Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation

Last updated

Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided30 November 1977
Citation(s) [1977] HCA 61, (1977) 140  CLR  330
Case history
Prior action(s)Cridland v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1976) 6 ATR 212; 9 ALR 631; 76 ATC 4095
Appealed from Supreme Court of NSW
Case opinions
(5:0) Following the decision in Mullens , when the statute explicitly provides tax benefits for taxpayers in certain circumstances, taxpayers may deliberately enter those circumstances without attracting the anti-avoidance provisions of section 260 of the ITAA 1936
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Barwick CJ, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs & Aickin JJ

Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, [1] was a 1977 High Court of Australia case concerning a novel tax scheme whereby some 5,000 university students became primary producers (as in farmers) for tax purposes, allowing them certain income averaging benefits. The Australian Taxation Office held this was tax avoidance, but the test case was decided in favour of the taxpayer, one of the students, Brian Cridland.

Contents

In the taxonomy of tax schemes, this one was in the category of a wholly intentional tax benefit but which people other than those intended came to access. Amendments tightening the definition of a primary producer were subsequently made, so such a scheme would fail today.

Scheme

In 1968, Brisbane accountant D. P. O'Shea was a partner in the firm Fadden and O'Shea and was, as the court said, "versed in the arts of tax minimization". He hit upon a scheme to access the income averaging provisions of division 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA). Income averaging allowed a taxpayer to spread income over multiple tax years and was meant for primary producers (farmers etc.) with highly variable incomes. Section 157 provided that if a trust is carrying on a business of primary production, then all the income beneficiaries are likewise considered carrying on such a business.

O'Shea had one of his companies acquire land and lease (or otherwise grant) use of that to newly formed unit trusts. Those trusts were to acquire livestock or similar so as to carry on a business of primary production. The money for all this was lent by O'Shea or associates and the trusts were to end after 21 years, at which point all assets reverted to him or associates. The actual assets and production, it seems, were to be small, and in any case remain effectively under O'Shea's control.

In 1969 O'Shea distributed pamphlets advertising his scheme at universities in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Students were to pay a nominal sum of $1 to join. Over 5,000 responded and became beneficiaries of the No. 1 trust. Brian Cridland, the subject of the court action, was a student at the University of Queensland nearing the end of his engineering degree course. He became a beneficiary of the No. 2 trust and then in 1970 was transferred to the No. 4 trust when the No. 2 ceased operation.

The payment of $1 each was not meant to make a profit for O'Shea and associates, in fact it was seldom collected. The trust deeds allowed the trustee to register a person if the trustee was satisfied the person had donated at least $1 either to an institution under section 78 of the ITAA (various museums, cultural funds, etc.), or to a similar body approved by a university Student Representative Council. O'Shea even made a $500 payment to a section 78 body himself to cover anyone who might fail to have a documented payment themselves (and therefore might have failed to meet the formal requirements of the scheme).

Any income actually earned by the trusts would, or would not be, distributed to some or all beneficiaries entirely at the discretion of the trustee. Beneficiaries were not actually going to receive income, or nothing significant, just be "presently entitled" to satisfy section 157. Cridland for instance said to the court he didn't expect any income, he did receive $1 in each of June 1969, 1970 and 1971 though.

The pamphlets described an annual payment of $50 to be made by subscribers, but only if and when they saved at least that much tax. It also pointed out there was no way anyone could be forced to make such a payment, it would rely on the honesty of participants. No such amounts were actually paid.

It seems O'Shea made no profit from the scheme. Presumably if he was creating a scheme for himself anyway then it cost little to let others join, and perhaps the scheme brought other business for his accounting firm.

Courts

The Australian Taxation Office decided the scheme was a form of tax avoidance, and under the general anti-avoidance provision of ITAA section 260 (which was operative at that time) they ignored Cridland's interest in the trusts and issued assessments for tax years ending 30 June 1970, 1971 and 1972 accordingly. Cridland took the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Justice Mahoney agreed with the commissioner. [2]

Section 260 was worded very broadly, striking out any agreement "altering the incidence of any income tax". If taken literally then almost any everyday business transaction would come under it. Consequently, it had been "read down" in case law over the years to decide when it should not apply. This included not applying it to transactions "of a normal character", nor as decided in Keighery v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1957) to matters where the statute contains alternatives available to the taxpayer (in that case a public versus private company). [3]

Cridland argued that this latter "choice principle" applied, that becoming the beneficiary of a trust was a choice allowed by section 157; and if the statute explicitly provides consequences for people in certain positions then they should be able to utilize those. Justice Mahoney decided section 157 was not a choice in this sense and which the taxpayer could make of themselves, and indeed regarded the section as having a more mechanical nature so that primary producers operating their business via a trust could come under division 16.

