Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Court	High Court of Australia
Decided	9 September 1976
Citation(s)	[1976] HCA 47, (1976) 135 CLR 290
Case history
Prior action(s)	Bridges v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1974) 5 ATR 120; 74 ATC 4339
Appealed from	Supreme Court of NSW
Case opinions
	(2:1) A taxpayer may enter circumstances explicitly described by the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 without attracting the anti-avoidance provisions of section 260, even if the purpose is a tax benefit gained.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Stephen JJ

Last updated April 26, 2019

Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation,^[1] 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.

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is an Australian government statutory agency and the principal revenue collection body for the Australian government. The ATO has responsibility for administering the Australian federal taxation system, superannuation legislation, and other associated matters. Responsibility for the operations of the ATO are within the portfolio of the federal Treasurer.

Tax avoidance is the legal usage of the tax regime in a single territory to one's own advantage to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. Tax sheltering is very similar, although unlike tax avoidance tax sheltering is not necessarily legal. Tax havens are jurisdictions which facilitate reduced taxes.

Background

Transaction 1

In 1968 a company called Vam Limited proposed to explore for natural gas in fields in South Australia and in south-western Queensland. In August 1968 it formed a new company Vamgas NL whose sole business would be that exploration. As a petroleum exploration company, monies subscribed for shares in Vamgas would be tax deductible under section 77A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 as it stood at that time.

Natural gas, also called "Fossil Gas" is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium. It is formed when layers of decomposing plant and animal matter are exposed to intense heat and pressure under the surface of the Earth over millions of years. The energy that the plants originally obtained from the sun is stored in the form of chemical bonds in the gas.

South Australia is a state in the southern central part of Australia. It covers some of the most arid parts of the country. With a total land area of 983,482 square kilometres (379,725 sq mi), it is the fourth-largest of Australia's states and territories by area, and fifth largest by population. It has a total of 1.7 million people, and its population is the second most highly centralised in Australia, after Western Australia, with more than 77 percent of South Australians living in the capital, Adelaide, or its environs. Other population centres in the state are relatively small; Mount Gambier, the second largest centre, has a population of 28,684.

Queensland is the second-largest and third-most populous state in the Commonwealth of Australia. Situated in the north-east of the country, it is bordered by the Northern Territory, South Australia and New South Wales to the west, south-west and south respectively. To the east, Queensland is bordered by the Coral Sea and Pacific Ocean. To its north is the Torres Strait, with Papua New Guinea located less than 200 km across it from the mainland. The state is the world's sixth-largest sub-national entity, with an area of 1,852,642 square kilometres (715,309 sq mi).

Vamgas shares had a par value of $0.50 each and Vam itself took up 5 million part paid to $0.10 each. Another 5 million, to be fully paid, were offered by way of a prospectus; 3 million to Vam shareholders and 2 million reserved for clients of the underwriting stockbroker and certain other brokers (Mullens & Co was not one of them). The offer to the Vam shareholders was by way of non-renounceable rights, which meant they could take them up or let them lapse, but could not sell or transfer them to someone else.

A prospectus, in finance, is a disclosure document that describes a financial security for potential buyers. It commonly provides investors with material information about mutual funds, stocks, bonds and other investments, such as a description of the company's business, financial statements, biographies of officers and directors, detailed information about their compensation, any litigation that is taking place, a list of material properties and any other material information. In the context of an individual securities offering, such as an initial public offering, a prospectus is distributed by underwriters or brokerages to potential investors. Today, prospectuses are most widely distributed through websites such as EDGAR and its equivalents in other countries.

Mr Close was chairman of the board at Vam. He and his family and friends were substantial shareholders in Vam. They wanted to have an interest in the Vamgas, but couldn't afford to pay for their full allotment of shares (about 433,800, worth $216,900), and/or didn't have enough other income to make use of the tax deductions to be had by subscribing. Mullens & Co stockbrokers knew about the offer (and had had other dealings with Vam) and was in the opposite situation, it had access to funds and had income which it could usefully offset with deductions, but had no particular interest in Vamgas. Close worked with Mullens on the following mutually beneficial arrangement.

