKeeper payments to maintain pre-existing employment relationships and its operating environment is not significantly affected by COVID-19.
Key takeaways from PCG 2020/4
PCG 2020/4 indicates that the critical consideration as to whether a scheme has a high or low risk of being reviewed by the Commissioner, is whether the external operating environment of the business adopting the scheme has been significantly affected by COVID-19. If COVID-19 has impacted the business and it changes the way it operates to qualify for a JobKeeper payment, there seems to be a low risk of investigative resources being applied.
By focusing their compliance resources in this way, the Commissioner seems to be providing flexibility to businesses. Under this approach, those affected by COVID-19 who have a legitimate purpose for changing their operations are less likely to run afoul of the Commissioner.
It is important that business who have or are intending to claim a JobKeeper payment maintain contemporaneous documentation to support their eligibility – particularly where they operate in an industry that has not been impacted as heavily by COVID-19.
Similarly, entities who have made changes to their management fees, service fees or have entered other arrangements that may decrease their GST turnover should be vigilant in maintaining contemporaneous documentation showing the that the changes were due to COVID-19. It is also important to show that the result of the change was ensuring the business’ sustainable operation, including the ability to maintain employees.
PCG 2020/4 does not assist us in determining whether or not an arrangement is likely to be found to contravene the anti-avoidance provisions. As there are significant penalties for receiving a JobKeeper payment when you are not entitled, if you are in doubt as to whether you are eligible, we recommend that you obtain legal advice to ensure your actions do not inadvertently breach section 19 of the Act.
The post Has receiving a JobKeeper payment put you in the Commissioner’s crosshairs? appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Australian Accounting Awards 2020 hosted by Accountants Daily

We are thrilled to see some of our customers announced as finalists in the Accountants Daily Australian Accounting Awards for 2020! From everyone at Wolters Kluwer, we congratulate you on this achievement and wish you the best of luck this Friday, 19 June, 7PM AEST when the winners are announced.
All the best to:
Fortuna Advisory GroupPalfreyman Chartered AccountantSalisbury Accountants & Business AdvisorsParis Financial
Wolters Kluwer customers have been nominated across several categories including Business Advisory Firm of the Year, Fast-Growing Firm of the Year, and Firm of the Year. We wish our clients every success!
The post Australian Accounting Awards 2020 hosted by Accountants Daily appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

What are the most pressing areas for law reform in Australia today?

In 2019, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) undertook research and broad public consultation, asking this question and in December, “The Future of Law Reform: A Suggested Program of Work 2020-25” was published.
Join expert panelists including judges, legal scholars, and industry leaders in a series of online conversations to unpack some of the key areas identified by the ALRC, including: 
Defamation;Automated decision making and administrative law;Legal structures for social enterprises; andPress freedom.

Why you should register:
Don’t miss this exclusive content – you won’t be able to access this content anywhere else.Webinars are complimentary to attend, register today and receive a link to the recording to watch on-demand.These interactive webinars present an opportunity to elicit new perspectives and ideas, enabling individuals with diverse views to contribute to potential law reform.Flexible learning – Select topics based on your interests.Access insights and guidance from industry experts on key topics shaping future law reform in Australia.
Who should attend:
 This webinar is suited to legal practitioners as well as barristers, in-house counsel, professionals and members of the public with interests in defamation law; administrative law and automated decision-making; social enterprise; and press freedom and it’s limits.
For further details and to register for the ALRC – The Future of Law Reform Webinar Series visit our website.
The post What are the most pressing areas for law reform in Australia today? appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

COVID-19: ASIC grants temporary financial advice relief

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) has announced three temporary advice relief measures to facilitate the provision of timely financial advice during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Corporations (COVID-19 — Advice-related Relief) Instrument 2020/355 (the Instrument) provides temporary relief regarding Statements of Advice (SOA) in the following three areas:
SOA exemption – advice relating to early access to superannuationSOA exemption – advice relating to the adverse economic impacts of COVID-19SOA extension of time – urgent advice.
SOA exemption: advice relating to early access to superannuation (new or existing clients)
As part of its COVID-19 economic response, the government introduced measures to allow individuals facing particular financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic to access their superannuation early. Up to $10,000 may be withdrawn in 2019–20 and a further $10,000 in 2020–21.
Under the Instrument, advisers will be relieved from the obligation to provide an SOA when giving advice about early access to superannuation, subject to the to the following requirements:
the client must be provided with a Record of Advice (ROA) which meets certain requirementsthe advice fee, if any, is capped at $300the adviser must establish that the client is entitled to the early release of their superannuationthe client must have approached the adviser for the advice.
Registered tax agents are also able to provide COVID-19 advice to existing clients in relation to the early release scheme without holding an AFS license. They are also subject to the conditions listed above.
ROA requirements
The ROA must contain brief particulars of the recommendation and the basis on which the recommendation is made, including:
whether the client satisfies an eligible ground for the early release of superannuationbe based on the client’s relevant personal circumstances, including whether the client should apply for early release of superannuation and the reasons whythe name of the superannuation product to which the early access recommendation relates and the implications for the client in releasing their benefits early (for example, any impact on insurance cover and future retirement benefits).
The adviser must also give the client the following:
information about remuneration or benefits that the adviser or an associated entity will receive which might reasonably be expected to be capable of influencing the advice, andinformation about any conflicts of interest which might reasonably be expected to be capable of influencing the advice.
SOA exemption: advice relating to the adverse economic impact of COVID-19 (existing clients)
ASIC relief also applies to advice given to existing clients where the advice relates to the adverse economic impact of COVID-19. The following conditions also apply:
the client expressly instructs the adviser, and the adviser reasonably considers that the client requires the advice due to the economic effects of COVID-19the client is an existing client who has previously been given an SOA by the adviser (or another adviser from the same licensee), andthe present advice relates to the same class of financial products on which advice was previously given).
In such situations, an ROA may be provided by the adviser, in place of an SOA.
The ROA must set out:
a brief explanation of the changes in the client’s relevant personal circumstances (since the previous advice was provided) in relation to the COVID-19 advicebrief particulars of the recommendations being made and the basis of those recommendations, andif the adviser gives financial product replacement advice, information about any charges the client incurs and the consequences of implementing the advice (as required by s947D of the Corporations Act).
The client must also receive the following when the advice is provided:
information about any conflicts of interest, remuneration or benefits that the adviser will receive which might reasonably be expected to be capable of influencing the advice, andinformation about financial product replacement advice, if applicable.
The Financial Planning Association (FPA) has listed the following scenarios as possible adverse economic effects related to COVID-19:
• loss of employment
• reduction in regular work hours or income
• early access to superannuation benefits
• early retirement
• reduction in pension payments
• losses on investment portfolios
• negative impact on investment properties, tenants unable to pay rent under government eviction moratorium
• significant (greater than 20%) reduction in business turnover
• claiming on or varying a life insurance product due to COVID-19 related health issues (physical or mental) or financial reasons.
SOA extension of time – urgent advice
The timeframe to give an SOA for time-critical COVID-19 advice has been increased from 5 business days to 30 business days where the following conditions are met:
the client expressly states that they require the advice due to the adverse economic effects of COVID-19a written notification to the client that they may not receive the SOA until after any product cooling-off rights have expired (if applicable).
Duration of the temporary relief
The relief provided under the Instrument applies until it is revoked. ASIC will provide 30 days notice before it revokes the Instrument.
The post COVID-19: ASIC grants temporary financial advice relief appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Tax deductions for working at home during COVID-19

It may come as no surprise that a large percentage of the Australian workforce is currently working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While this form of social distancing has proven to be successful in helping minimise the spread of the coronavirus, employees working from home should be aware that there are tax deductions that could be claimed from utilising their home resources for work.
There is a distinction between running and occupancy expenses incurred while working from home. While the ATO acknowledges that an employee may incur running expenses such as, electricity, cleaning, telephone, internet and equipment costs, while working from home, the deducting of occupancy expenses is reserved for taxpayers who conducts business based in their homes. Occupancy costs consist mainly of mortgage interest, rent and council rates.
The ATO has said that only running expenses can be claimed by employees working from home due to COVID-19 and introduced a shortcut method for calculating work from home expenses due to the coronavirus. The shortcut method allows a rate of 80 cents per hour work deduction for employees working from home due to COVID-19, and provided the work is not minimal, such as checking emails or taking calls. The shortcut method is only temporary, and is only available from 1 March 2020 to 30 June 2020. In order to take advantage of the shortcut method, records should be kept of the number of hours worked during the COVID-19 period. This can be in the form of timesheets or work diaries. Do note that, once the shortcut method is utilised to calculate work from home expenses, the taxpayer is no longer allowed to further claim any such running expenses.
There are two other methods that can be used to calculate the amount of working from home expenses, namely the fixed rate method, and the actual cost method. Quite similar to the shortcut method, the fixed rate method allows a rate of 52 cents per hour for the running expenses such as heating and cooling, and depreciation of the cost of office furniture. Other expenses such as computer equipment, phone and internet expenses can be separately deducted based on the work-related portion of the expense.
The actual cost method on the other hand, allows the claiming of deduction for the work-related portion of all running expenses, which is calculated based on a reasonable basis.
Get more information on home office expenses on CCH iKnow.
The post Tax deductions for working at home during COVID-19 appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

