Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation

Last updated

Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided25 February 1977
Citation(s) [1977] HCA 9, (1977) 140  CLR  314
Case history
Prior action(s)Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1976) 6  ATR  81, 9  ALR  76, 76 ATC 4019
Appealed from Supreme Court of NSW
Case opinions
(3:0) Sale of a company is a capital transaction for the seller, even if the buyer is likely or is intending to perform a dividend strip.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Barwick CJ, Stephen, Aickin JJ

Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner Of Taxation, [1] 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.

High Court of Australia supreme court

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.

Contents

In the taxonomy of tax schemes the overall operation was a classic exploitation of income versus capital dichotomy. But there was no need for contrivance or collusion, the different tax treatment to each party simply made the transaction an advantage to both.

The principal interest in the case today is its part in judicial interpretation of the section 260 anti-avoidance provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 , and indirectly in overall dividend stripping operations of the time (insofar as action against the vendors' position failed).

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Act of the Parliament of Australia, currently registered as C2018C00304

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.

Background

Alan Slutzkin owned a group of businesses and in April 1964 formed a company, Francis Richard Holdings Pty Ltd, which he used as a holding company for his trading companies. The shares of Francis Richards were held by Slutzkin and his associates as trustees for his children.

A holding company is a company that owns other companies' outstanding stock. A holding company usually does not produce goods or services itself; rather, its purpose is to own shares of other companies to form a corporate group. Holding companies allow the reduction of risk for the owners and can allow the ownership and control of a number of different companies.

The holding company structure allowed group profits to be retained and used as working capital. But from 1 July 1967 the law on undistributed profits tax changed and Francis Richards as constituted could no longer serve that purpose. Consequently, Slutzkin formed a new holding company to continue it.

In late 1968 Slutzkin wished to dispose of Francis Richards, to save ongoing accounting fees and operating costs. His solicitor and advisor Rodney Rosenblum (also one of the trustee shareholders of Francis Richards) had started dividend stripping with a company called Cadiz and offered to have Cadiz buy Francis Richards for the value of its accumulated profits.

Dividend stripping is the practice of buying shares a short period before a dividend is declared, called cum-dividend, and then selling them when they go ex-dividend, when the previous owner is entitled to the dividend. On the day the company trades ex-dividend, theoretically the share price drops by the amount of the dividend. However, the experience is that quality companies tend to recover the value of the dividend within a matter of weeks, at which time they trade normally.

The advantage to Slutzkin of selling instead of liquidating the company was that selling would be a capital transaction, and therefore tax-free, whereas in liquidation the final dividend distribution would be taxed as income. Cadiz required the company to have only cash assets, and no liabilities, so bank term deposits were called in and remaining liabilities paid out.

On 12 November 1968 Francis Richards had a balance sheet total of $105,124.70, and was sold to Cadiz for $104,393.30. That sale was the extent of the involvement of Slutzkin and the other trustee (Slutzkin's accountant Gordon Hapgood), but Rosenblum's role continued in Cadiz. He had taken legal advice on the propriety of acting on both sides of the transaction and in any case the tax treatment, and court case were not affected by his multiple positions.

Cadiz then proceeded with its dividend strip, causing Francis Richards to pay dividends totalling $103,744.70. Cadiz then on-sold the company for $6,831.96, a price possible because as a private company which had paid out an excess distribution (under section 106 of the ITAA) it was worth more than its asset value. The net profit to Cadiz was $6,183.36 before expenses.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed that selling Francis Richards, rather than liquidating or declaring a dividend, constituted a tax avoidance scheme, and that the proceeds should be treated as income in the hands of the trustee shareholders. The ATO added corresponding amounts to their assessments for the year ending 30 June 1969.

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.

Slutzkin and the others appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This matter was only undertaken by the vendors, the buyer Cadiz was not a party to the action. Justice Rath agreed with the ATO and dismissed the appeal, [2] whereupon Slutzkin appealed to the High Court.

Supreme Court of New South Wales superior court of New South Wales, Australia

The Supreme Court of New South Wales is the highest state court of the Australian State of New South Wales. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the state in civil matters, and hears the most serious criminal matters. Whilst the Supreme Court is the highest New South Wales court in the Australian court hierarchy, an appeal by special leave can be made to the High Court of Australia.

Decision

In the High Court, Chief Justice Garfield Barwick and justices Stephen and Aickin overturned Justice Rath's decision and found unanimously for Slutzkin. The justices were adamant that the proceeds to Slutzkin and the vendors were a capital sum, representing the sale of an investment. Slutzkin had arranged the company's affairs in a form that would make it desirable for the purchaser Cadiz, but what Cadiz was going to do later was not something they could know or have an interest in.