The Vam shareholders created trusts under which they took up their Vamgas rights and paid for their new shares with money provided by Mullens. The shares were in the names of those various Vam shareholders, but as trustees, with Mullens (or associates) the beneficial owners. Mullens granted those shareholders options allowing them to buy the Vamgas shares, if they wished, for the issue price (i.e. what Mullens had paid), any time until 15 May 1969 (that being a few months after the issue). The benefits of this scheme were,

Trustee person who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another

Trustee is a legal term which, in its broadest sense, is a synonym for anyone in a position of trust and so can refer to any person who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another. A trustee can also refer to a person who is allowed to do certain tasks but not able to gain income. Although in the strictest sense of the term a trustee is the holder of property on behalf of a beneficiary, the more expansive sense encompasses persons who serve, for example, on the board of trustees of an institution that operates for a charity, for the benefit of the general public, or a person in the local government.

Option (finance) right to to buy or sell a certain thing at a later date at an agreed price

In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specified strike price prior to or on a specified date, depending on the form of the option. The strike price may be set by reference to the spot price of the underlying security or commodity on the day an option is taken out, or it may be fixed at a discount or at a premium. The seller has the corresponding obligation to fulfill the transaction – to sell or buy – if the buyer (owner) "exercises" the option. An option that conveys to the owner the right to buy at a specific price is referred to as a call; an option that conveys the right of the owner to sell at a specific price is referred to as a put. Both are commonly traded, but the call option is more frequently discussed.

Mullens got a tax deduction for the $216,900 subscribed to Vamgas. But assuming the Vam shareholders did exercise their options, then Mullens got all that money back, its only actual expense would be interest on the money for the short period until exercise (they financed with a bank overdraft).
The Vam shareholders got any market price rise above the issue price of the new Vamgas shares, with no cash outlay or risk.

In effect the Vam shareholders had swapped their potential tax deductions for a combination of short-term finance and protection against the share price falling. It seems Mullens wasn't too concerned about the latter possibility, and indeed Vamgas did rise when it listed on the stock exchange.

The Vam shareholders exercised their options on 14 May 1969, the day before expiry, and paid Mullens the $0.50 per share strike price. They got the money by selling some of their shares (having risen in price) or by selling some new further rights which Vamgas had issued. (Vamgas made a one-for-one rights issue shortly after listing, and under the option conditions such rights belonged to the option holder, i.e. those Vam shareholders, not Mullens.)

One of the Vam shareholders, a Mrs Walser, had on 3 April 1969 sold (at a profit) the Vamgas shares she held in trust. This was, strictly speaking, before she exercised her option. Mullens was the selling broker and was obviously unconcerned by formalities of exercise dates, but it did cause Mr Bridges (a partner in Mullens) considerable embarrassment in the court (below) because it gave the impression Mrs Walser regarded the shares as hers to trade, and on that basis maybe the trust documents were a sham and she was really the owner. The latter was what the Australian Taxation Office contended.

Transaction 2

A second similar transaction took place in May 1969, this time between the Vam company itself and the Mullens group. Vam had to pay the $0.40 balance of its part-paid Vamgas shares, but it had enough of its own tax deductions that it didn't need those it would get from section 77A by subscribing money to Vamgas. So instead it negotiated with Mullens on the following further transaction.

Mullens and several associates on 23 May 1969 bought 1,250,000 of Vam's $0.10 part-paid Vamgas shares, for the paid-up value of $125,000. Mullens agreed to give Vam first refusal to buy the shares back, at market price. A few weeks later, on 17 June 1969, they did indeed sell them back to Vam for $0.50 each (with Mullens paying the stamp duty). This was just under the prevailing market price of $0.51.

