Private ruling: Demerger of Company B by Company A
Published: December 2012
Date scheme commenced: The scheme is in contemplation

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner confirm that the Shareholder in Company A (the Shareholder) will be entitled to choose demerger roll-over relief pursuant to section 125-55 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? | A1: Yes | Q2: Will the Commissioner confirm that, should the Shareholder choose roll-over relief, they will be taken to have acquired the shares in Company B they receive under the restructure on the same date as they acquired their corresponding shares in Company A? | A2: Yes | Q3: Will the Commissioner confirm that all or any part of the in specie distribution of Company B shares to the Shareholder that is a dividend will constitute a demerger dividend, and therefore be neither assessable income nor exempt income pursuant to subsections 44(3) and 44(4) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936)? | A3: No, due to the operation of section 45B of the ITAA 1936, Company B shares received by the Shareholder under the scheme will not constitute a demerger dividend that is neither assessable income nor exempt income. | Q4: Will the Commissioner confirm that section 45B of the ITAA 1936 would not apply to treat any part of the demerger allocation as assessable? | A4: No, if the scheme were to go ahead as proposed, the Commissioner would make a determination under paragraph 45B(3)(a) of the ITAA 1936 that section 45BA of the ITAA 1936 applies to the whole, or part, of the 'demerger benefit' provided under the proposed scheme. | Q5: Will the Commissioner confirm that Division 7A of the ITAA 1936 will not apply to any distributions made under the demerger arrangement? | A5: Yes The scheme commenced on: The scheme is in contemplation

Relevant facts and circumstances: Overview: The scheme that is the subject of this ruling involves the proposed demerger of Company B by Company A. Company A Company A is the head company of a consolidated group for tax purposes. Company A has ordinary and A class shares on issue. The Shareholder is a Company A shareholder. The Shareholder owns ordinary shares in Company A that were acquired before 20 September 1985. Company B Company B is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Company A. At the time of the proposed demerger, Company B will have ordinary and A class shares on issue. All of the shares currently on issue in Company B were acquired after 20 September 1985. Proposed demerger of Company B from Company A Company A proposes to undertake a restructure under which 100% of its shareholding in Company B will be distributed to the holders of ordinary and A class shares in Company A (Company A shareholders). Under the proposal, the owners of ordinary shares in Company A will receive ordinary shares in Company B (and nothing else) in the same proportion to their existing shareholding of ordinary shares in Company A. The owners of A class shares in Company A will receive A class shares in Company B (and nothing else) in the same proportion to their existing shareholding of A class shares in Company A. Accounting for the distribution In accounting for the proposed demerger, Company A will register in its books of account the current market value of Company B by debiting an amount to share capital and the remainder to retained earnings.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Subsection 6(1). | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Division 7A. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 44. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 45B. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 45BA. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 45C. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 109C. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 109L. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 177A. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 177D. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 318. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 104-135. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Division 110. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Division 112. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Division 125. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 125-55. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 125-65. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 125-70. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 125-80. | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 975-300. | Tax Administration Act 1953 Schedule 1 Section 359-45.

Reasons for decision: Summary: Company A shareholders will be entitled to choose demerger roll-over relief pursuant to section 125-55 of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: In order for the demerger capital gains tax (CGT) outcomes contained in Division 125 of the ITAA 1997 to apply to shareholders and members of a company group, a number of defined terms must be satisfied, including: · demerger group (subsection 125-65(1) of the ITAA 1997); · demerger (subsection 125-70(1) of the ITAA 1997); · demerged entity (paragraph 125-70(6)(a) of the ITAA 1997); and · demerging entity (paragraph 125-70(7)(a) of the ITAA 1997). | Detailed Reasoning - Demerger Group: A demerger group comprises one head entity and at least one demerger subsidiary (subsection 125-65(1) of the ITAA 1997). The demerger group in this case comprises Company A as the head entity and includes Company B as a demerger subsidiary. Company A will be the head entity because: · no other member of the Company A Group owns ownership interests in Company A (subsection 125-65(3) of the ITAA 1997); and · there will be no other company or trust capable of being a head entity of a demerger group of which Company A could be a demerger subsidiary (subsection 125-65(4) of the ITAA 1997). Company B will be a demerger subsidiary of Company A because Company A owns ownership interests in Company B that carry more than X% of the rights to any distribution of income and capital, and the right to