The Tax Function in a time of COVID-19

Tax professionals are a resilient lot – negotiating complex, ever-changing laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions and making sense of masses of data. Typically, this is done under tight deadlines and with limited resources.
The current pandemic represents a challenge like no other. To find out how tax functions are managing this new norm, Wolters Kluwer reached out to industry leaders:  
Zennia Csikos, Head of Tax Pacific Zone Schneider ElectricPeter Dimech, Head of Taxation and Alesha Mercieca, Manager Tax Operations, at Australia Post andAndrew Danckert, Director at corporate tax technology consultancy, Cumulus Tax. 
How have you managed working remotely? What has worked well? What have been the major challenges?
Our Tax Function leaders were all comfortable with working remotely. Their businesses all had flexible working arrangements in place for some time, with reliable and effective infrastructure available to support the move to remote work. For Andrew Danckert, to deliver projects effectively his team must be aligned with how his clients work so it’s essential to “be agile and mobile when it comes to where and how we work.”
People management, rather than technology, is a slightly more complex story.  Supervising the well-being of employees when you are not meeting in person can be challenging.
“Staff tend to put on their ‘best face’ when on a call. It is important to have video rather than voice meetings so one can pick up on visual clues on employee wellbeing.”Zennia Csikos, Head of Tax Pacific Zone Schneider Electric.
Alesha Mercieca has managed the demands on the people within her team by trying to limit meetings and schedule calls, giving people space and time to prepare, especially those with children at home. She notes that people are now working different hours – some are online very early, others late at night – however, “as a leader you need to ensure you’re not working all hours”.
“It is important to respect the line between work and private hours, especially when under deadlines,” says Zennia. Helping team members to balance flexible working hours when at home with the need to take time to switch off from work demands has been one of her keys to success.  
The opportunity for informal interaction with key business partners and the information that comes from day-to-day conversations is also missed. Alesha notes there is no longer an opportunity to action questions as quickly as when you shared the same floor space. Not surprisingly for our consultant, Andrew, the inability to get out into the market and meet with referrals has at times been a challenge. He uses several visual communication tools to share ideas and his clients really appreciate the weekly progress calls where he can share screens and run through what has been achieved.
‘Whilst video conferencing is great it doesn’t always replace a face-to-face meeting or a team brainstorming session in front of a whiteboard.’Andrew Danckert, Director, Cumulus Tax. 
Overall, the move to remote learning has worked well within the two Tax Functions. Alesha believes that for her team productivity is unchanged – “everyone’s getting involved and working together to get things done.”
What are the major tax implications for your business and its clients in the current crisis?
Zennia recognises the need for awareness of business cashflow for not only your business but that of your suppliers and customers as one of the impacts of the current crisis. Raising awareness of government incentives to suppliers and customers has been important to ensure that supply chains can continue to operate. The administration of employee support subsidies – ensuring that payroll systems are correct and that good governance is being maintained – were also viewed as critical.
Peter advised that it is important to pay attention to the possible implications for Fringe Benefits Tax, for example where staff have not used company motor vehicles as much as would have been expected.
All noted the high volume of changes to tax law and policy due to COVID-19, many being made on the run with little explanatory material provided, which increases the effort required to not only keep up but also to deploy the changes effectively.
Very early on, Peter recognised the importance of monitoring the significant impact of the COVID-19 stimulus packages. Peter assigned members of the team to monitor every stimulus announcement – Federal and State – to assess the impact these may have on the thousands of small business owners and contractors that work with Australia Post.
Zennia remains watchful of the impact of global shutdowns on supply chains. Customers are also not operating at full capacity due to restrictions.
Interestingly, Australia Post had planned for its post offices and contractors to struggle but the reality was that they were very busy in April. In fact, Australian Post has opened pop-up depots to support the workload of their operation centres challenged by social distancing requirements.
This means that the Australia Post business may have different revenue and cost make-ups compared to the previous year, which will lead to more conversations than normal with other parts of the finance function and ongoing conversations with the ATO. Andrew has observed that, for all tax obligations work, the capture, transformation, reconciliation and storage of data from the business, which were hard and time consuming before COVID-19, are now even more difficult in the current environment.
What should Tax Functions and the businesses they support be doing now to prepare for emerging from the crisis?
Zennia believes that the Tax Function will need to be even more across business forecasts to help determine how the business will emerge. Tax managers will have to evaluate whether there are any incentives that can be utilised by the business and test the assumptions made when applying for those incentives.
The Tax Function will also need to understand what information needs to be captured now for reporting down the track including forecasts, supply chain (especially for related party transactions) and new employee benefits that may be subject to FBT. Andrew sees a return to the new normal as an opportunity to start the journey to unified tax information. He believes that the Tax Function needs to be more involved in data warehouse discussions and implementing ways to better engage with its stakeholders.
How do you envisage the Tax Function returning to BAU? Has the crisis changed how the Tax Function will look and operate in the future?
Peter believes that while Australia Posts’ operations have continued to run as normally as they could within the confines of social distancing, the return to large corporate offices will be a long-term process. Some of the team may even choose to delay their return to the office.
He expects that in the future more people will work from home on a regular basis or increase their at home days, perhaps moving from one day a week at home to two or more. All agree that the crisis has confirmed that working from home does not impact upon productivity.
That said, far from being ‘siloed’, Peter expects that the Tax Function will have even more interaction with other areas of the business in the future, such as property and procurement – who are looking 4-5 years out and need advice from Tax now.
Zennia believes that Tax Functions must always be dynamic and cannot approach the future with a ‘BAU’ mindset. The current crisis will help to identify the strengths needed to operate in a dynamic environment and this will help tax leaders to define the team that they will need for the future. Whilst each organisation will be different, Andrew is expecting technology to play a much greater role in achieving Tax Function outcomes. The Tax Function has always looked to technology options to become more efficient – this is not something driven by the crisis.  However, as before the crisis, the Tax Function will continue to be challenged to contain costs in the future. Andrew notes that it is vital that businesses understand and analyse the cost of meeting each obligation. The obvious costs such as ‘hours x cost per hour’ should be easy to ascertain but more thought is needed to quantify hidden costs like reputation risk, business distraction, staff turnover and on-boarding new employees during the crisis.
While tax technology is important it must compete with other areas of the business for investment, especially operational teams. However, as Alesha notes, spending on activities that are perceived as core to compliance are prioritised and attract mandatory spend.
With this in mind, Andrew suggests Tax Functions should take a holistic approach to data management where the capture, transformation, reconciliation and storage information of information is streamlined and centralised.  He often sees an imbalanced ‘return on investment’ relationship where these activities are done by people and it is generally highly skilled tax professionals doing these tasks. 
“Anecdotally I’ve heard that between 60% to 70% of a tax reporting process can be spent on activities linked to data management. We now have ETL technology that is powerful, intuitive, and affordable that boosts productivity, reduces risk and enables the ‘highest and best use’ of a tax professional’s time”
Andrew expects to see greater use of BI tools with tax engines like CCH Integrator to help inform stakeholders of tax expense, tax liability and tax risk.
The post The Tax Function in a time of COVID-19 appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Media outlets loose appeal over Facebook publication ruling (NSW)

Mr Dylan Voller, a former Northern Territory youth detainee, commenced defamation proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against Nationwide News Pty Ltd, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd claiming that comments posted on the Facebook page of each of the three publishers in response to articles published by those publishers, were defamatory of him.
[Subscribers to our Pinpoint Defamation and Professional Liability Law [WJ1] practice area can access a topic guide on Publication[WJ2] .]
Initial proceedings
The matter came before his Honour Rothman for determination of the question “Whether the plaintiff has established the publication element of the cause of action of defamation against the defendant in respect of each of the Facebook comments by third-party users?”
His Honour found that it is not the compiling of a comment that gives rise to damages in defamation; it is its publication. Further, it is not the compiling of a message that amounts to the publication of the message; it is the placement of the message in a form that is comprehensible and able to be downloaded and the consequence that it is the ownership of the public Facebook page that attracts a reader. Rothman J found that the defendant media outlets were a first or primary publisher, in relation to the general readership of the Facebook page it operates, and answered the question of whether the defendant in each of the proceedings is a publisher, in the affirmative: Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Voller v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Voller v Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (2019) Aust Torts Reports ¶82-459; [WJ3] [2019] NSWSC 766.
On appeal
The media outlets sought leave to appeal. They argued that the primary judge erred in finding that they were a publisher and therefore erred in answering the separate question in the affirmative.
The court found that the media outlets facilitated the posting of comments on articles published in their newspapers and had sufficient control over the platform to be able to delete postings when they became aware that they were defamatory. Further, the primary judge did not err in concluding that, in the circumstances revealed in the evidence, the media outlets were publishers of third-party posts on their Facebook pages. [47]
Accordingly, the court granted leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal: Fairfax Media Publications; Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2020] NSWCA 102.
This case will shortly be headnoted in the Australian Torts Reporter.