The fact that the sale back to Vam was for exactly what Mullens had paid out seems to have been a happy coincidence, i.e. that the market price was exactly that amount at the time; the price later fell to $0.30.

It appears Vam gave up its potential tax benefit for no more than a three-week deferral of its payment on the Vamgas call. Such a small consideration might suggest there wasn't an active kind of market in trading such tax benefits.

Supreme Court of NSW

Seven partners of the Mullens stockbroking firm and four companies associated with them appealed to the Supreme Court of NSW against the tax assessments made by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). By consent the eleven appeals were heard together and evidence given in each one was treated as evidence in each of the others.^[2]

The ATO argued that either the two Vam transactions above were shams, or that if they were real then they came under the section 260 anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

A "sham" in this context would mean there was some different underlying arrangement between the parties, and the documents they made were never meant to be enforced (or worse, written or re-written after the fact). The actual arrangement the ATO posited was that Mullens had simply lent money.

Justice Sheppard agreed with the ATO, noting in particular Mrs Walser's dealings, and decided for the ATO as submitted, but without ruling on which alternative was the case (sham or section 260).^[2]

High Court

All eleven people and companies appealed to the High Court. The initial appeal in the Supreme Court also concerned other transactions relating to share sales on capital versus income account were also decided, but they were not taken further and don't have a bearing on the Vam transactions and section 260. Mullens was chosen as symptomatic of those of other taxpayers associated with him as they all had the same facts and the result of all appeals was the same.^[3]

The High Court upheld the appeal and found for the taxpayer in a 2-1 decision, with Chief Justice Barwick and Justice Stephen finding for the taxpayer, and Justice McTiernan finding for the ATO.

McTiernan's judgement was that the transactions formally met the requirements of section 77A for deductibility, but that the only practical purpose of them was to relieve Mullens from tax liabilities and hence they came under section 260 as altering the incidence of taxation. (This judgement meant he didn't need to consider the alternative that the transactions might have been a sham.)

Barwick and Stephen on the other hand firstly disagreed with Justice Sheppard's initial conclusion that the transactions could have been shams, finding the documentation and negotiations between the parties ample. They noted in particular that Mullens didn't get the "two-way" option it had wanted (the right to force the Vam shareholders to buy back), so there was a real commercial risk being borne.

Both justices then also disagreed with Sheppard and with McTiernan that section 260 applied. Their view was that section 77A was unequivocal about giving a tax benefit to those who subscribed for petroleum shares, like Mullens had. They noted there were no extra conditions in that section to be fulfilled (though perhaps there ought to have been for instance a minimum holding period).

So with Mullens satisfying the requirements of a section of the act, applying section 260 would take away something the act explicitly gave. Stephen noted Justice Menzies in Ellers Motor Sales Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1969)^[4] who said it could not be that an advantage in one part of the act "was given merely to be taken away by the operation of s.260".

The decision here that section 260 did not apply extended the prior "choice principle" from Keighery v Federal Commissioner of Taxation .^[5] That case allowed the taxpayer to choose between two alternatives in the act, the Mullens decision allowed a taxpayer to enter a particular set of circumstances described by the act for the purpose of gaining the effects it described, even if those effects were beneficial. This latter principle was subsequently used in cases such as Cridland .^[6]

Subsequently

Section 77A of the ITAA 1936 was repealed before the court cases, that tax concession having apparently served its purpose.

A not dissimilar example of tax benefit shifting came with dividend imputation in the 1990s. Foreigners were unable to use the imputation credits and so instead "sold" them to Australian institutions by transferring the shares to them just across the dividend record date. General anti-avoidance provisions didn't apply, because both parties' taxable incomes increased. A holding period rule of the kind alluded to by Barwick and Stephen above had to be instituted.^{[ citation needed ]}

Related Research Articles

A dividend tax is the tax imposed by a tax authority on dividends received by shareholders (stockholders) of a company.

