Private ruling: Dividend arising from marriage breakdown
Published: July 2013
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2013 | Year ended 30 June 2014
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2012

Ruling: Question and Answer: | Does the proposed payment of $X to you by the private company under orders of the Family Court result in an assessable dividend to you under section 44 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936)? | Yes

Relevant facts and circumstances: This ruling is based on the facts stated in the description of the scheme that is set out below. If your circumstances are materially different from these facts, this ruling has no effect and you cannot rely on it. The fact sheet has more information about relying on your private ruling. You, your spouse and the private company (the company) are parties to the proceedings before the Family Court of Australia. You are a director of the company and its sole shareholder. The company is a party to the Family Court proceedings. The company's net assets exceed $X. The company will pay you in cash the sum of $X at certain specified intervals. These payments will not be debited to share capital. The Court order will be binding on all parties including the company.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Subsection 6(1) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Section 44

Reasons for decision: Summary: Section 44 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) includes dividends paid by a company to a shareholder in that shareholder's assessable income depending on whether they are, or are taken to be, paid out of profits derived by the company. Section 44 relevantly provides: 44(1) [Shareholder assessable income] The assessable income of a shareholder in a company (whether the company is a resident or a non-resident) includes: (a) if the shareholder is a resident: (i) dividends (other than non-share dividends) that are paid to the shareholder by the company out of profits derived by it from any source; The word 'dividend' is defined in subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936 to include: (a) any distribution made by a company to any of its shareholders, whether in money or other property. | Detailed Reasoning - The meaning of distribution: The meaning of 'distribution' in context has been judicially considered and held: · to at least involve a dealing out or bestowal; · to encompass a very broad range of applications of company property and money to shareholders while the company is a going concern; · to undoubtedly be of wide import and concerned with the manner in which the shareholder receives the benefit of the dividend, emphasising that, in whatever manner the dividend reaches the shareholder it is to be regarded as assessable income; · that the legal form of the transaction and the capacity in which the benefit is conferred on the shareholder will be relevant factors; · to not require the existence of the conditions necessary to declare a lawful dividend under the Corporations Act . It is also to be observed the construction of paragraph 44(1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1936 is silent on the cause of the private company in making the distribution. | Detailed Reasoning - Paid out of profits: In terms of whether a distribution has been paid out of profits, paragraphs 15 and 16 of TR 2003/8 relevantly states: 15. In deciding whether, as a question of fact, a distribution has been made out of profits derived by the company in cases where the distribution is not formally acknowledged as such, a substantive approach should be adopted. There does not need to be a formal debiting of an account of profit of the company. So long as the market value of the company assets exceeds the total amount (as shown in its books of account) of its liabilities and share capital what remains is profits. If the distribution is not debited to share capital the distribution is one of profits. 16. Such an approach was adopted by the NSW Supreme Court in Masterman v. FCT 85 ATC 4015. In reaching its decision that the payment to shareholders in that case was a payment out of profits derived by the company, the court noted (at page 4030) that the company was solvent and that there was no evidence that the relevant payment was out of non-profit sources, and that 'commonsense would require that the company be kept solvent and that only surplus amounts not putting that requirement at risk be paid out'. | Detailed Reasoning - A dividend for tax purposes: It follows for tax purposes that it does not matter whether a dividend is intended or predicated upon any particular process. All that is required is a factual enquiry as to whether there is a distribution and whether it is made out of profits. | Detailed Reasoning - Your circumstances: You are a shareholder of a private company. Under the Family Court proceeding, you, your spouse and the private company will become parties to the Court proceeding. Family Court orders will obligate the private company to make a cash payment to you of $X. In your case both of the following are present: (a) a bestowal by the private company upon the shareholder in terms of the transfer of property; and (b) both in substance and legal form there is a Court ordered appropriation of private company profits to the shareholder. The Commissioner does not consider the authorities support a proposition that just because the distribution of profits is pursuant to a Court order that should alter characterisation as a dividend for tax purposes. The Court order is merely the impetus for the directors in resolving to make the distribution. Therefore, consistent with the approach in TR 2003/8, an assessable dividend arises under section 44 of the ITAA 1936. In conclusion, the payment you will receive from the private company is assessable to you as a dividend under section 44 of the ITAA 1936. | Detailed Reasoning - NOTE:: As the payment will be assessable as a dividend under section 44 of the ITAA 1936, it is not necessary to consider Division 7A of the ITAA 1936.