The judges held section 260 could not apply because firstly a capital sale was a transaction which had no income tax consequences, and secondly because section 260 is an "annihilating" provision. It could void a contract, but that was all, it did not reconstruct a transaction or impose tax in a new form. Only if the voided contracts left some set of facts taxable by other parts of the act would it result in new taxation. Barwick cited the 1976 New Zealand case Europa Oil (N.Z.) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (N.Z.) (No. 2) on that point.

Result

This kind of transaction came to be called a Slutzkin Scheme, [3] , though that term may have had limited currency. It doesn't appear Slutzkin was the first, or the last, nor even the biggest example of such transactions.

The tax landscape has changed considerably since these times. The anti-avoidance provisions of Part IVA are much broader and specifically apply against dividend stripping of the kind Cadiz used. Capital gains tax would apply to Slutzkin's proceeds too.

Related Research Articles

A capital gain refers to profit that results from a sale of a capital asset, such as stock, bond or real estate, where the sale price exceeds the purchase price. The gain is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price. Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price.

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.

United Kingdom corporation tax corporate tax levied in the United Kingdom on the profits made by UK-resident companies and on the profits of entities registered overseas with permanent establishments in the UK

In the United Kingdom, corporation tax is a corporate tax levied in the United Kingdom on the profits made by UK-resident companies and on the profits of entities registered overseas with permanent establishments in the UK.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings:

Double taxation is the levying of tax by two or more jurisdictions on the same declared income, asset, or financial transaction. Double liability is mitigated in a number of ways, for example:

Though the actual definitions vary between jurisdictions, in general, a direct tax is a tax imposed upon a person or property as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction, which is described as an indirect tax. The term may be used in economic and political analyses, but does not itself have any legal implications. However, in the United States, the term has special constitutional significance because of a provision in the U.S. Constitution that any direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In the European Union direct taxation remains the sole responsibility of member states.

Dividend imputation is a corporate tax system in which some or all of the tax paid by a company may be attributed, or imputed, to the shareholders by way of a tax credit to reduce the income tax payable on a distribution. In comparison to the classical system, it reduces or eliminates the tax disadvantages of distributing dividends to shareholders by only requiring them to pay the difference between the corporate rate and their marginal rate.

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.

Bottom of the harbour tax avoidance was a form of tax avoidance used in Australia in the 1970s. Legislation (below) made it a criminal offence in 1980. The practice came to symbolise the worst of variously contrived tax strategies from those times.

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

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.

<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.

Taxation in Australia

Income taxes are the most significant form of taxation in Australia, and collected by the federal government through the Australian Taxation Office. Australian GST revenue is collected by the Federal government, and then paid to the states under a distribution formula determined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

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.

Participation exemption is a general term relating to an exemption from taxation for a shareholder in a company on dividends received, and potential capital gains arising on the sale of shares.

The step transaction doctrine is a judicial doctrine in the United States that combines a series of formally separate steps, resulting in tax treatment as a single integrated event. The doctrine is often used in combination with other doctrines, such as substance over form. The doctrine is applied to prevent tax abuse, such as tax shelters or bailing assets out of a corporation. The step transaction doctrine originated from a common law principle in Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), which allowed the court to recharacterize a tax-motivated transaction.

<i>Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada</i> decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada, 2011 SCC 63, [2011] 3 SCR 721, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the applicability of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule ("GAAR") in the interpretation of the Income Tax Act (Canada). ("ITA")

The Tax Attractiveness Index (T.A.X.) indicates the attractiveness of a country’s tax environment and the possibilities of tax planning for companies. The T.A.X. is constructed for 100 countries worldwide starting from 2005 on. The index covers 20 equally weighted components of real-world tax systems which are relevant for corporate location decisions. The index ranges between zero and one. The more the index values approaches one, the more attractive is the tax environment of a certain country from a corporate perspective. The 100 countries include 41 European countries, 19 American countries, 6 Caribbean countries, 18 countries that are located in Africa & Middle East, and 16 countries that fall into the Asia-Pacific region.

The Australian dividend imputation system is a corporate tax system in which some or all of the tax paid by a company may be attributed, or imputed, to the shareholders by way of a tax credit to reduce the income tax payable on a distribution. In comparison to the classical system, dividend imputation reduces or eliminates the tax disadvantages of distributing dividends to shareholders by only requiring them to pay the difference between the corporate rate and their marginal rate.

References

  1. Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1977] HCA 9 , (1977) 140 CLR 314(25 February 1977), High Court.
  2. Slutzkin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1976) 6 ATR 81, 9 ALR 76, 76 ATC 4019 (8 April 1976), Supreme Court (NSW).
  3. Marsh v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1985) 16 ATR 577, 80 FLR 44, 60 ALR 347, 85 ATC 4345 (24 June 1985), Supreme Court (Qld).