Tax deduction is a reduction of income that is able to be taxed and is commonly a result of expenses, particularly those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.

A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was greater than the amount realized on the sale. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals, and property. Not all countries implement a capital gains tax and most have different rates of taxation for individuals and corporations.

A corporate tax, also called corporation tax or company tax, is a direct tax imposed by a jurisdiction on the income or capital of corporations or analogous legal entities. Many countries impose such taxes at the national level, and a similar tax may be imposed at state or local levels. The taxes may also be referred to as income tax or capital tax. Partnerships are generally not taxed at the entity level. A country's corporate tax may apply to:

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal, most state, and many local governments. 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.

Capital gains tax (CGT), in the context of the Australian taxation system, is a tax applied to the capital gain made on the disposal of any asset, with a number of specific exemptions, the most significant one being the family home. Rollover provisions apply to some disposals, one of the most significant of which are transfers to beneficiaries on death, so that the CGT is not a quasi estate tax.

Tax shelters are any method of reducing taxable income resulting in a reduction of the payments to tax collecting entities, including state and federal governments. The methodology can vary depending on local and international tax laws.

Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1977 High Court of Australia case concerning a novel tax scheme whereby some 5,000 university students became primary producers 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.

Income taxes in Canada constitute the majority of the annual revenues of the Government of Canada, and of the governments of the Provinces of Canada. In the fiscal year ending 31 March 2018, the federal government collected just over three times more revenue from personal income taxes than it did from corporate income taxes.

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.

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.

Corporate tax is imposed in the United States at the federal, most state, and some local levels on the income of entities treated for tax purposes as corporations. Since January 1, 2018, the nominal federal corporate tax rate in the United States of America is a flat 21% due to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on federal concepts and definitions. Taxable income may differ from book income both as to timing of income and tax deductions and as to what is taxable. The corporate Alternative Minimum Tax was also eliminated by the 2017 reform, but some states have alternative taxes. Like individuals, corporations must file tax returns every year. They must make quarterly estimated tax payments. Groups of corporations controlled by the same owners may file a consolidated return.

Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Code § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney’s fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income.

The dividends-received deduction, under U.S. federal income tax law, is a tax deduction received by a corporation on the dividends it receives from other corporations in which it has an ownership stake.

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.

Wills v. Commissioner, 411 F.2d 537 was a United States taxation case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1969.

The Abgeltungsteuer is a flat tax on private income from capital. It is used in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg.

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.

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

↑ Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1976] HCA 47 , (1976) 135 CLR 290(9 September 1976), High Court.
1 2 Bridges v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1974) 5 ATR 120; 74 ATC 4339 (3 December 1974), Supreme Court (NSW).
↑ Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1976] HCA 47 , (1976) 135 CLR 290 per Barwick CJ at p 296.
↑ Ellers Motor Sales Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1969] HCA 60 , (1969) 121 CLR 668(8 December 1969), High Court.
↑ W P Keighery Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1957] HCA 2 , (1957) 100 CLR 66(19 December 1957), High Court.
↑ Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1977] HCA 61 , (1977) 140 CLR 330(30 November 1977), 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.

[Mullens_HCA-1] Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1976] HCA 47 , (1976) 135 CLR 290(9 September 1976), High Court.

[Bridges_SC-2] 1 2 Bridges v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1974) 5 ATR 120; 74 ATC 4339 (3 December 1974), Supreme Court (NSW).

[3] Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1976] HCA 47 , (1976) 135 CLR 290 per Barwick CJ at p 296.

[Ellers_HCA-4] Ellers Motor Sales Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1969] HCA 60 , (1969) 121 CLR 668(8 December 1969), High Court.

[Keighery_HCA-5] W P Keighery Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1957] HCA 2 , (1957) 100 CLR 66(19 December 1957), High Court.

[Cridland_HCA-6] Cridland v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1977] HCA 61 , (1977) 140 CLR 330(30 November 1977), High Court.