exercise more than X% of the voting power of Company B (subsection 125-65(6) of the ITAA 1997). | Detailed Reasoning - Demerger: Subsection 125-70(1) of the ITAA 1997 describes when a demerger happens. A demerger will happen to the Company A demerger group because: · there will be a restructuring (paragraph 125-70(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997), and Company A will dispose of at least 80% of its Company B shares to the owners of Company A (subparagraph 125-70(1)(b)(i) of the ITAA 1997); · under the restructuring, CGT event G1 will happen to Company A shares and Company A shareholders will acquire new shares in Company B and nothing else (subparagraph 125-70(1)(c)(i) of the ITAA 1997); · Company B shares will be acquired by Company A shareholders on the basis of their ownership of shares in Company A (paragraph 125-70(1)(d) and subparagraph 125-70(1)(e)(i) of the ITAA 1997); · neither Company A nor Company B are superannuation funds (paragraph125-70(1)(g) of the ITAA 1997); · Company A shareholders will acquire Company B shares in the same proportion as they own Company A shares just before the demerger (paragraph 125-70(2)(a) of the ITAA 1997); · each of the Company A shareholders will own shares in Company A and Company B that (just after the demerger) represent the same proportionate total market value as their Company A shares represented (just before the demerger) (paragraph 125-70(2)(b) of the ITAA 1997); · under the scheme, there will be no buy-back of shares for the purposes of Division 16K of Part III of the ITAA 1936 (subsection 125-70(4) of the ITAA 1997); and · there will be no roll-over available under another provision for any CGT events that happen to the Company A shares under the restructure (subsection 125-70(5) of the ITAA 1997). | Detailed Reasoning - Company B is the demerged entity: Relevantly, subsection 125-70(6) of the ITAA 1997 defines a demerged entity to be a former member of a demerger group in which ownership interests are acquired by shareholders of the head entity under a demerger. In the present circumstances, Company B will be the demerged entity since the Company A shareholders will receive shares in Company B under a demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Company A is the demerging entity: Relevantly, subsection 125-70(7) of the ITAA 1997 defines a demerging entity to be a member of a demerger group who disposes of at least 80% of its total ownership interests in another member of the demerger group to owners of original interests in the head entity under a demerger. In the present circumstances, Company A will be the demerging entity since it will dispose of 100% of its shares in Company B to the Company A shareholders under a demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Can the Company A shareholders choose demerger roll-over?: Subsection 125-55(1) of the ITAA 1997 relevantly provides that demerger roll-over may be chosen if: · a shareholder owns a share in a company - the Company A shareholders will satisfy this requirement; · the company is the head entity of a demerger group - this requirement will be satisfied; · a demerger happens to the demerger group - this requirement will be satisfied; and · under the demerger a CGT event happens to the original interest (Company A shares) and a new or replacement interest is acquired in the demerged entity - this requirement will be satisfied as CGT event G1 will happen to the Company A shares when the Company A shareholders receive Company B shares under the demerger. Therefore the Shareholder (as a shareholder of Company A) will be eligible to choose roll-over under subsection 125-55(1) of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Capital gains and cost base adjustments for the Shareholder: The Shareholder will disregard any capital gain made as a result of CGT event G1 happening to their Company A shares as they were acquired before 20 September 1985 (subsection 104-135(5) of the ITAA 1997). This will be the case irrespective of whether they choose demerger roll-over. If the Shareholder chooses demerger roll-over: the first element of the cost base and reduced cost base of each Company A share and each corresponding Company B share they acquire under the demerger, will be the sum of the original cost bases (just before the demerger) of the Company A shares, apportioned over those Company A and Company B shares on a reasonable basis having regard to the market values (just after the demerger) of the Company A shares and Company B shares, or a reasonable approximation of those market values (subsections 125-80(2) and 125-80(3) of the ITAA 1997). If the Shareholder does not choose demerger roll-over: the first element of the cost base and reduced cost base of those Company B shares is calculated in accordance with the rules in Divisions 110 and 112 of the ITAA 1997 to be equal to their market value at the time of the demerger. | Summary: If the Shareholder chooses roll-over they will be taken to have acquired their Company B shares received under the proposed demerger arrangement on the same date as they acquired their corresponding shares in Company A. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Section 125-80 of the ITAA 1997 explains the consequences of choosing roll-over. In particular, subsection 125-80(5) of the ITAA 1997 provides that if you acquired all of your original interests before 20 September 1985, you are taken to have acquired all of your new interests before that day. As the Shareholder acquired their interests in Company A before 20 September 1985, if they choose roll-over, they will be taken to have acquired the Company B shares they receive under the proposed demerger on the same date they acquired their corresponding Company A shares. | Summary: The distribution of Company B shares that the Shareholder will receive under the scheme will not be a demerger dividend that is neither assessable income nor exempt income pursuant to subsections 44(3) and 44(4) of the ITAA 1936. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Subsection 44(1) of the ITAA 1936 includes in a shareholder's assessable income a dividend, as defined in subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936, paid to a shareholder out of company profits. A demerger dividend, as defined under subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936, means that part of a demerger allocation that is assessable as a dividend under subsection 44(1) of the ITAA 1936 or that would be so assessable apart from subsections 44(3) and 44(4) of the ITAA 1936. | Detailed Reasoning - Capital reduction amount: The definition of a dividend in subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936 excludes amounts debited against an amount standing to the credit of the share capital account of the company (paragraph (d) of the subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936 definition of a dividend). As the capital reduction amount will be debited against an amount standing to the credit of the share capital account (as that term is defined in section 975-300 of the ITAA 1997) of Company A, it will not be a dividend as defined in subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936. Therefore, the capital reduction amount will not be assessable income of the Shareholder for the purposes of subsection 44(1) of the ITAA 1936. | Detailed Reasoning - Dividend: The definition of a dividend includes any amount distributed or credited by a company to any of its shareholders. Therefore, the in specie distribution of the Company B shares will, in part, constitute a dividend of the Shareholder. The total amount of the dividend will be the market value of the Company B shares at the time of the demerger excluding the amount debited to the share capital account of Company A. In general, a dividend satisfied by an in specie distribution of property (such as shares in a subsidiary) will be a dividend paid out of profits derived if, immediately after the distribution of that property, the market value of the assets of the company exceed the total amount (as shown in the company's books of account) of its liabilities and share capital (see paragraph 8 of Taxation Ruling TR 2003/8). However, a demerger dividend is taken not to have been paid out of profits and is neither an assessable income nor an exempt income amount (subsections 44(3) and 44(4) of the ITAA 1936) where: · the dividend is a demerger dividend (as defined in subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936); · the head entity does not elect that subsections 44(3) and 44(4) of the ITAA 1936 do not apply to the demerger dividend (subsection 44(2) of the ITAA 1936); and · subsection 44(5) of the ITAA 1936 is satisfied. In the present circumstances, the dividend paid to the Shareholder under the demerger satisfies the conditions necessary to be a demerger dividend. | Detailed Reasoning - Amount not taken to be a demerger dividend: However, the concept of a demerger dividend is also subject to the dividend integrity measure in sections 45B to 45D of the ITAA 1936. In particular, section 45BA of the ITAA 1936 explains that where a determination under paragraph 45B(3)(a) of the ITAA 1936 is made, the whole or part of the demerger benefit is taken not to be a demerger dividend. In the circumstances described in the ruling application, the Commissioner would make a determination under paragraph 45B(3)(a) of the ITAA 1936 that section 45BA of the ITAA 1936 applies in relation to the whole, or part, of the demerger benefit. As a result, no part of the dividend paid to the Shareholder under the demerger will be taken to be a demerger dividend. The shareholder would therefore be required to include the value of this dividend in their assessable income under subsection 44(1) of the ITAA 1936. | Summary: If the scheme were to go ahead as proposed, the Commissioner would make a determination under paragraph 45B(3)(a) of the ITAA 1936 that section 45BA of the ITAA 1936 applies to the whole, or part, of the 'demerger benefit' provided under the proposed scheme. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Subsection 45B(1) of the ITAA 1936 provides that the purpose of section 45B of the ITAA 1936 is to ensure that relevant amounts are treated as dividends for tax purposes if the capital and profit components of a demerger allocation do not reflect the circumstances of the demerger, or certain payments, allocations or distributions are made in substitution for dividends. Subsection 45B(2) of the ITAA 1936 sets out the conditions that must be met in order for section 45B of the ITAA 1936 to apply. Relevantly, this section applies if: · there is a scheme under which a person is provided with a demerger benefit or capital benefit by a company (paragraph 45B(2)(a) of the ITAA 1936); and · under the scheme a taxpayer, who may or may not be the person provided with the demerger benefit or the capital benefit, obtains a tax benefit (paragraph 45B(2)(b) of the ITAA 1936); and · having regard to the relevant circumstances of the scheme, it would be concluded that the person, or one of the persons, entered into the scheme or carried out the scheme or any part of the scheme for a purpose, other than an incidental purpose, of enabling a taxpayer to obtain a tax benefit (paragraph 45B(2)(c) of the ITAA 1936). Where the requirements of subsection 45B(2) of the ITAA 1936 are met, subsection 45B(3) of the ITAA 1936 empowers the Commissioner to make a determination under either or both of section 45BA of the ITAA 1936 in relation to a demerger benefit and section 45C of the ITAA 1936 in relation to a capital benefit. The effect of a determination made under paragraph 45B(3)(a) of the ITAA 1936 is that part or all of a demerger benefit will be treated as not being a demerger dividend (subsection 45BA(1) of the ITAA 1936). The effect of a determination made under paragraph 45B(3)(b) of the ITAA 1936 is that part or all of a capital benefit will be an unfranked dividend paid to the relevant taxpayer out of profits (subsections 45C(1) and 45C(2) of the ITAA 1936). | Detailed Reasoning - Scheme: A 'scheme' for the purposes of section 45B of the ITAA 1936 is taken to have the same meaning as provided in subsection 177A(1) of Part IVA of the ITAA 1936. That definition is widely