 [WJ1]Hyperlink https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/home/defamation_law
 [WJ2]Hyperlink https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/topic/tlp2091/publication
 [WJ3]Please hyperlink CCH citation
The post Media outlets loose appeal over Facebook publication ruling (NSW) appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Transfer pricing and COVID-19

Contributed by David Bond, Partner, Greenwoods & Herbert Smith Freehills
COVID-19 has disrupted business, including reduced profitability and disruption to supply chains. This creates risks and opportunities in terms of reviewing and adjusting transfer pricing policies to deal with:
level of profits earned by low risk entitiesrenegotiation of related party contractschanges in supply chainsfunding and parent guaranteesintellectual property and royalties, andimpact of government subsidies such as JobKeeper.
COVID-19 disruption
COVID-19 has disrupted business on an unprecedented scale but with the impact varying across different businesses. The impacts have included:
significant reductions in third party revenue resulting in reduced profits or lossessupply chains disruptions making it difficult to deliver goods or services to group companiesadverse impacts on the creditworthiness of a group and individual group entities, increasing the cost of debt, andin response to breaches in debt covenants or requests for additional debt, external financiers requesting formal parent guarantees for third party financing.
Transfer pricing policies are often designed assuming overall group profits and therefore the impact of these economic changes can result in distortions in the allocations of profits and losses between group companies. This triggers a need to review and potentially amend transfer pricing policies and intra-group contracts to reflect the new economic conditions and ensure an appropriate allocation of profits or losses between group members.
Low risk entities
Low risk distributors, contract manufacturers or service providers, will generally be allocated routine profits based on either costs or revenue. Without adjustment, this results in low risk entities making profits even though the global group as a whole is making losses.
The COVID-19 crisis will also be impacting third parties operating low risk businesses. If these third parties are making losses, it provides evidence to support adjustments to transfer pricing policies for low risk related party entities. These adjustments may either reduce the profits of low risk related party entities or provide for them with a share of group losses, during the COVID-19 period.
Adjustments to transfer pricing policies to implement such outcomes will be much more convincing if they made at the time of the economic impact rather than after the event when tax outcomes are being assessed.
Renegotiation of contract terms
The arm’s length principal looks at how independent parties would transact and what contractual terms they would accept.
In assessing whether related party pricing can be adjusted in response to COVID-19, the starting point is the terms of the related party contract, and evidence of how independent entities are reacting to COVID-19.
Some related party contracts will include contract variation clauses or force majeure clauses which, if satisfied, allow a party to avoid performing its obligations under the contract. However, as we are seeing with third party contracts, in many cases force majeure clauses are not triggered by the COVID-19 crisis. In addition, there may be other legal remedies available such as frustration of contract.
Even where there are no contractual remedies, there are many circumstances in which third parties would be willing to renegotiate contracts in the face of unpredictable events such as COVID-19. Collecting this evidence on a contemporaneous basis and making timely adjustments to related party contracts diminishes the risk of the adjustments being successfully challenged by tax authorities.
Supply chain impacts
COVID-19 has created sudden and unexpected supply chain disruptions including shut downs (or reduced output) of manufacturing facilities, disruptions to transport, and restrictions on availability of labour.
Multinational groups are recalibrating their supply chains to manage these short term challenges, and some are seeking to diversify their supply chain to manage medium term risks. Resulting changes in functional profiles and levels of profit for related entities in the supply chain can impact on transfer pricing policies. Changes may be required to reduce the level of guaranteed profits for limited risk entities, and to address changes in the location of key decision makers and changes in workforces including redundancies. It will also be important to ensure that intercompany agreements are updated to reflect any supply chain restructures.
Funding of Australian entities
In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, many Australian entities will need additional funding to support cash flows during the period of reduced revenue. However, there are a number of challenges for external debt funding:
the credit rating of the group and Australian group entities may be detrimentally affected by COVID-19financial markets have become more risk averse and interest rates have been increasing, particularly for lower credit rated companies, andthin capitalisation capacity is being reduced as cash balances are run down and assets are impaired.
As a result, many group entities will seek related party debt or additional equity. In this regard there is an opportunity to review existing debt terms and interest rates to optimise debt structures. In the current environment with higher interest rates and reduced thin capitalisation capacity, a smaller debt portfolio at a higher interest rate may maximise interest deductions.
There are various anti-avoidance measures which can apply when funding losses with debt, therefore the use of the optimal level of equity funding is also important. A review of intra-group dividend policies is also an important element in maintaining optimal levels of debt.
Guarantees
Group companies dealing with external financiers, either because of breaches of debt covenants or when seeking additional debt funding, may be asked by the external financier for a parent company guarantee.
If a parent guarantee is provided, the subsidiary should consider whether a guarantee fee is appropriate (noting that the ATO’s position on the deductibility of cross border intra-group guarantee fees remains somewhat unclear).
Intellectual property and royalties
If a group company is licensing intellectual property to related companies which are suffering losses, then it may be appropriate to provide a royalty holiday to assist the licensee to recover. In this regard, there are examples of third party licensors providing such royalty holidays when the licensee is facing difficult trading conditions.
Impact of government subsidies such as JobKeeper
JobKeeper payments and other government support may soften the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on profits. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines provide that government interventions, which would include such interventions as the JobKeeper scheme, should normally be treated as part of market conditions, and therefore no adjustment should be made for JobKeeper payments when assessing whether related party dealing are arm’s length.
The JobKeeper scheme includes anti-avoidance provisions which empower the Commissioner of Taxation to reduce JobKeeper payments where an entity enters into a scheme with the sole or dominant purpose of accessing or increasing its entitlement to the government JobKeeper payments. However, Australian members of multinational groups also need to comply with transfer pricing rules. Therefore, it will be important to document the commercial basis and third party benchmarks supporting changes to transfer pricing positions which impact on JobKeeper entitlements.
The post Transfer pricing and COVID-19 appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Damages awarded to woman who witnessed motor vehicle accident (ACT)

On 25 November 2016, Ms Wendy Ivers witnessed a motor vehicle accident in which a motor vehicle driven by Mr Shahid Mehdi struck a pedestrian in a shopping centre underground carpark.
Ms Ivers commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, in negligence and claimed damages for psychological injury; she claimed was caused by witnessing the accident.
His Honour Burns J found that as someone who witnessed at least part of the accident, who was present at the scene and ran to provide assistance to the pedestrian, Ms Ivers falls within the class of persons whom Mr Mehdi should have foreseen may suffer a recognised psychiatric injury if he negligently collided with a pedestrian. [157]
Further, Mr Mehdi owed Ms Ivers a relevant duty of care not to cause her mental harm by reversing the car without reasonable care. He breached that duty when he reversed the car without reasonable care, striking the pedestrian. The duty of care owed to Ms Ivers is not negated by the terms of s 34 of the Wrongs Act (2002) ACT. [160]
Accordingly, Burns J found in favour of Ms Ivers and awarded damages in the total sum of $176,312.43: Ivers v Mehdi [2020] ACTSC 112.
The post Damages awarded to woman who witnessed motor vehicle accident (ACT) appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Restrictive covenants: They’ve done it, why can’t I?

In Foudoulis v O’Donnell [2020] VSC 248 the plaintiff was applying to modify a single dwelling covenant created in 1922 so that he could build two semi‑detached dwellings in his backyard behind his existing single level home.
The proposed development would have obviously contravened the covenant.  To overcome the restriction, the plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court under s 84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) to have the covenant modified.
The plaintiff’s case was that the neighbourhood had changed in character and that the predominant single dwelling character of the neighbourhood had been eroded since the creation of the covenant almost a 100 years ago.  It was asserted that modifying the covenant to allow three dwellings on the plaintiff’s land would not have substantially injured the beneficiaries of the covenant because the modification would have been just another example of multi dwellings on land or an alteration of housing density that has already occurred in the neighbourhood, and therefore there would be no harm in allowing the modification.
The area had changed in that:
some quite large single lots had been subdivided into two or three lots (however each lot only had a single dwelling built on it);some multi-unit developments had been built.
Owners of properties in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s property objected to the proposed modification to the covenant. They accepted that modifications had occurred in the neighbourhood but argued that the court should uphold the utility and purpose of the covenant and not let the changes in the neighbourhood go any further lest the predominantly single dwelling character of their neighbourhood become spoiled or ruined by more of these applications, which they asserted, was bound to happen. 
Decision
The court agreed with the neighbours and refused the plaintiff’s application, finding that the existing changes to the neighbourhood were not great enough to have eroded the benefits of the single dwelling covenant.

The post Restrictive covenants: They’ve done it, why can’t I? appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

