Private ruling: Resettlement of a trust and capital losses
Date of advice: 27 June 2019
Published: September 2019
Ruling period: A specified period
Date scheme commenced: A specified date

Ruling: Q1: Does the change in ownership of the Fund (the Trust), caused by the acquisition of units by a related party or the subsequent acquisition of units by new investors in the Trust, result in the denial of the prior year net capital losses under the trust loss provisions in Schedule 2F of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936)? | A1: No | Q2: Did the events leading to the relaunch of the Trust cause a resettlement of the Trust such that the net capital losses incurred in prior income years cannot be utilised by the Trust in the income year in which the relaunch occurred or subsequent income years in working out the net capital gain of the Trust in accordance with section 102-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? | A2: No | Q3: Will the general anti-avoidance provisions in Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 apply to deny the availability of the Trusts' prior year net capital losses? | A3: No

Relevant facts and circumstances: The Trust: · The Fund (the Trust) is an Australian resident unit trust. · The Trust has a Responsible Entity (RE). · The RE manages a number of collective investment vehicles in the form of unit trusts. · The Trust made an election under Division 275 of the ITAA 1997 to apply deemed capital account treatment to the disposal of covered assets. · The Trust has elected into the AMIT regime. Pre-Relaunch: Establishment of the Trust and accumulation of capital losses · The Trust was established by a Constitution (the Original Constitution). · The Trust invested in a portfolio of equities and had a number of investors. · The Trust was seeded by the issue of units to an unrelated investor. · New investors came into the Trust and other investors redeemed from the Trust. · As a consequence of the global financial crisis, many investors redeemed their units in the Trust. · Just prior to the final external unitholder redeeming from the Trust a related entity to the RE applied for a nominal number of units in the Trust and became the sole unitholder. · There was no time during the period from initial settlement of the Trust to the present when the net assets of the Trust were zero or below. · In the income year prior to its relaunch, the Trust had net capital losses carried forward from prior income years. Relaunch of the Trust · During the 20XX income year, the Trust was relaunched. · The decision to relaunch the Fund was made independently and was based on commercial factors including time and cost benefits and was not dependent on the outcome of this ruling request. At the time the decision was made, there were no external unitholders in the Trust. · The investment mandate was altered within the scope of the Constitution. · Following the relaunch a new external investor subscribed for units in the Trust following the relaunch. This investor is unrelated to the RE and the Trust. · The existence of the net capital losses in the Trust was not disclosed to potential investors, including in any marketing material for the new Fund. The tax status of the Trust was not used as a selling point to new or potential investors. · Neither the RE nor the manager of the Trust advised the new investor of the existence of the capital losses. No information provided to potential investors indicated directly or indirectly the existence of the capital losses. Capital losses were not included in any statements regarding the anticipated performance of the Fund or investor returns. · At a time following the relaunch, the Original Constitution was replaced with the Current Constitution. · The Current Constitution has been updated for AMIT purposes. · The RE is in the business of funds management and derives income based on funds under management. It is part of its business to establish/maintain trusts and attract investors. Generally, when the final external unitholder of a trust redeems, it remains the intention of the RE to seek new investors and relaunch that trust as soon as possible. It is generally not the intention of the RE to close or wind-up a trust when the last investor redeems. The Original Constitution and Current Constitution were compared and reviewed as part of the private ruling process. · Original and current fund material (including Information Memorandums and Product Disclosure Statements) were compared and reviewed as part of the private ruling process.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Part IVA | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Schedule 2F | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 102-5

Reasons for decision: Summary: No, the change in ownership of the Trust caused by the acquisition of units by a related party or the subsequent acquisition of units by new investors in the Trust does not result in the denial of the prior year net capital losses under the trust loss provisions in Schedule 2F to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936). This is because net capital losses are not included in the calculation of tax losses under section 36-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) and as such the net capital losses incurred by the Trust are not included in the trust loss provisions in Schedule 2F to the ITAA 1936. Accordingly, the prior year carried forward net capital losses are not denied under Schedule 2F to the ITAA 1936. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: A tax loss of a trust can be carried forward and used to reduce the trust's net income in a later year, subject to certain tests. These tests, in the trust loss provisions in Schedule 2F to the ITAA 1936, restrict the use of tax losses and debt deductions. The trust loss provisions in Schedule 2F to the ITAA 1936 only apply to tax losses as defined in subsection 272-140(1) of Schedule 2F to the ITAA 1936. In that section a tax loss is defined as: (a) a loss within the meaning of former section 79E, 80 or 80AA; or (b) a film loss within the meaning of former section 79F or 80AAA; or (c) a tax loss worked out under section 36-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (including such a tax loss as increased under section 415-15 of that Act). Neither of paragraphs (a) or (b) of the definition of tax loss in subsection 272-140(1) of Schedule 2 of the ITAA 1936 are applicable in this case. Subsection 36-10(1) of the ITAA 1997 states that in order to work out a tax loss, the first step is to add up the amounts you can deduct for an income year (except tax losses for earlier income years). Subsection 102-10(2) of the ITAA 1997 states that you cannot deduct from your assessable income a net capital loss for any income year. As a net capital loss is not deductible, it is not included in the amount worked out in subsection 36-10(1) of the ITAA 1997. On that basis, net capital losses are not included in tax losses worked out under section 36-10 of the ITAA 1997. As such, the Trust's net capital losses are not a tax loss within the meaning of that term as defined in subsection 272-140(1) of Schedule 2F to the ITAA 1936, and hence, the trust loss provisions in Schedule 2F to the ITAA 1936 do not apply to deny the prior year net capital losses incurred by the Trust. | Summary: No, the events leading to the relaunch of the Trust did not cause a resettlement of the Trust and accordingly, continuity of the trust estate was maintained. As such, the net capital losses carried forward from prior income years are not lost and may be utilised in the income year in which the relaunch occurred and subsequent income years (if all the other conditions in the law are satisfied) in working out the net capital gain of the Trust in accordance with section 102-5 of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: It is clear that following Commissioner of Taxation v. David Clark; Commissioner of Taxation v. Helen Clark [2011] FCAFC 5; 2011 ATC 20-236; (2011) 79 ATR 550 (Clark's Case) that, at least in the context of recoupment of losses, continuity of the trust estate will be maintained so long as the trust is not terminated for trust law purposes. The test of continuity set out by the High Court in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Commercial Nominees of Australia Ltd [2001] HCA 33; 2001 ATC 4336; (2001) 47 ATR 220 (Commercial Nominees) has two limbs, namely, whether changes in one or more of the trust constitution, property and membership are such to: (a) terminate the existence of the trust, or (b) produce the result that it does not derive the income in question. Taxation Determination TD 2012/21 Income tax: does CGT event E1 or E2 in sections 104-55 or 104-60 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 happen if the terms of a trust are changed pursuant to a valid exercise of a power contained within the trust's constituent document, or varied with the approval of a relevant court? (TD 2012/21) states, at paragraph 1, that neither CGT event E1 nor CGT event E2 will occur where terms of a trust are changed pursuant to a valid exercise of a power contained within the trust's constituent document, or varied with the approval of a relevant court unless: · the change causes the existing trust to terminate and a new trust to arise for trust law purposes, or · the effect of the change or court approved variation is such as to lead to a particular asset being subject to a separate charter of rights and obligations such as to give rise to the conclusion that that asset has been settled on terms of a different trust. Continuity of a trust estate will be maintained so long as the trust is not terminated for trust law purposes. When the High Court in Commercial Nominees spoke of trust property and membership as providing two of the indicia for the continued existence of the eligible entity or trust estate, the Court was not suggesting that there had to be a strict or even partial identity of property for the first and objects for the second. It was speaking more generally: that there had to be a continuum of property and membership, which could be identified at any time, even if different from time to time; and without severance of one or both leading to the termination of the trust in question. Such an approach is consistent with the position at general law in relation to the four essential indicia of the existence of a trust: the trustee, trust property, the beneficiary and an equitable obligation annexed to the trust property. In accordance with the principles in Clark's case, the applicant has shown that there has always been at least one unit holder of the Trust at all times, even though their identities have changed over time. Although all of the external unit holders exited from the Trust before to its relaunch, prior to the exit of the last unit holder, a related party became a unit holder. As such, there has been a continuum of membership of the Trust without severance. There has also been a continuum of property as at all times there has been at a nominal amount of subscribed capital in the Trust, as prior to the last external unit holder exiting, a related party subscribed for a nominal number of units in the Trust. Further, there has been no time during the Trust's existence where there has been negative net assets. As such, it is considered that continuum of trust property has been established. Therefore, continuity of the trust estate has been established between the earliest time that the capital losses were incurred until the entry of the new investor following the Trust's relaunch because there has been a continuum of trust property and membership throughout that time period. The investment strategy and particulars have varied over time. Although the terms of the investment mandate and objectives of the investment fund of the Trust have changed because of the relaunch, these changes are all within the scope of the Trust's Original and Current Constitutions. Further, in accordance with a specific clause of the Original Constitution and Current Constitution (which replaced the Original Constitution), subject to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the RE may by deed replace or amend