drawn and includes any agreement, arrangement, understanding, promise, undertaking, scheme, plan, or proposal. In particular, a scheme is anything that satisfies any of the terms in the statutory definition. In the present circumstances, the following features are considered to constitute the relevant scheme for the purposes of section 45B of the ITAA 1936: · the transfer of shares in Company B to the Company A shareholders under the demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Demerger benefit and capital benefit: The provision of ownership interests to a shareholder under a demerger constitutes the shareholder being provided with a demerger benefit (subsection 45B(4) of the ITAA 1936). Therefore, under the proposed scheme, the market value of the Company B shares provided to the Company A shareholders constitutes a demerger benefit. The provision of those Company B shares also constitutes a capital benefit to the extent it is not a demerger dividend (paragraph 45B(5)(a) and subsection 45B(6) of the ITAA 1936). As such, the market value of the Company B shares distributed under the demerger less the demerger dividend is a capital benefit provided to the Company A shareholders. | Detailed Reasoning - Tax benefit: Subsection 45B(9) of the ITAA 1936 provides, inter alia , that a relevant taxpayer 'obtains a tax benefit' if an amount of tax payable by that taxpayer would, apart from the operation of section 45B of the ITAA 1936, be less than the amount that would have been payable if the 'demerger benefit' had been an assessable dividend or the capital benefit had been a dividend. As a result of the demerger, the Shareholder would, apart from the operation of section 45B of the ITAA 1936, receive a demerger dividend equal to the market value of the shares in Company B at the time of the demerger less the amount debited to share capital that is neither assessable income nor exempt income. The tax payable by the Shareholder on the demerger would be higher if the demerger benefit was an assessable dividend. Accordingly, the Shareholder will obtain a tax benefit for the purposes of section 45B of the ITAA 1936. | Detailed Reasoning - More than incidental purpose: Given that the proposed demerger is a scheme that provides a tax benefit to the Company A shareholders, the operation of section 45B of the ITAA 1936 turns on the objective purpose test in paragraph 45B(2)(c) of the ITAA 1936. This paragraph provides that the section will apply if enabling the shareholder to obtain the tax benefit is a more than incidental purpose of the scheme. The requisite purpose is to be determined having regard to the relevant circumstances of the scheme which are listed inclusively in subsection 45B(8) of the ITAA 1936. Each of the circumstances must be considered in order to determine whether or not, individually or collectively, they reveal the existence of the requisite purpose. The relevant circumstances include the tax and non-tax (i.e. business and other financial) implications of the scheme, the latter covered largely by the matters in paragraph 177D(b) of the ITAA 1936, which are included in subsection 45B(8) of the ITAA 1936 by virtue of paragraph (k). The relevant circumstances contained in subsection 45B(8) of the ITAA 1936 are considered in detail below. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(a) of the ITAA 1936 - Appropriate capital and profit allocation: Paragraph 45B(8)(a) of the ITAA 1936 directs attention to the composition, as between share capital and profits (realised and unrealised), of the demerger benefit provided to the head entity's owners. If the composition of the demerger benefit is inconsistent with the substance (that is, the capital and profit it is attributable to) this would tend to a conclusion that the requisite purpose exists. In the present case, the proposed demerger will result in a return of capital and amounts in excess of this, a demerger dividend sourced from retained earnings. Whilst it is evident that the share capital component under the proposed demerger is nominal, with the majority of the distribution being represented by the retained earnings of Company A which have not been distributed in the past, there is no indication that the components of the demerger benefit, as between paid in capital and profits, have not been properly attributed to each. Therefore in that regard, this factor does not incline towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(b) of the ITAA 1936 - Pattern of distributions: Paragraph 45B(8)(b) of the ITAA 1936 directs attention to the pattern of distributions of dividends, bonus shares and returns of capital or share premium by the company or an associate (within the meaning in section 318 of the ITAA 1936) of the company. The inference here is that an interruption to the normal pattern of profit distribution and its replacement with a distribution under a demerger would suggest dividend substitution. In the current circumstances, it is apparent from the financial history of the entities that both Company B and Company A have accumulated profits over time, electing not to release these in the form of dividend distributions to their respective shareholder's. In the Commissioner's view, the distribution of the dividend that results from the demerger of Company B from Company A is extraordinary when compared with the pattern of dividend distributions made pre demerger. The retention of profits in Company B suggests that the proposed scheme provides an opportunity to distribute these profits to the Shareholder in a tax effective manner. The demerger allows the Shareholder to acquire direct ownership of Company B and in doing so, secures a tax effective mode of accessing the profits of the company in the form of a demerger dividend that is neither assessable income nor exempt income. But for the demerger, any dividend distribution by Company B would flow to Company A and subsequently to the Shareholder as an assessable dividend and taxed at their marginal rate. This factor inclines towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(c) of the ITAA 1936 - Capital losses: This circumstance is concerned