The Commissioner speaks: latest SA land tax developments

By Peter Slegers, Director and Joshua Pascale and Daniel Marateo, Associates, Tax & Revenue Group, Cowell Clarke1
The South Australian Commissioner of State Taxation has recently issued detailed guidance on the State’s sweeping land tax reform measures. The new publication from RevenueSA, titled “Land Tax Guide to Legislation: Changes for Joint Owners, Land Held on Trust & Related Corporations” (“Guide”), comprises some 27 pages of statutory interpretation, analysis and worked examples.
This article will summarise some of the topical issues now clarified by the Guide, as well as comment on major unresolved issues. For an overview of the measures generally, see the authors’ previous article titled “Land Tax Reform Hits SA” published in Issue 49 of CCH Tax Week. Readers should refer to this previous article to understand the broad concepts associated with the new land tax regime.
All statutory references in this article are to the Land Tax Act 1936 (SA) (“LTA”).2
For consistency of expression, the following terms are adopted in this article:
“pre-existing trust land” is land subject to a discretionary trust on or before midnight on 16 October 2019“designated beneficiary nomination” is a nomination made by the trustee of a discretionary trust in favour of a natural person potential beneficiary of the trust in respect of pre-existing trust land“trust notification” is a notice given by the trustee of a unit trust or fixed trust to the Commissioner disclosing the identity and proportionate interests of unitholders or fixed beneficial interest holders in the trust, and“surcharge rates” means the surcharge rates of land tax imposed on trust landowners in the absence of a designated beneficiary nomination or trust notification having been made.3
Finally, the use of the terms “discretionary trust”, “unit trust”, “fixed trust” and “excluded trust” are used here as they are specifically defined in the LTA.4
Trust issues
The Guide clarifies the Commissioner’s view on a number of significant issues involving land held on trust, namely:
The Guide makes it clear that land held upon trust, whether a discretionary trust, unit trust or fixed trust, cannot be aggregated with land held upon separate trusts.5 The Commissioner has also removed any remaining doubt that land held upon separate trusts can be aggregated by virtue of their corporate trustees being related corporations.Suggestions have been made in some quarters that where a unit trust or fixed trust makes a trust notification and the unitholder/beneficiary is itself a trustee of a further trust, the general rates (rather than surcharge rates) apply to the unitholder/beneficiary. The Commissioner makes it clear, however, that where a trust notification is in force, the surcharge rates apply on the land imputed to the unitholder/beneficiary, subject to the exception below.6The Guide makes it clear that where a unitholder/beneficiary is itself a trustee for a further trust that has been imputed with land by virtue of a trust notification, that further trustee can in turn make a trust notification to the Commissioner of its unitholders/beneficiaries so that surcharge rates do not apply.7 In this sense, the trust notification can have a “cascading” effect where there are multiple fixed trusts and unit trusts involved.Where a discretionary trust holds units in a unit trust and the unit trust holds land that was acquired on or before midnight on 16 October 2019, a trust notification made by the trustee of the unit trust will not allow the discretionary trust to treat the land imputed to it as pre-existing trust land.8 In other words, a discretionary trust unitholder cannot make a designated beneficiary nomination in respect of its imputed land. This is rationalised – correctly in the authors’ view – on the basis that the land was not, as a matter of fact, subject to the discretionary trust on or before midnight on 16 October 2019.The Guide confirms the Commissioner’s view that where an excluded trust (such as a self-managed superannuation fund (“SMSF”)) either jointly holds land with another entity, or is imputed with land by virtue of a trust notification, such land will not be aggregated with other land owned or imputed to the excluded trust.9 This raises pertinent planning issues in the context of landholding SMSFs that also hold units in unit trusts that own land. In particular, a trust notification by the unit trust will have the benefit of allowing the unit trust to be assessed at general (rather than surcharge) rates without the downside of aggregation occurring at the SMSF level. Moreover, as a security trust established under a limited recourse borrowing arrangement is a discrete form of excluded trust, the land held on such a trust is not aggregated with the land held by the SMSF trustee.The Commissioner also confirms, correctly in the authors’ view, that a testamentary trust is not a deceased estate (and therefore cannot qualify as an excluded trust). The rationale is that a testamentary trust only commences to exist once the administration of a deceased estate ends.10 A testamentary trust will normally fall within the definition of either a discretionary trust or a fixed trust depending on the terms of the deceased’s Will with the consequences that arise from its characterisation.
Related corporations
The Guide also clarifies a range of topical issues with respect to related corporations, namely:
The Commissioner provides much needed clarity on the circumstances in which land held by a corporate trustee might be aggregated with land held by corporations that are related to the trustee. The Commissioner confirms that there is only one exception to the rule that land owned by a trust is not subject to aggregation with land held by other entities (in the absence of a designated beneficiary nomination or trust notification being made). This is where s 13G(5) of the LTA applies.11 Section 13G(5) provides that corporations will be related corporations if one of the corporations is the trustee of a unit trust (or fixed trust) and the other corporation (or other related corporations between them) owns more than 50% of the units or beneficial interests (respectively) in that trust. Importantly, the Commissioner’s view is that s 13G(5) would only apply to aggregate the land held by the unit trust (or fixed trust) with land held by a company unitholder/beneficial interest holder where the company holds the land in its own right and not as trustee of a trust.12For the purposes of applying the controlling interest test for related corporations, there has been some ambiguity as to whether the directors of a shareholding company might be seen as persons who are in a position to control the casting of votes in relation to the subsidiary corporation.The Commissioner’s view is that the directors of a corporation that owns shares in another corporation are persons who are able to control the casting of the votes in the second corporation.13 While the relevant example in the Guide deals only with a company that holds shares in a further company in its own right, the authors expect this would extend to a situation where shares in a company are held by a company as trustee for a trust.The Commissioner confirms that where shares in a corporation are held by an excluded trust, and are therefore to be disregarded for the purposes of the related corporation provisions, the remaining interests of the shareholders in the company other than the excluded trust remains the same.14 For example, if Company 1 owns 49% of the shares in both Company 2 and Company 3, and SMSF 1 owns the remaining 51% of the shares in Companies 2 and 3, Companies 2 and 3 would not be related based solely on the shareholding. This is because the disregarding of SMSF 1’s shareholding does not cause Company 1’s interest to increase to 100% in each of Companies 2 and 3.
Other issues clarified by the Guide
Other issues clarified by the Guide include the following:
In order to make an application for exclusion from being aggregated as a related corporation under the residential developers’ concession, the legislation requires that the land is held for the purpose of being developed as a residential development of more than 10 allotments or lots. The Commissioner appears to adopt the view in the Guide that the requirement for the development to comprise more than 10 allotments or lots applies on a company by company basis.15 That is to say that while the development of the 11 or more allotments can be across more than one parcel of land owned by the same company, the Commissioner seems to require that the land upon which the 11 or more allotments is being created is held by a single corporation (as opposed to being held by multiple related corporations). This interpretation may restrict the application of the developers’ concession to existing development structures and also necessitates that care is taken when structuring residential developments in landowning companies going forward if the developers’ concession is being sought.The Guide appears to suggest that it is mandatory to make disclosure of land held in trust to RevenueSA where the land is merely deemed to be held by a trust because of a trust notification.16The Commissioner confirms that, where land qualifies for an exemption from land tax, the land is exempt for all land tax purposes. For instance, where land is jointly owned and only one owner uses the property as a principal residence, the other owner still receives the benefit of the exemption. Moreover, where a discretionary trust with exempt land has made a designated beneficiary nomination, that designated beneficiary will also receive the benefit of the exemption.The Commissioner makes it clear that, where a beneficiary of a trust is imputed with land as a result of a designated beneficiary nomination or trust notification, the intention of the legislation is not to give rise to any consequences outside of the LTA.17 This includes, for instance, any person being deemed an owner of land for stamp duty purposes, Federal income tax purposes or for First Home Owner Grant or social security eligibility purposes.
Unresolved issues of significance
Regrettably, the Guide fails to address some of the pertinent issues that require urgent clarification given the commencement date of the new regime from 30 June 2020. For instance, the Guide does not provide any clear guidance on circumstances in which corporations that are owned by the same trustee of different trusts can be aggregated.
Unfortunately, there also remains ambiguity in relation to the application of s 13I(1)(g) of the LTA. This provides that where a trustee holds controlling interests in two or more corporations on behalf of different trusts, those corporations are not related to each other only because of that control.
While the Commissioner acknowledges that the legislation provides for this outcome,18 the Guide does not provide any clarity as to whether the Commissioner might consider a basis for grouping two companies owned by the same trustee for different trusts on a basis other than the controlling interest test. For example, it may be possible to group the two companies in this scenario because the directors of the corporate trustee are necessarily the same (it is the same company) and therefore the same persons have a controlling interest in each corporation (as opposed to the trustee itself having that controlling interest).
The scope and operation of s 13I(1)(g) remains, in the authors’ view, a somewhat vexed issue.
Looking ahead
With the 30 June 2020 implementation date now imminent, it will be critical for landowning groups to seek appropriate specialist advice to ensure they are best placed to negotiate the new regime and optimise outcomes.
Footnotes
The authors wish to thank and acknowledge Jackson Jury, Law Clerk in Cowell Clarke’s Tax & Revenue Group, for his assistance in the preparation of this article.Amended most recently to accommodate the new land tax regime by the Land Tax (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2019 (SA).This is broadly an increase in the land tax liability of an amount equal to 0.4% to 0.5% of site values up to the highest threshold.Section 2(1).In the absence of a designated beneficiary nomination or trust notification being made.Page 16 of the Guide.Page 16-17.Page 16.Page 17.Page 19.Page 19.Pages 19 and 23.See Example 4 on page 22.Example 11 on pages 25 and 26.Page 27.Example 3 on pages 16-17.Page 20.Pages 24 and 25.
The post The Commissioner speaks: latest SA land tax developments appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Coroners to get more powers in a bid to unlock unresolved cases (Qld)

Coroners will get more powers to compel witnesses to give potentially self-incriminating evidence at an inquest, under new laws passed by the Queensland Parliament.
Subscribers to our Pinpoint Medical Negligence and Health Law practice area can access the new Comparative Verdicts Finder — Coronial Inquests.
Acting Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Stirling Hinchliffe said that the laws aim to unlock long-standing unresolved cases.
Mr Hinchliffe said that appropriate safeguards are included in the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which amends the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld).
“The coroner may not require a person to give evidence that may incriminate them unless satisfied it is in the public interest”, he said.
“Further, evidence given is not admissible against a person in any criminal proceeding, with the exception of perjury.”
Source: Media Release, The Honourable Yvette D’Ath Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, dated 20 May 2020.
The post Coroners to get more powers in a bid to unlock unresolved cases (Qld) appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