Cridland appealed to the High Court, where Chief Justice Barwick and Justices Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Aickin instead unanimously found for him and against the ATO, holding the choice principle was not so narrow as Mahoney had interpreted it.

The justices followed their own High Court decision in Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1976), [4] not decided until after Mahoney had made his judgement. In Mullens they determined that if the statute provides certain consequences then a taxpayer may enter into circumstances or transactions to which the statute applies, and that section 260 does not strike those out just because this is to the taxpayer's advantage.

The justices were in no doubt though that a transaction like Cridland had entered into was not normal for a university student, and was only explicable for attracting the income averaging provisions, but such considerations could not override the fact that the transaction was one to which specific provisions of the ITAA applied.

Subsequently

Following the High Court's decision, Treasurer John Howard introduced amendments in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978 restricting the definition of a primary producer in section 157. As from 1 July 1978 there are now two further requirements,

These requirements act to prevent a similar broad-based scheme today, but don't deny income averaging benefits to farming families operating their business through a trust. (Trusts as an ownership structure have some advantages for ongoing family businesses and are and were quite often used in farming.)

Related Research Articles

Tax noncompliance is a range of activities that are unfavorable to a government's tax system. This may include tax avoidance, which is tax reduction by legal means, and tax evasion which is the criminal non-payment of tax liabilities. The use of the term "noncompliance" is used differently by different authors. Its most general use describes non-compliant behaviors with respect to different institutional rules resulting in what Edgar L. Feige calls unobserved economies. Non-compliance with fiscal rules of taxation gives rise to unreported income and a tax gap that Feige estimates to be in the neighborhood of $500 billion annually for the United States.

An individual retirement arrangement (IRA) in the United States is a form of pension provided by many financial institutions that provides tax advantages for retirement savings. It is a trust that holds investment assets purchased with a taxpayer's earned income for the taxpayer's eventual benefit in old age. An individual retirement account is a type of individual retirement arrangement as described in IRS Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs). Other arrangements include employer-established benefit trusts and individual retirement annuities, by which a taxpayer purchases an annuity contract or an endowment contract from a life insurance company.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Express trust

An express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." Property is transferred by a person to a transferee, who holds the property for the benefit of one or more persons, called beneficiaries. The trustee may distribute the property, or the income from that property, to the beneficiaries. Express trusts are frequently used in common law jurisdictions as methods of wealth preservation or enhancement.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal government, and most states. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is an act of the Parliament of Australia. It is one of the main statutes under which income tax is calculated. The act is gradually being rewritten into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and new matters are generally now added to the 1997 act.

<i>Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer.

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," the starting point for determining which items of income are taxable for federal income tax purposes in the United States. Section 61 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived [. .. ]". The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress intended to express its full power to tax incomes to the extent that such taxation is permitted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States and under the Constitution's Sixteenth Amendment.

<i>South Australia v Commonwealth</i>

South Australia v Commonwealth is a decision of the High Court of Australia that established the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax across the country and displace the State. It was a major contributor to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government, and was thus a watershed moment in the development of federalism in Australia.

<i>Victoria v Commonwealth</i> (1957)

Victoria v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that affirmed the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax, adding to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government.

<i>Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a High Court of Australia case concerning the tax position of company owners who sold to a dividend stripping operation. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed the proceeds should be treated as dividends, but the Court held they were a capital sum like an ordinary investment asset sale.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody was a 1994 High Court of Australia tax case concerning certain transactions made by the Peabody family business. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) sought to apply the Part IVA general anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

Australian trust law is the law of trusts as it is applied in Australia. It is derived from, and largely continues to follow English trust law, as modified by state and federal legislation. A number of unique features of Australian trust law arise from interactions with the Australian systems of company law, family law and taxation.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

<i>Pape v Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which seeks to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with reasons to follow later.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and of excise. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.

<i>Deakin v Webb</i>

Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW) Australian tax case

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.

<i>Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa</i>

Commissioner of Taxation v La Rosa was a 2003 decision of the Federal Court of Australia, sitting as the Full Court of the Federal Court. The court upheld two earlier rulings that Frank La Rosa, a convicted heroin dealer, was entitled to a tax deduction of $220,000 for money stolen from him during a drug deal. As a result of the decision, the federal government amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to prevent similar deductions being made.

References

  1. ↑ Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1977] HCA 61 , (1977) 140 CLR 330(30 November 1977), High Court.
  2. ↑ Cridland v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1976) 6 ATR 212; 9 ALR 631; 76 ATC 4095 (13 May 1976), Supreme Court (NSW).
  3. ↑ W P Keighery Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1957] HCA 2 , (1957) 100 CLR 66(19 December 1957), High Court.
  4. ↑ Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1976] HCA 47 , (1976) 135 CLR 290(9 September 1976), High Court.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.