with whether there is an advantage to the taxpayer in dealing in capital rather than income. A taxpayer with capital losses may be in a position to offset any capital gain from the subsequent disposal of new ownership interests. Hence a shareholder with sufficient capital losses has the ability to turn the profit distribution into money tax free. In the present circumstances, the Shareholder does not have any capital losses. Accordingly, this factor does not incline towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(d) of the ITAA 1936 - Pre-CGT ownership interests: This circumstance looks at the CGT status of the ownership interest in the head entity, and as a result of the demerger, the CGT status of the ownership interests in the demerged entity. In other words, the decision to deliver ownership interests under a demerger could be influenced by owners of the head entity receiving new pre-CGT interests. As the Shareholder acquired their shares in Company A before 20 September 1985, they are considered to be a pre-CGT asset. Although the shares in Company B were acquired by Company A after 20 September 1985 (i.e. rendering the shares post-CGT), upon the demerger happening, the Company B shares will be deemed pre-CGT assets in the hands of the Shareholder by virtue of subsection 125-80(5) of the ITAA 1997. As such, the Shareholder receives pre-CGT interests in Company B, that, but for the demerger, have a post-CGT status when held by Company A. Whether CGT event K6 arises on any subsequent disposal of the Company B shares will be dependant on the relative market values of the assets that were acquired pre 20 September 1985 and post 20 September 1985 at the time of the disposal of the shares. In any event, there are still advantages to the Shareholder in obtaining pre-CGT interests. CGT event K6 only applies to that proportion of the share interest attributable to post-CGT assets. Based on the information available, the conversion of the Company B shares into pre-CGT interests for the Shareholder inclines towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(e) of the ITAA 1936 - Residency: In the present circumstances, the Shareholder is an Australian resident for income tax purposes. Therefore this factor does not incline towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(f) of the ITAA 1936 - Cost base of ownership interests: Paragraph 45B(8)(f) of the ITAA 1936 directs attention to whether the cost base (for the purpose of the ITAA 1997) of the relevant ownership interest provided to the head entities owner is not substantially less than the value of the applicable capital component of the demerger benefit or the capital benefit. The demerger could be influenced by the opportunity to obtain a distribution under a demerger that is subject to the CGT roll-over which, but for the concession, would result in a capital gain. As the Shareholder acquired their shares in Company A prior to 20 September 1985 this factor is not considered to be relevant to the current situation. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(h) of the ITAA 1936 - Nature of interest after the demerger: This provision requires a comparison of the respective interests held by shareholders after the distribution of capital. In this case the capital interest held by the Shareholder after the proposed distribution will be the same as the interests would have been if an equivalent dividend had been paid instead of the distribution of share capital. This factor is not considered to be relevant to the current situation. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(i) of the ITAA 1936 - Provision of ownership interests and later disposal: Paragraph 45B(8)(i) of the ITAA 1936 directs attention to those cases where the scheme of demerger involves the provision of ownership interests and the later disposal of those interests, or an increase in the value of ownership interests and the later disposal of those interests; recognising that the proceeds on disposal of such ownership interests provide the equivalent of a cash dividend in a more tax-effective form. The Applicant has advised that the proposed scheme of the demerger does not involve the later disposal of ownership interests. On the basis that a later disposal is not in contemplation under the scheme, this factor does not incline towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(j) of the ITAA 1936 - Transactions between entity and associates: Paragraph 45B(8)(j) of the ITAA 1936 is stated to apply only to demergers and requires that regard be had to whether the profits and assets of the demerging entity are attributable to or acquired under transactions with associated entities (within the meaning of section 318 of the ITAA 1936). The demerging entity is the entity that provides ownership interests in the demerged entity to the head entity owners (paragraph 81 PS LA 2005/21). This circumstance looks at whether there has been a concentration of assets and profit in the demerging entity that can be attributable to that of associates. In the present circumstances there is no evidence to suggest that there has been a concentration of assets and profit in Company A in readiness for demerger. Accordingly, this factor does not incline towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 45B(8)(k) of the ITAA 1936 - Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 matters: This circumstance requires regard to be had to any of the matters referred to in subparagraphs 177D(b)(i) to 177D(b)(viii) of the ITAA 1936. The incorporation of the Part IVA factors into section 45B of the ITAA 1936 does not introduce a different (dominant) purpose test into section 45B of the ITAA 1936. The matters are applied in the context of the 'more than incidental purpose test' in section 45B of the ITAA 1936. The eight matters in paragraph 177D(b) of the ITAA 1936 constitute the essential facts and circumstances of a scheme, including the outcomes for the parties to the scheme, by reference to which the tax and non-tax objects of the scheme can be identified and contrasted from an objective point of view. If, on the one hand, reference to the