COVID-19: Employer guide to the JobKeeper scheme

Contributed by Betsy-Ann Howe, Matthew Cridland, Michaela Moloney, Nick Ruskin, Paul Hardman and James Rutley Clyne, K&L Gates
Note: The information set out in this Guide is accurate as at 9.00 am AEDT on Monday 27 April 2020 and is subject to change as the situation evolves.
The basic turnover test
Employers will be eligible for the subsidy if their turnover for the period has fallen below the thresholds and they meet the other eligibility requirements set out further below.
Business type/sizeTurnover reduction thresholdACNC registered charity*15%For Profit: Turnover below $1b**30%For Profit: Turnover above $1b**50%
*Includes Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) registered charities with the exception of public or private universities and schools.
**As explained further below, the test for determining whether a business has a turnover exceeding $1b is based on the entity’s aggregated turnover for the income year.
Alternative turnover test
An alternative turnover test may apply in the circumstances listed in the table below. Note that if an entity satisfies the basic turnover test, it is not necessary to also satisfy an alternative turnover test.
For the sake of brevity, the alternative tests are summarised below. If an entity has quarterly rather than monthly tax periods, further modification of the alternative test may be required.
CircumstancesAlternative test (summary only)New business: The entity commenced business after the end of the relevant comparison period.First alternative: Use average monthly GST turnover.Second alternative: Use three months’ current GST turnover.Mergers & acquisitions: The entity acquired or disposed of part of the business after the relevant comparison period.Use the turnover from the month immediately following the month in which the acquisition or disposal occurred.Restructured business: The entity undertook a restructure of the business after the relevant comparison period.Use the turnover from the month immediately following the month in which the restructure occurred.Substantial increases in turnover:The entity has experienced turnover increases, immediately before the applicable turnover test period, of:• more than 50% in 12 months• more than 25% in six months• more than 12.5% in three months.Use three months’ current GST turnover.Natural disaster: The entity was affected by drought or natural disaster (in a declared disaster area) during the comparison period.Use GST turnover for the same period for the year immediately before the natural disaster declaration.Irregular variance: The entity had a large irregular variance in turnover in the quarters ending during the 12 months before the applicable turnover test period.Note: this does not apply for entities with regular seasonal/cyclical variances.Use average monthly GST turnover.Illness: Relevant for sole traders or small partnerships where sickness, injury or leave impacted a person’s ability to work.Use GST turnover from the month immediately following the sole trader or partner returning to work.
Eligible employees
Subsidy payments are restricted to eligible employees who must meet all of the requirements listed below.
RequirementsCommentsDate cut-offThe person must have been employed by the employer as at 1 March 2020.Current employment statusThe person must be currently employed. This can include employees stood down or rehired.Age limitThe employee must be at least 16 years of age on 1 March 2020.Note: Employees 17 years and younger, who are full-time students and not financially independent, are ineligible.Residency statusEligible employees fall within the following categories:• Australian citizen• Australian permanent resident• Special category (Subclass 444) visa holder (New Zealand citizen).Multiple employersEligible employees who have multiple eligible employers can only receive a JobKeeper Payment from one employer.Employment typeThe qualifying employment types are:• Full-time• Part-time• Long-term casual**Employed as a casual for more than 12 months as at 1 March 2020.
Further, eligible employees must not receive either of the following types of payments during a fortnight:
Paid parental leaveEmployees receiving paid parental leave (under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010) in a fortnight are ineligible for that fortnight. Parental leave paid under arrangements outside the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 should not impact eligibility.Workers compensationEmployees who are totally incapacitated for work and receive an amount under an Australian worker’s compensation law in a fortnight are ineligible for that fortnight.
Can employers cherry-pick the eligible employees?
No, employers cannot exclude some eligible employees while including others.
The Treasurer’s media release from 24 April 2020 confirms that if an employer has elected to participate, and has received forms from eligible employees, the employer must ensure that all eligible employees (including those who are working and stood down) are covered by the scheme.
Other employer eligibility requirements
In addition to satisfying the Turnover Tests, employers must:
ensure eligible employees receive at least $1,500 per fortnightnotify all eligible employees they are receiving JobKeeper Paymentsobtain a written notice from each eligible employee (to confirm eligibility), andprovide required information to the ATO on a monthly basis, including monthly turnover and the number of eligible employees.
Ineligible employers
Regardless of whether the above requirements are satisfied, the following employers are ineligible:
entities subject to the Major Bank LevyAustralian Government agencies or local governing authoritiesentities wholly owned by an Australian Government agency or local governing authoritya sovereign entitya company to which a liquidator or provisional liquidator has been appointed, oran individual if a bankruptcy trustee has been appointed in respect of that individual’s property.
How much will employers receive?
The payments will be a flat amount equivalent to $1,500 per fortnight for each eligible employee.
The payments will be available to eligible employers for a maximum of 13 fortnights (ie six months). Accordingly, the maximum benefit is $19,500 per eligible employee (before tax).
How and when are payments made to employers?
Eligible employers will receive the subsidy payments from the ATO in arrears once per month.
The initial payment is expected to be made in the first week of May 2020 (between 4 May 2020 and 8 May 2020).
The initial payment will be backdated to 30 March 2020 (for employers entitled to receive payments for eligible employees from that date).
How much will each employee receive?
The minimum payment to each employee (which may comprise the components set out further below) must be $1,500 per fortnight, before tax.
The impact for employees is expected to be as set out in the table below:
Normal salary level (before tax)Minimum payment (before tax)Less than $1,500 per fortnight$1,500 per fortnight$1,500 per fortnight$1,500 per fortnightMore than $1,500 per fortnightNormal salary.Employers may use the subsidy payment to reduce the cost of the salary payment.Employers may also voluntarily elect to pass through some or all of the payment to employees as an additional amount.
What are the components of the $1,500 payment?
The component amounts that must total at least $1,500 per fortnight include the following:
income, such as salary, wages, commissions and bonuses (less PAYG withholding)amounts withheld for tax and/or HECS-HELP loanscontributions made to a superannuation fund under a salary sacrifice arrangement, andother amounts withheld under a salary sacrifice arrangement.
What is the enrolment process?
Employers can enrol via the ATO website.
Generally, employers must register before the end of the relevant fortnight to receive a JobKeeper Payment in respect of that fortnight.
There is an exception in relation to the JobKeeper fortnights in April and May 2020. For those fortnights, employers have until 31 May 2020 to enrol (with any payments for those initial JobKeeper periods conditional on all other requirements being satisfied).
Are self-employed individuals eligible for subsidy payments?
Employers will be responsible for identifying eligible employees and updating the ATO monthly.
For most businesses, the ATO will pre-populate the employee details using Single Touch Payroll data.
Are employees required to provide a written notice?
Yes, eligible employees must provide a notice in the approved form, confirming all of the following:
the employee consents to be nominated by the employer as an eligible employee under the JobKeeper Schemethe employee has not agreed to be nominated for the JobKeeper Scheme by any other employer, andfor casual employees, the employee does not have permanent employment (either full- or part-time) with another employer.
Are self-employed individuals eligible for subsidy payments?
Yes, if the turnover tests applying to other businesses are met.
Self-employed individuals may participate in a business through the following types of entity structures. For each type of entity, only one qualifying individual may be eligible.
Entity typeQualifying individualSole traderThe individualTrustAn adult beneficiary of the trustCompanyA shareholder or director of the companyPartnershipA partner in the partnership
Information will need to be provided to the ATO, including:
nomination of a qualifying individual to receive paymentthe individual’s tax file number, anda declaration regarding the recent business activity.
The nominated individual will need to satisfy the same requirements as eligible employees in relation to age and residency status. Similarly, the nominated individual will not be eligible if the person is receiving paid statutory parental leave or workers compensation payments.
As an integrity measure, the entity must have been registered for an Australian Business Number on 12 March 2020 (or a later date if the Commissioner allows). Further, the entity must have either:
included an amount in the entity’s assessable income for the 2018/19 income year (and reported this to the Commissioner prior to 12 March 2020), ormade a taxable supply (for GST purposes) in any tax period starting on or after 1 July 2018 and ending prior to 12 March 2020 (and reported this to the Commissioner prior to 12 March 2020).
Are superannuation payments required?
Present guidance from Treasury states that it will be up to employers to decide if they will pay superannuation on any additional payment made to an employee because of a JobKeeper Payment. These issues are not addressed in the Act or the Rules and will instead need to be addressed through separate legislation or regulations relating to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.
Treasury guidance suggests that for employees who have been stood down, and who would not otherwise receive any payment, employers are not required to pay superannuation in respect of the $1,500 fortnightly salary payment (unless they choose to do so).
For employees who are topped up to $1,500, employers will have normal superannuation obligations for the employee’s usual salary but are not required to pay superannuation on the top-up amount (unless they choose to do so).
For employees who continue to receive their usual salary (and no additional amount), normal superannuation payment obligations will continue to apply.
Will employers be required to withhold tax?
The JobKeeper Payments will be passed through to eligible employees as salary and wages.
Accordingly, employers will be required to withhold PAYG tax amounts prior to making payments to eligible employees. These withheld amounts will make up a component of the $1,500 payment to eligible employees each fortnight.
Will employers be liable for tax or GST on the subsidy payments?
For income tax purposes, JobKeeper Payments will be treated as income for employers. Employers should be entitled to a deduction for salary and wage payments to employees.
Employers will not be liable for GST in respect of the JobKeeper Payments.
Are employers required to notify employees?
Yes, if an employer has included details of an eligible employee in a notice to the Commissioner under the JobKeeper Scheme, the employer must notify the employee of this fact within seven days of that notice being provided to the Commissioner.
Will the JobKeeper Payments impact payments from Services Australia?
Employees who are receiving payments from Services Australia will need to notify Services Australia if they receive a JobKeeper Payment. The payment will form part of the employee’s notifiable income. This may affect the employee’s eligibility for payments from Services Australia.
How is “turnover” determined?
For the purposes of the determining whether there has been a decline in turnover, the term “turnover” adopts the same meaning as set out in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act), with some important modifications.
Generally speaking, this means “turnover” will include all consideration from “taxable supplies” and “GST-free supplies” that are “connected with the indirect tax zone [Australia]”. It also means that “turnover” will not include consideration from input taxed supplies. Input taxed supplies include “financial supplies” (such as loans and equity transactions) and residential leasing supplies.
The important modifications noted above include the following (among other things):
the turnover test is applied to each entity separately, regardless of whether the entity may be a member of a GST groupif the entity is a member of a GST group, intra-group supplies are generally ignored. However, it is expected that such supplies will be taken into account for the purposes of the JobKeeper Scheme, orgifts paid or provided to charities may be treated as consideration for a supply.
Which businesses will have monthly tax periods?
All GST registered businesses with a GST turnover exceeding $20m are required to lodge a business activity statement on a monthly basis.
Entities with a GST turnover below $20m generally lodge on a quarterly basis, unless they have elected to have monthly tax periods.
If an employer previously had quarterly tax periods, but recently changed to monthly tax periods to improve cash flow, it is likely the employer will need to compare three months of data (to align with the previous quarterly tax periods).
Over what period do employers need to test eligibility?
To be eligible, employers only need to be able to demonstrate that they have met, or will meet, the turnover tests for one month.
The explanatory statement that accompanies the rules confirms that eligibility only needs to be satisfied once in respect of one period.
Does the Commissioner have any discretion regarding eligibility?
If there is no appropriate relevant comparison period from the prior year, the Commissioner has the discretion to determine an alternative eligibility test. For example, this may be relevant if:
an agricultural business was severely impacted by drought in the prior yeara business has only newly commenced and does not have a comparable prior period, orthe business has changed or grown as a result of mergers or acquisitions.
The alternative tests will be set out in a legislative instrument.
How will the employer eligibility tests apply to economic groups?
In relation to the $1b turnover threshold (used to determine whether a 30% or 50% turnover decline is required for eligibility), an entity’s “aggregated turnover for the income year” will be taken into account. This means that turnover from related or connected entities will be combined and taken into account. It ensures that a small entity within a larger group of related or connected entities (that has aggregated turnover exceeding $1b on a group-wide basis) is required to have a turnover decline of at least 50% to be eligible.
However, as explained above, for the purposes of determining whether an entity has experienced a turnover decline that exceeds the relevant threshold (30% or 50% as the case may be), the turnover for each entity must be considered on a stand-alone basis. This is regardless of the fact that the entity may be part of a GST group (or consolidated group for income tax purposes).
How will the employer eligibility tests apply to business divisions within one entity?
Each entity will be assessed on a stand-alone basis, as explained above. The Rules do not permit separate divisions within one entity to be considered separately.
Are there special rules for employer entities (services entities)?
Some economic groups will include a central employment entity (services entity) that will employ most (if not all) staff for the group. Applying the basic turnover test to the employer entity on a stand-alone basis may mean that the group is ineligible, notwithstanding the group may have experienced a decline in turnover exceeding 30% or 50% (as the case may be).
The Treasurer’s media release on 24 April 2020 confirmed that changes will be introduced to address this issue. An alternative test will apply, which will reference the combined GST turnovers of the related entities using the services of the employer entity.
It is expected that employer entities that qualify under the basic test will not be required to also satisfy the proposed alternative test.
Do employers need to pay employees first?
Yes, employers must pay employees first. The ATO has issued guidance, which confirms that payments will not be advanced in any circumstances.
In most cases, employers are required to pay eligible employees the $1,500 per fortnight before the end of the relevant fortnight.
For employers who have a monthly pay cycle, the Commissioner has the discretion to treat monthly payments of $3,000 as satisfying this requirement.
As a transition measure, the ATO will accept that employers have satisfied the payment requirement for the first two JobKeeper fortnights if staff are paid at least $3,000 by 30 April 2020.
Are there any risks for employers who claim a subsidy payment?
Yes, the legislation governing the JobKeeper Scheme includes an anti-avoidance provision similar to that set out in the GST Act.
For example, if an employer enters a scheme to manipulate its turnover so as to qualify for JobKeeper Payments, the anti-avoidance provisions may apply so that the employer is ineligible.
If any overpayments are made to an employer, the employer may be required to repay those amounts, together with interest.
Depending on the circumstances, penalties and criminal sanctions may also apply.
Can employers seek the protection of a private ruling?
No, private rulings are not available in relation to JobKeeper eligibility.
Have other issues been clarified or fixed?
The Treasurer’s media release on 24 April 2020 also clarified the following:
Religious practitioners: there will be changes to eligibility requirements for religious institutions, noting that religious practitioners may not be “employees”.International aid organisations: changes will be introduced to ensure eligibility for entities that are endorsed under the Overseas Aid Gift Deductibility Scheme or for developed country relief.Universities: changes will clarify that Commonwealth Government financial assistance provided to universities will be taken into account in the turnover tests, andCharities and government revenue: changes will allow all charities (other than schools and universities) that receive government revenue to elect to exclude this from their turnover for the purposes of the turnover test calculations.
Are there any special rules for input taxed entities?
The GST turnover tests exclude revenue from input taxed supplies. This means that entities that make predominantly input taxed supplies may have very small turnover amounts (if any) for the purposes of the turnover tests.
Examples of businesses that may be impacted by this include retirement village operators, non-bank financial supply providers and life insurance companies.
To date, no alternative turnover tests have been announced to assist these businesses.
[This article was published in CCH Tax Week on 1 May 2020. Tax Week is included in various tax subscription services such as The Australian Federal Tax Reporter and CCH iKnow. CCH Tax Week is available for subscription in its own right. This article is an example of many practitioner articles published in Tax Week.]
The post COVID-19: Employer guide to the JobKeeper scheme appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