the Trust's constitution. As noted in an Amending Deed supplied with the private ruling application, the Original Constitution was replaced with the Current Constitution. Under the Current Constitution there were certain amendments made to the distribution clause and other minor changes. However, such changes are all within the scope of the Trust's Original and Current constitutions. The original information memorandum also indicates the portfolio of investments held by the Trust. This is consistent with the current portfolio focus. Furthermore, the Original and Current Constitution both permit the RE to vary its investment policy from time to time. Together, none of these changes are considered to cause a resettlement of the Trust. Therefore, it is considered there has been no resettlement of the Trust caused by the events prior to the relaunch of the Trust. As such, the net capital losses brought forward from prior income years are not lost because of these events and may be utilised in the income year in which the relaunch occurred and subsequent income years (subject to satisfying all the other conditions in the law, as applicable) in working out the net capital gain of the Trust in accordance with section 102-5 of the ITAA 1997. | Summary: No, the general anti-avoidance provisions in Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 will not apply to deny the availability of the Trusts' prior year net capital losses. Based on the information provided and having regard to the relevant circumstances of the scheme, it cannot be concluded that the scheme has been entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of enabling a taxpayer to obtain a tax benefit. Accordingly, Part IVA will not apply to deny the availability of the Trust's prior year net capital losses. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: For Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 to apply there must be: · a scheme as defined in section 177A of the ITAA 1936; · a taxpayer who obtains a tax benefit in connection with the scheme; · an objective conclusion, having regard to the eight matters in subsection 177D(2) of the ITAA 1936, that there was a sole or dominant purpose of enabling the taxpayer to obtain a tax benefit (as defined in section 177C of the ITAA 1936); and · a determination made by the Commissioner that, in the case of a tax benefit that is referable to an amount not being included in the assessable income of the taxpayer of a year of income, the whole or a part of that amount shall be included in the taxpayer's assessable income of that year of income: paragraph 177F(1)(a) of the ITAA 1936. Scheme Subsection 177A(1) defines the term scheme for the purposes of Part IVA as meaning: (a) any agreement, arrangement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether express or implied and whether or not enforceable, or intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings; and (b) any scheme, plan, proposal, action, course of action or course of conduct. Although scheme is defined in wide terms, a narrower scheme can exist within a set of arrangements if that narrower scheme can stand on its own as a separate scheme: FCT v Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 235; [2001] HCA 32. A scheme may not be identified so narrowly where the circumstances are incapable of standing on their own without being robbed of all practical meaning: FCT v Peabody (1994) 181 CLR 359. Tax Benefit For Part IVA to apply the taxpayer must have obtained, or would but for section 177F obtain, a tax benefit in connection with the scheme. A tax benefit will be obtained in accordance with paragraph 177C(1)(a) of the ITAA 1936, if an amount is not included in the taxpayers assessable income which would have been, or might reasonably be expected to have been, included if the scheme had not been entered into or carried out. Section 177CB of the ITAA 1936 then applies to decide, under section 177C, whether a tax effect (such as an amount being included in the assessable income of the taxpayer) would have occurred, or might reasonably be expected to have occurred, if a scheme had not been entered into or carried out. Subsection 177CB(2) of the ITAA 1936 states that a decision that a tax effect would have occurred if the scheme had not been entered into or carried out must be based on a postulate that comprises only the events or circumstances that actually happened or existed (other than those that form part of the scheme). Alternatively, subsections 177CB(3) and 177CB(4) of the ITAA 1936 apply to identify a tax benefit in relation to a scheme that also achieves substantive non-tax results or consequences. Subsection 177CB(3) states that a decision that a tax effect might reasonably be expected to have occurred if the scheme had not been entered into or carried out must be based on a postulate that is a reasonable alternative to entering into or carrying out the scheme. Under subsection 177CB(4), whether a postulate is a reasonable alternative to a scheme must be determined having particular regard to the substance of the scheme and any result or consequence for the taxpayer that is or would be achieved by the scheme, but disregarding any potential tax results that would be achieved by the postulate for any person. Dominant Purpose It is necessary to determine whether the dominant purpose of one of the parties entering into or carrying out the relevant scheme, did so for the purpose of obtaining a tax benefit. Subsection 177D(2) of the ITAA 1936 lists the factors to which regard is to be had in coming to a conclusion whether the relevant person had the degree of taxation purpose that must exist if section 177D of the ITAA 1936 is to make Part IVA apply. Conclusion Based on the information provided and having regard to the relevant circumstances of the scheme, it cannot be concluded that the scheme has been entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of enabling a taxpayer to obtain a tax benefit. Accordingly, Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 will not apply to deny the availability of the Trust's prior year net capital losses.