matters in paragraph 177D(b) of the ITAA 1936 reveal that the essential object of a demerger is to produce changes and improvements to the business structures of the corporate group, the tax free aspect of the transfer of ownership interests to the head entity's owners is more likely to be an incidental object of the demerger. If, on the other hand, reference to those matters reveals that the transfer of ownership interests from the corporate group to the head entity's shareholders is an essential object of the scheme, the tax-free aspect of the transfer would ordinarily be a substantial object of the demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 177D(b)(i) of the ITAA 1936 - Manner: As stated in paragraph 87 of PS LA 2005/21, an inquiry into the manner of the scheme is an objective inquiry as to the reasons for entering into it. In the context of the policy intent behind the demerger's measure, 'manner' is examinable from the perspective of the scheme being a business restructure. In considering section 45B of the ITAA 1936, it will be more likely to apply to a demerger where the decision to execute a restructure cannot be explained by reasons other than the tax-free distribution to shareholders. The Applicant has advanced a number of reasons for undertaking the proposed demerger. These are considered in detail below. | Detailed Reasoning - Enhanced business efficiency: The Applicant considers that a demerger would allow the two discrete and very different businesses operated by Companies A and B to further develop in their own right, having regard solely to their business objectives and with the aim of becoming wholly independent of the other. The Applicant however has not identified how the proposed demerger would in fact facilitate the development of the businesses in their own right post demerger. Ordinarily it is considered that when a demerger is being undertaken for business efficiency reasons, this would be reflected in the structural, financial and personnel changes that would be expected to be made to the entities post demerger as a means of improving profitability. In the present circumstances insufficient evidence has been presented to suggest that the proposed demerger will bring about any such changes to either Company A or Company B. The Applicant has also failed to provide an explanation as to why having the shares in Company B held directly by the Shareholder will create greater efficiency in conducting the businesses. There is no evidence to suggest that the business operations or management structure of Company A or Company B will change in any way following the demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Flexibility: The Applicant considers that Company A's ability to deal with each of two separate businesses (i.e. Company A and Company B) is compromised under the current structure and that third parties are highly likely to be interested in dealing with only one of the two categories of business within the group. As such Company A considers it desirable to have an ownership structure in place that provides it with the maximum flexibility to affect a sale, merger or takeover should it choose. Based on all of the information submitted, it is the Commissioner's view that the driving force behind the demerger is the desire for the Company A shareholders to be able to deal directly with the Company A and Company B shares. Relevantly, upon the demerger happening, the Company A shareholders receive pre-CGT interests in Company B, that, but for the demerger, have a post-CGT status when held by Company A. This is a significant tax advantage if there is a later disposal of Company B. Whilst the relevant taxpayers may not have an immediate intention to sell their holdings in either Company A or Company B, the demerger enables the relevant taxpayers to have interests in two separate businesses and in doing so, achieve pre-CGT status for both. In the Commissioner's view, allowing the Company A shareholders 'flexibility' to dispose of their interests in Company B (or Company A) is more directed to a later disposal of the shares rather than one directed towards a business restructure which would bring with it the associated business improvements. | Detailed Reasoning - Financing of activities: The Applicant considers that a demerger would remove the requirement for Company A to provide parent-guarantees to Company B clients and allow Company A to consider its own business objectives and opportunities. Significantly however, Company A is not required to secure any of its assets under a number of these arrangements. Further, whilst the Applicant has stated that it is the intention of the Company A directors that post demerger, Company B will be required to make its own financial arrangements independent of Company A, the Applicant does not specify how this will be done or the time frame involved. It is also unknown whether it is indeed possible for these arrangements to be re-negotiated or withdrawn. The current financial arrangements between the entities indicate that Company A provides significant financial support to Company B. Given the level of financial support it is unclear how Company B will have financial independence post demerger Further any surplus cash generated by Company B is generally made available to Company A when required via inter-company loans. In this regard it is unclear whether Company B could in fact severe its financial ties with Company A and if so, the time period for when the provision of surplus cash to Company A would cease. In the Commissioner's view, the significant financial support between Company A and Company B and the lack of supportive information to illustrate how the entities would be viable as discrete independent stand alone businesses suggests that Company A and Company B will continue to be financially interdependent post demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Asset protection: The Applicant asserts that a demerger will assist in protecting the investment business and other assets of Company A from any liabilities arising from what it claims is Company B's more risky activities. However, asset