The importance of a mobile friendly website

Over the
past several years using a mobile phone or tablet to browse the internet has
become common place. So much so that more people worldwide now browse the
internet on a mobile device than they do a desktop or laptop computer.
It’s not
just user based mobile web browsing that has taken over – major search engines
such as Google now look for mobile friendly content first whenever someone uses
Google to search for content. Google refers to this as ‘Mobile-first Indexing’.
What is Mobile-first indexing?
Mobile-first
indexing means Google predominantly uses the mobile version of a website’s
content for indexing and ranking. Historically, Google’s index primarily used
the desktop version of a page’s content when evaluating the relevance of a page
to a user’s query. Since the majority of users now access Google Search with a
mobile device, Googlebot primarily crawls and indexes pages with the smartphone
agent going forward.*
As of September 2020 Google will be implementing Mobile-first indexing as its default way of searching for content. Additionally, Googles preferred and recommended format for mobile friendly websites continues to be ‘Responsive’ design – find out more here. This will mean that if you do not have a mobile friendly, responsive website you may start seeing your website start to dip in Google search results.
Aside from being future-proofed in search engine rankings, there are a lot of other benefits to having a mobile friendly, responsive website. They include:
Creating a great user experience on any device
A consistent user experience – no matter what device is being used – is by far the biggest advantage to having a responsive site. Mobile users have little patience for sites that don’t load well on their device or are hard to use. Non-responsive websites will load, but are often too small to read, without the user zooming in and out around the page. A responsive site design automatically alters the layout and appearance of your full website, for optimial display on the screen size it’s loaded on.

Non-responsive site, zoomed to fit screen

Responsive design adapts to users device

Be Search Engine friendly
Google recommends responsive design as the preferred mobile site configuration. They actually consider it an industry best practice. A responsive site means one URL, and one set of content which makes it easier for Google to crawl the site. Google also ranks mobile friendly sites higher in their mobile search results because they now put a large emphasis on user experience, and a responsive site provides a much better experience to users across multiple devices.
Easily manage your content
If you’re looking to update content – which we encourage you to do regularly – there’s no need to have to update content in one area for the desktop version and another area for the mobile version. Because a responsive website is a single site tree of content that alters its appearance and layout based on behind the scenes stylesheets developed for various devices, you are able to update one set of content for your website and it’s automatically updated for every device. It’s that easy. There’s no need to manage two sets of content.
Find out more about CCH Web Manager’s easy to manage responsive website solutions.
Reflect the professional nature of your business
Your online presence reflects who you are as a business and as a professional. You have worked hard at creating your organisation’s brand and reputation. Our job is to make sure clients and prospects experience this through your website on any of their devices they view it on. We will help you create a website that will instill confidence in your business for both clients and prospects, that is easy to use, and looks smart; with Responsive Design, to make their first impression, a positive lasting experience.
Contact us today to discuss how your business can benefit from a new responsive website.
*Source: https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-first-indexing
The post The importance of a mobile friendly website appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Current COVID-19 scams

Scammers are using the COVID-19 pandemic to take advantage of people across Australia.
Superannuation scams
Scammers are trying to exploit Australians financially impacted by COVID-19 with new superannuation scams being reported to the ACCC’s Scamwatch.
Following the announcement and subsequent commencement of the government’s scheme to allow people suffering financial hardship as a result of COVID-19 to partially access their superannuation, scammers are cold-calling people claiming to be from organisations that can help facilitate the early access. It is important to note that the ATO is coordinating the early release of super through myGov and there is no need to involve a third party or pay a fee to get access under this scheme.
Other current COVID-19 scams
Scamwatch has also received reports on other common COVID-19 scams designed to steal personal and financial information, including:

phishing — government impersonation scams: scammers pretending to be government agencies providing information on COVID-19 through text messages and emails “phishing” for information, which contain malicious links and attachments
phishing — other impersonation scams: scammers pretending to be from well-known businesses such as banks, travel agents and insurance providers using various excuses around COVID-19, and
online shopping scams: scammers have created fake online stores claiming to sell products that do not exist, such as a cure for COVID-19.

Tips to protect yourself from these types of scams
Scamwatch has provided the following general tips to avoid falling victim to a COVID-19 scam:

do not click on hyperlinks in text/social media messages or emails, even if it appears to come from a trusted source
go directly to the website through your browser, for example, to reach the myGov website, type “my.gov.au” into your browser
never respond to unsolicited messages and calls that ask for personal or financial details, even if they claim to be a from a reputable source — just press delete or hang up, and
never give any information about your superannuation to someone who has contacted you.

Source:

ACCC media release, “Scammers targeting superannuation in COVID-19 crisis”, 66/20, 6 April 2020
Scamwatch, “Current COVID-19 (coronavirus) scams”, 27 April 2020.