protection is a matter which, generally speaking, concerns the protection of shareholders' wider assets from the risk of exposure to liabilities incurred by the corporation in which they hold shares. As such asset protection is not a matter which will substantially affect the business operations of Company A or Company B. By virtue of the Corporations Act 2001 , one of the main benefits of creating a company limited by shares is that the liability of the shareholders will be limited , meaning that, in the case of financial disaster, the shareholders only have to provide funds to the company to the extent of the fully paid-up value of their shares in that company. Further, it is only in exceptional circumstances that the corporate veil will be pierced, in particular cases involving insolvency and even then, a number of requirements must be satisfied. In the present circumstances there is also no evidence to suggest that the purportedly riskier activities of Company B will put Company A at risk of creditors due to insolvency. | Detailed Reasoning - Imminent estate planning considerations: The Applicant states that the Company A shareholders wish to be in a position to deal directly with the Company B shares, particularly for estate planning purposes. A demerger would allow the owners of Company A to have separate equity interests for both Company A and Company B and to deal with these interests separately. This is not possible under the current structure. In the Commissioner's view, estate planning is not a factor that supports the operational business efficiency merits of a demerger of Company B from Company A. Rather, estate planning is an indication of the desire of the Company A shareholders to deal with Company A and/or Company B separately, and without regard as to how the business operations of the demerger group would improve post demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: Given the absence of substantive commercial reasons for the demerger, the tax benefit that the Shareholder receives in the form of a distribution of Company B shares, points towards there being a more than incidental purpose of obtaining a tax benefit. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 177D(b)(ii) of the ITAA 1936 - Form and substance: Subparagraph 177D(b)(ii) of the ITAA 1936 refers to the form and substance of the scheme. The form of a scheme is the way it presents and the substance of a scheme is a reference to its essential nature which normally would be determined from the effects of the scheme on the commercial and economic circumstances of the parties involved in the scheme. The proposed scheme takes the form of a demerger in that it would accord with the steps that satisfy the definition of demerger in section 125-70 of the ITAA 1997. The substance of the scheme, however, does not conform to a business restructure which creates discrete, independent businesses capable of enhancing their purported efficiency. Post demerger, there is no evidence to suggest there will be a transformation of Company A and Company B into two discrete independent businesses. Objectively, this would indicate that the substance of the proposed scheme is nothing more than the transfer of assets in specie by Company A to the Company A shareholders by way of a capital reduction and distribution of profit in the form of a demerger dividend. The reasons put forward by the Applicant for undertaking a demerger lack substance and fail to identify the commercial benefits that would be expected to flow from a demerger being driven for business efficiency reasons. Given Company A and Company B will continue to operate under the current management structure, the demerger would fail to bring about a separation of control in the decision making activities of either entity that would allow for them to be managed in a discrete, independent and autonomous manner. Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that Company A or Company B will operate under different commercial objectives or alter their functions post demerger that would see improvements to their businesses. Further, the desire to have a structure in place to facilitate a sale, merger or takeover and the ability to deal with both entities separately via such a transaction, or through estate planning, are indicative of the non-commercial reasons behind the proposed demerger. As a consequence of the scheme, the Shareholder will acquire direct ownership in Company B and will have the ability to deal with these interests separately. More importantly, the substance of the proposed scheme is the receipt by the Shareholder of a tax free distribution of profits by way of a transfer of shares. The difference between the form and substance points towards the obtaining of the tax exempt dividend (the shares) being a goal in itself rather than merely incidental to the change of share ownership. This factor points to a more than incidental purpose of enabling the Shareholder to obtain a tax benefit. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 177D(b)(iii) of the ITAA 1936 - Timing: This paragraph references not only time measurement but the timing of the scheme from the point of view of the scheme's coincidence with events or circumstances beyond the scheme itself, in particular, whether the scheme was designed to take advantage of events or changes of a tax or non-tax nature that were taking place or were available at the time. The timing of the scheme indicates that it may be directed towards estate planning rather than business objectives. However, on balance, this factor does not incline for, or against, a conclusion as to requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 177D(b)(iv) of the ITAA 1936 - Result in relation to the Act but for this Part: But for the application of section 45B of the ITAA 1936, the proposed scheme would result in the Shareholder receiving a demerger dividend tax free. This is an immediate consequence that prima facie , would point objectively to the requisite purpose of enabling the Shareholder to obtain a tax benefit. The proposed demerger also allows the post-CGT shares in Company B to be converted