The post Current COVID-19 scams appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

COVID-19: tax planning ideas for uncertain times

By Muhunthan Kanagaratnam, Partner, Mark Goldsmith, Special Counsel and Julian Cheng, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin.
While we have seen state and federal governments announcing a variety of stimulus measures to assist business in these uncertain times, there are still numerous conventional tax planning strategies which business should be mindful of as a supplement to the government response.
As cash management becomes critical to the survival of many businesses, it is a useful time for all businesses to reconsider possible tax planning ideas that may reduce their tax burden. Where any of these ideas result in a reduction to the tax payable of a business for a year of income, the benefit of such reduction may be realised through variations to Pay As You Go (PAYG) instalments instead of having to wait until lodgement of the tax return. In this regard, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has announced that businesses can vary PAYG instalments for the 2019/20 year without incurring penalties or interest and may also be able to claim a refund of previous instalments paid for that year.
The purpose of this brief guide is to firstly, act as a reminder to business of these various strategies which are typically employed as part of ongoing year-end tax planning and secondly, to explore some less conventional ideas which may in particular cases be of interest.
1. Deferring the tax recognition of income
There are some unique features associated with our tax system which may allow for the deferral of income which would not otherwise be permissible at least from an accounting and business perspective.
In this regard, for service orientated businesses, typically the timing of recognition of services income arises at the time a recoverable debt is created. This is generally when an invoice is issued although the terms of the contract with customers or clients may mean a recoverable debt arises at other times. Therefore, delaying the timing of issue of invoices may delay the recognition of income for tax purposes, for example, if an invoice is to be issued in June, but the expectation is that it will not be paid until July or later, then consideration could be given to delaying the issue of such invoices. Equally, if the view is that there may be a low prospect of payment given the financial position of the service recipient then again thought could be given to delaying the issue of the invoice until after year end. These matters need to be considered having regard to the terms of the relevant contract governing the timing of issue of an invoice, as well as the requirement under the GST law for the party making the taxable supply (assuming it is one) to which the payment relates, to issue a “tax invoice” within 28 days after receipt of such a request.
Of course, this tax planning idea needs to be balanced with the commercial realities of the actual timing of the payment of your invoice, the likelihood of payment and the terms of the contract itself. Clearly, if the impact of such a strategy to delay the tax recognition of that income will have an adverse impact on your cash flow, then that is a significant factor that may outweigh the benefits of employment of this particular strategy.
2. Utilisation of trading stock election
The Tax Act provides for various methods of recognising the value of trading stock. In most cases, the default position adopted by business is to effectively recognise trading stock for tax generally at cost. However, in circumstances where the value of closing stock (or a particular item of stock) has materially declined such that the market value of the stock is less than the cost, then a taxpayer can adopt the market selling value basis for valuing that closing stock. Alternatively, closing stock can be valued by adopting the replacement value of the closing stock on hand. In both of these cases, the effect of adopting a lower stock valuation method, whether it be market selling value or replacement value is to effectively value your closing stock at an amount less than cost and as the closing stock is treated as assessable income, this will effectively generate a deduction for the difference between the cost and the alternative value adopted.
An example of a situation where market selling value may be adopted could be in respect of obsolete stock, on the basis that the market selling value of that stock given its obsolescence is less than the cost of the stock. Typically, from an accounting perspective the impact of this value obsolescence will be reflected through the creation of a provision for obsolescence, which in the ordinary course is not deductible. If this is the case, a deduction can effectively be obtained for that provision by revaluing for tax purposes the obsolete stock using the market selling value.
Some businesses may have also modified their return policies in response to COVID-19. For example, returns may have been placed on hold to prevent the spread of the virus or businesses that have been forced to close may have extended the time frame for returns to enable customers to return goods once they reopen. Depending on the terms of the contract, returns may be assessable to the purchaser and deductible to the seller.
3. Foreign exchange movements
Recently, we have witnessed a significant devaluation in the Australian dollar. The effect of this adverse Australian dollar movement in circumstances where arrangements have been put in place to hedge the Australian dollar (say against the US dollar) will be that there is potentially a significant unrealised foreign exchange gain to be recognised in respect of such a hedged position. The tax treatment of such an unrealised gain, or for that matter, a realised gain, will depend on the method chosen to recognise such forex movements under the Taxation of Financial Arrangements (TOFA) rules where those apply.
In this respect, the default method, under TOFA, unless a taxpayer has elected otherwise, will be the “realisation method”. Meaning that it is not until the gain is realised that it will be recognised for tax purposes. In the case of most hedge arrangements this will be the point in time when the hedge expires or is closed out.
Where a taxpayer is likely to realise a hedge gain prior to year end, strategies could be explored to defer the recognition of such a gain until after year end. The ease with which this can be achieved will largely depend upon the specific form of hedge arrangement employed and the terms of that arrangement.
The flipside of this strategy to defer the recognition of foreign exchange gains, is to trigger a realisation of foreign exchange losses prior to year end and in so doing generate a deductible loss. Again, the ease with which this can be achieved really depends upon the method adopted by the taxpayer to recognise foreign exchange gains and losses under TOFA and also the nature of the arrangement underpinning the creation of the forex loss.
4. Depreciating assets
Given the government has introduced a stimulus package which includes an increase in the value of a depreciable asset that can be immediately written off by small businesses to an amount of $150,000, this may incentivise small- to medium-sized businesses to seek to replace existing depreciated assets with new assets. That being the case, it may warrant a review of your existing depreciable asset base to determine the circumstances in which it might be feasible to take advantage of that incentive and replace an existing asset which has a market value significantly below its existing depreciated book value. Where that scenario exists, not only would you be able to generate an immediate deduction on the acquisition of the new asset, but also generate a tax deduction for the loss on disposal of an existing depreciable asset.
Other opportunities in relation to depreciating assets include:
• Reviewing depreciating assets to determine if any can be scrapped or abandoned before year end.• Self-assessing the effective life of depreciating assets that are acquired (where the immediate write-off is not available).
5. Bad debt deductions and impairments
This financial year it will be more important than ever for taxpayers to closely scrutinise their existing outstanding debts to assess their likely recoverability with a view to identifying genuine bad debts which could be written off for tax purposes. In this regard, care would need to be taken in making that assessment, to make sure that the appropriate requirements of the tax law are satisfied that there is little to no prospect of recovery and that the debt is actually written off in the books of the company prior to year end.
Where the TOFA rules apply, a taxpayer may be recognising gains (eg interest) under a financial arrangement such as a loan on an accruals basis where those gains are “sufficiently certain”. However, if a loan is impaired, the taxpayer may be required to reassess whether the accruals method can still apply. The taxpayer may determine that all or part of a gain is no longer sufficiently certain and should only be recognised on a realisation basis. Alternatively, if the taxpayer determines that the accruals method will continue to apply, it is necessary to re-estimate the gain or loss that is accrued. While losses arising from an impairment are not deductible until the debt is written off as bad, a taxpayer should at least review its loans to ensure it is not continuing to accrue gains that are no longer sufficiently certain.
6. Writing back existing debtors
Circumstances may arise where for example a bill is in dispute and the taxpayer should make a serious commercial assessment prior to year end as to whether that bill is likely to be paid or if it is going to remain in dispute on a protracted basis. If the commercial outcome of that evaluation process is that it is in the taxpayer’s best interest for the matter to be settled, an appropriate way of potentially resolving the matter would be to cancel the existing bill and issue another bill for the revised agreed amount. In this way depending on the timing of the reissuance of the bill whether it is prior or post year end, at least the taxpayer would be in a position where the amount upon which they will be assessed prior to year end will be the amount that they actually consider will be recoverable, not an amount in excess of that recoverable amount.
7. Corporate tax rate
Companies with “aggregated turnover” of less than $50m for the year ended 30 June 2020 whose “base rate entity passive income” is less than 80% of total assessable income can apply a lower corporate tax rate of 27.5%.
Aggregated turnover includes the turnover of the company and the turnover of any entity connected with or affiliated with the company. Base rate entity passive income broadly includes amounts of passive income such as dividends (other than where the company holds at least 10% of the voting power in the company paying the dividend), royalties, rent, interest and net capital gains.
Companies should consider whether they expect to fall below the aggregated turnover threshold of $50m, or if there are opportunities to defer the derivation of base rate entity passive income, to allow access to the 27.5% corporate tax rate.
8. Some novel opportunities
Foreign tax offset planning
If you are in a position where you have foreign tax offsets attributable to foreign income it will be important to recognise the fact that your foreign tax offset is only available effectively to the extent of the Australian tax payable in respect of that income. Therefore, putting it simplistically, in the event that no Australian tax is payable in respect of that foreign income, then it will mean that you are no longer entitled to the benefit of that foreign tax offset. In such a case consideration could be given to exercising some of the above-mentioned suggestions in a way which (contrary to our earlier suggestion) will generate income creating a tax liability which could be reduced by the foreign tax offset. Clearly this would only be done in circumstances where the generation of the assessable income was a timing difference and would reverse out in the following period.
Utilisation of franking credits
Thought should be given to whether to pay a franked dividend in circumstances where you envisage a position whereby you may have no profits available at a future point in order to pay a dividend which is capable of being franked. In this context, it must be remembered that from a tax perspective (although this is not the case under corporate law) in order to frank a dividend, that dividend must be paid out of profits.
Other strategies could be employed which may facilitate the payment of a franked dividend at a future point in time by preserving, for example, current year profits and not offsetting those profits against accumulated losses. However, this can be a complex area of the law and if you find yourself in this situation where you are concerned with the company’s ability to actually maintain profits out of which a franked dividend could be paid, we would strongly suggest seeking specific advice.
Another consideration is whether a company may be in a franking deficit and, therefore, liable for franking deficit tax at year end due to refunds it has received of PAYG instalments or downward variations of such instalments.
9. Cash flow considerations
In uncertain times, the ability to maximise cash flow is a critical consideration. While we have earlier referred to some planning strategies to manage the actual tax liability of an entity, there are other measures that the ATO has introduced to help businesses retain cash until the COVID-19 crisis passes. We highlighted earlier that the ATO has issued guidance indicating that businesses who expect their PAYG instalments to exceed their actual tax liability for the 2019/20 income year can vary those instalments downwards without incurring interest or penalties. Quarterly PAYG instalment payers (those with instalment income of less than $20m in the most recent income tax return) can simply amend their PAYG instalment notice for the March 2020 quarter. A monthly PAYG instalment payer with instalment income of no more than $500m in the most recent income tax return must contact the ATO.
It may also be possible to claim refunds for any instalments paid for the September 2019 and December 2019 quarters. The ATO’s position on when any refunded amounts are repayable going forward is unclear. It may be that the benefit of any reduction to taxable income may be recognised by varying the PAYG instalment for the June 2020 quarter or only upon payment of the balance of tax payable for the year ended 30 June 2020.
Other measures announced by the ATO to assist businesses in preserving cash in these uncertain times include:
What you can getIf you …Six-month deferralDeferral of up to 6 months of various tax obligations, including income tax, PAYG instalments, fringe benefits tax and excise payments.Are affected. This is a case-by-case assessment — contact the ATO on 1800 806 218.GST reportingFrom 1 April 2020, you can increase the frequency of GST reporting from quarterly to monthly to get faster access to GST refunds.Are entitled to refunds of GST and your turnover is less than $20m and you are currently reporting quarterly.Note you can only change from the commencement of a GST reporting period — hence, 1 July 2020 being the first effective GST reporting period. Note also that you cannot change back to reporting quarterly for 12 months, so consider whether you will remain in a refund position for that time.Remission of interest and penalties generallyThe ATO will consider remitting interest and penalties incurred after 23 January 2020.All businesses — contact the ATO.Low-interest payment plansPayment plans for existing and ongoing tax liabilities at a low interest rate.All businesses — contact the ATO.
10. GST management issues
GST reporting cycles
During these uncertain times where effective cash management is crucial, one of the simplest GST planning measures is to effectively balance the receipt of GST paid by a recipient (taking into account our comments above regarding issuing tax invoices and deferring the tax recognition of income) and the ability to claim GST credits as early as possible (through the receipt of a tax invoice).
The frequency of the entity’s GST reporting cycle is equally important, after all, it is through an entity’s Business Activity Statement (BAS) where GST is paid and claimed.
As part of the government’s COVID-19 announced measures to assist businesses in preserving cash in these uncertain times, as briefly outlined earlier, from 1 April 2020, entities that are registered for GST and lodge their BAS on a quarterly basis, can elect to increase the frequency of their GST reporting to a monthly basis in order to get faster access to GST refunds.
The election does not affect the requirement of an entity that has a GST turnover of $20m or more to continue to report monthly. However, if an entity currently has a monthly GST reporting period but the impact of COVID-19 is likely to decrease its projected GST turnover below that threshold, under the pre-COVID-19 amendments, rather than being required to change its reporting frequency to quarterly, the amendments mean that the entity can remain reporting its GST on a monthly basis.
This would be particularly useful to an entity who is currently experiencing losses as it would receive its GST refund on a monthly rather than quarterly basis, thereby increasing its cash flow.
However, the election can only apply from the start of a quarter. Therefore, if elected, the change will commence on 1 July 2020. It should also be noted that a change back to quarterly GST reporting cannot be made for a period of 12 months, as such, the entities refund position should be assessed against a 12-month period. It is also worth noting that the change in the entity’s GST reporting frequency does not require a change in its PAYG withholding reporting cycle.
Supplies among related entities
Related entities which make supplies to each other (if they are currently not already grouped), should consider forming a GST group. The advantages of GST grouping include potentially saving compliance costs (as all of the members of the GST group are treated as a single taxpayer and therefore need only submit one BAS), and taxable supplies between such members are disregarded for GST purposes. The latter means that there will be no adverse cash flow timing issues between when the party making the supply has to remit GST to the ATO, and when the party receiving the supply can claim from the ATO GST credits in respect of the acquisition.
Minimising GST leakage
Another GST planning idea would be to carefully consider ways to reduce unrecoverable GST costs. Such a situation would arise, for instance, where an entity makes an input taxed supply (such as leasing residential premises or making a financial supply) and cannot claim GST credits on related expenses.
The ability to reduce the GST leakage on a transaction would depend on the particular circumstances and/or entities involved, but potentially could involve GST grouping or, alternatively, correctly apportioning recoverable GST costs.
Large entities which have an ATO approved “GST recovery percentage” and whose level of business activity will be significantly impacted by COVID-19 in terms of the value of their supplies (ie outputs) and/or acquisitions (ie inputs), should consider varying and agreeing a new percentage with the ATO, which could potentially increase their net GST amount.
The post COVID-19: tax planning ideas for uncertain times appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.