into and received by the Shareholder as pre-CGT shares. As such any later disposal of the Company B shares by the Shareholder would be either entirely tax free (by virtue of the demerger dividend being neither assessable income nor exempt income), or if CGT event K6 applies, would be subject to the 50% CGT discount under Division 115 of the ITAA 1997. This factor inclines towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 177D(b)(v) of the ITAA 1936 - Change in financial position of the relevant taxpayers: A demerger provides the head entity's owners with an ownership interest which, prior to the demerger, was owned by the corporate group, and in which, they had only the economic interest of an underlying owner. In financial terms, the demerger delivers to the head entity's shareholders an asset which they can liquidate, exchange or use as financial security. The essential benefit to the Shareholder's financial position from the proposed scheme is that they will obtain direct ownership of the Company B shares, having received them free of tax via a demerger dividend that is neither assessable income nor exempt income. Based on the market value of the Company B shares in the form of a pre-CGT asset, their acquisition by way of direct ownership free of tax represents a significant advantage to the Shareholder's financial position. | Detailed Reasoning - This factor inclines towards the requisite purpose.: Paragraph 177D(b)(vi) of the ITAA 1936 - Any change in financial position of any person other than the relevant taxpayers Relevantly, this matter would cover consideration of the financial changes for the corporate entities involved in the scheme that ordinarily would pertain to, or are consistent with a business restructure. In the present circumstances the operational and management structure of Company A and Company B will be unaltered post demerger. There is also no clear evidence to indicate that Company B will be financially independent of Company A and capable of being a viable stand alone entity. Further, upon the demerger happening the activities of both entities will, without evidence supporting otherwise, remain as they are prior to demerger. Given the lack of change in the business operations of Company A and Company B post demerger, this factor would point objectively to the tax purpose for the demerger being more than incidental. This factor inclines towards the requisite purpose Paragraph 177D(b)(vii) of the ITAA 1936 - Any other consequence for the relevant taxpayers or any other person Ordinarily, the features of a business restructure consistent with the commercial requirements of disparate or independent businesses would be expected to include changes to the decision making structure. In the current circumstances, based on the facts of the case, this factor inclines towards the requisite purpose. Paragraph 177D(b)(viii) of the ITAA 1936 - Connection between the relevant taxpayers and any person referred to in (vi) above The pertinent connection for the purposes of the scheme between the relevant taxpayers and the entities referred to in subparagraph 177D(b)(vi) of the ITAA 1936 is that of shareholder and company, the significance of which is the assessability of dividends, but for the demerger concession. The payment of profits by Company A to the Shareholder, which but for the demerger concession would be assessable, together with the limited apparent commercial reasons for the demerger indicate this factor inclines towards the requisite purpose. | Detailed Reasoning - Determination under paragraph 45B(3)(a) of the ITAA 1936: Having regard to the 'relevant circumstances' of the proposed scheme, as set out in subsection 45B(8) of the ITAA 1936, it is considered that the proposed demerger is being undertaken for the more than incidental purpose of obtaining a tax benefit. Accordingly, if the scheme were to go ahead as proposed, the Commissioner would make a determination under paragraph 45B(3)(a) of the ITAA 1936 that section 45BA of the ITAA 1936 applies to the 'demerger benefit' provided under the proposed scheme. The effect of such a determination would be that the whole or part of the demerger benefit would be taken to not be a demerger dividend. The Commissioner would not make a determination under paragraph 45B(3)(b) of the ITAA 1936 The Commissioner would not make a determination under paragraph 45B(3)(b) of the ITAA 1936 that section 45C of the ITAA 1936 applies. The capital reduction amount is not considered to disclose a purpose of making a distribution of share capital in substitution for a dividend. No part of the capital benefit amount could, objectively, be considered to represent a distribution made in substitution for a dividend. | Summary: Division 7A of the ITAA 1936 will not apply to the distributions that will be made under the proposed demerger. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Subsection 109L(1) of the ITAA 1936 provides, relevantly, that a private company is not taken under section 109C of the ITAA 1936 to pay a dividend because of a payment the private company makes to an entity, to the extent that the payment would be included in the entity's assessable income apart from Division 7A of the ITAA 1936. A payment to an entity for these purposes includes a transfer of property to the entity (paragraph 109C(3)(c) of the ITAA 1936). Under the proposed arrangement, the Company A shareholders will receive a demerger benefit in an amount equal to the market value of Company B shares at the time they are provided (subsection 45B(4) and paragraph 45BA(2)(a) of the ITAA 1936). As the Commissioner would make a determination that section 45BA of the ITAA 1936 applies, no part of this demerger benefit will be a 'demerger dividend' (subsection 45B(1) of the ITAA 1936). It follows that, to the extent that it is paid out of profits, the distribution of shares by Company A to its shareholders will give rise to assessable dividends under section 44 of the ITAA 1936 and, accordingly, will not attract the operation of Division 7A of the ITAA 1936 (section 109L of the ITAA 1936).

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.