Company Law – ASIC extends time for financial reporting due to COVID-19

On 9 April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) announced that it will extend the deadline, by one month, for unlisted entities to lodge financial reports under Chapters 2M and 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), for those entities with balance dates from 31 December 2019 to 31 March 2020.
This extended deadline will assist those entities whose
financial reporting processes take additional time due to factors such as remote
working arrangements, travel restrictions and other impacts resulting from the
COVID-19 health emergency.
The extended
lodgement period explained
ASIC’s extended lodgement period applies to financial reports, directors’ reports and audit
reports for unlisted entities. The deadlines are calculated as periods
after the relevant balance dates.
Under Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act, the deadline for the lodgement of full-year financial reports, directors’ reports and auditor’s reports for:
unlisted disclosing entities and unlisted registered schemes, is extended from 3 months to 4 months, andall other unlisted entities, is extended from 4 months to 5 months. This applies to both public and proprietary companies which are not disclosing entities or registered schemes.
Note that an extension
of the deadline for unlisted registered schemes to lodge compliance plan audit
reports will automatically occur as a result of the extension for registered
schemes. The period for auditors to complete the compliance plan audit report
will therefore also be extended from 3 months to 4 months.
Under Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act, the deadline for the lodgement of half-year financial reports, directors’ reports and audit/review reports for unlisted disclosing entities, including unlisted registered schemes which are disclosing entities, is extended from 75 days to 75 days plus 1 month.Under Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act, the deadline for the lodgement of profit and loss balance sheets, and any associated information, for:
unlisted Australian Financial Services Licensees (AFSLs) that are body corporates and are also disclosing entities or registered schemes, is extended from 3 months to 4 months, unlisted AFSLs that are body corporates and are not disclosing entities or registered schemes, is extended from 4 months to 5 months, and AFSLs that are not body corporates, is extended from 2 months to 3 months.
How the
extended timeframes will work in practice
For an unlisted public company that is not a disclosing
entity, the normal deadline to lodge its reports for the year ending 31 March
2020, is 31 July 2020. Under ASIC’s extended timeframe for lodgement, the
deadline will now be 31 August 2020.
However, it is important for entities to note that the
extended deadlines will only apply where the normal reporting deadline had not
passed as of 9 April 2020 (when ASIC made its announcement). For example, the
deadline for a 31 December 2019 balance date of a managed investment scheme was
31 March 2020. Hence no extended reporting period will apply, as the reporting
deadline has already passed. However, the deadline for a proprietary company
which is not a disclosing entity is 30 April 2020. As this deadline had not yet
passed as at the date of ASIC’s announcement, the extended deadline will now be
31 May 2020.
Financial
reporting periods after 31 March 2020
ASIC is continuing to assess the impact of COVID-19 on
financial reporting for entities with reporting balance dates after 31 March
2020, particularly at 30 June 2020. ASIC will make further announcements for
these entities in due course, depending on how the COVID-19 situation evolves.
What does this mean for corporations?
Where possible, it is recommended that corporate entities
continue to lodge their financial reports within the original statutory
deadlines and only avail of the extended timeframes where absolutely necessary.
This will ensure that corporations continue to meet their statutory and
regulatory obligations, as well as ongoing obligations to their shareholders
and creditors.
It is also important to note that where a grandfathered
proprietary company uses the extended deadline relief, it will continue to
retain its grandfathered status. The directors’ report of such a company must disclose
that the company has applied the ASIC relief to report to members no later than
1 month after the normal reporting deadline.
What’s
next?
ASIC is closely monitoring ongoing market conditions
amid the COVID-19 pandemic, for developments which may affect financial
reporting. At present, there appears to be no significant issues for the
relatively small number of listed entities with a 31 March 2020 balance date,
in meeting their full-year and half-year financial reporting obligations.
Timely reporting by these entities is important; however, where appropriate,
ASIC will consider applications to extend the reporting deadline for individual
entities in appropriate circumstances. Applications should ideally be made at
least 14 days prior to the normal reporting deadline and include sufficient
detailed information to allow ASIC to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the corporate
entity in question.
Further
reading and sources
ASIC Media Release 20-084MR – ASIC to provide additional time for unlisted entity financial reports
Please subscribe to our dedicated COVID-19 blog for all the latest updates on the COVID-19 pandemic. We are here to assist you and your company in navigating the ongoing legislative and regulatory changes in response to COVID-19.
The post Company Law – ASIC extends time for financial reporting due to COVID-19 appeared first on Wolters Kluwer | Central.