Prescriptions for reform of Australia's superannuation tax concessions

The highly controversial and often politicised issue of Australia’s retirement savings regime featured prominently throughout the two day Federal Government’s October 2011 Tax Forum. Calls for reform of this regime are by no means new. Reform debate over the years has focused on each of the three separate pillars: the age pension, compulsory superannuation, and voluntary saving, as well as the interaction of those three elements. However, recently there has been a significant shift away from reliance on the age pension, with its associated risks falling to the government, to a defined contributions scheme where the associated risks fall to the individual taxpayer. Consequently, Australia’s superannuation regime is predominantly subject to current debate, and, as such, the subject of this article. This article considers the history of Australia’s retirement savings regime, along with a framework for evaluating the superannuation tax concessions. It then discusses the recommendations of the Australian Future Tax System (AFTS) Review Panel and ensuing debate at the Tax Forum. Finally, it suggests two proposals to achieve the objectives of the AFTS Review in relation to retirement, those objectives being a system which is broad and adequate, acceptable to individuals, robust, simple and approachable, and finally sustainable. The first, whilst potentially requiring some tinkering’, is relatively simple and a blue print has already been provided to the Federal Government – the adoption of Recommendations 18 and 19 of the AFTS Review. The second is one of management. Superannuation concessions are fundamentally categorised as tax expenditures and the management of these tax expenditures, not just the reporting, should be undertaken.

Advance pricing arrangements : an Australian Tax Office success or a legislative failure?

Australia’s domestic income tax legislation and double tax agreements contain transfer pricing rules which are designed to counter the underpayment of tax by businesses engaged in international dealings between related parties. The current legislation and agreements require that related party transactions take place at a value which reflects an arm’s length price, that is, a price which would be charged between unrelated parties. For a host of reasons, it is increasingly difficult for multinational entities to demonstrate that they are transferring goods and services at a price which is reflective of the behaviour of independent parties, thereby making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the relevant legislation. Further, where an Australian business undertakes cross-border related party transactions there is the risk of an audit by the Australian Tax Office (ATO). If a business wishes to avoid the risk of an audit, and any ensuing penalties, there is one option: an advance pricing arrangement (APA). An APA is an agreement whereby the future transfer pricing methodology to be used to determine the arm’s length price is agreed to by the taxpayer and the relevant tax authority or authorities. The ATO views the APA process as an important part of its international tax strategy and believes that there are complementary benefits provided to both the taxpayer and the ATO. The ATO promotes the APA process on the basis of creating greater certainty for all parties while reducing compliance costs and the risk of audit and penalty. While the ATO regards the APA system as a success, it may be argued that the implementation of such a system is simply a practical solution to an ongoing problem of an inherent failure in both the legislation and ATO interpretation and application of this legislation to provide certainty to the taxpayer. This paper investigates the use of APAs as a solution to the problem of transfer pricing and considers whether they are the success the ATO claims. It is argued that there is no doubt that APAs provide a valuable practical tool for multinational entities facing the challenges of the taxation of global trading under the current transfer pricing regime. It does not, however, provide a long term solution. Rather, the long term solution may be in the form of legislative amendment.

Does charity begin and end at home for tax exemptions?

Charitable organisations have remained exempt from income tax in Australia since the first comprehensive state income tax legislation in 18841 through to the current Income Tax Assessment Act 1977. The charitable exemption was also part of the English income tax legislation from its inception in 1799. The Federal Treasurer has released exposure draft legislation which seeks to remove taxation exemptions from some tax exempt organisations that perform any of their activities outside Australia or make trust distributions overseas. The proposed legislation is in response to alleged tax avoidance arrangements which involve tax exempt organisations and charitable trusts. The paper begins by describing the current charity tax exemption provisions under the Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA). It then turns to tracing the background policy history of the amendments which appear to be at odds with the form and intent of the proposed provisions. The proposed amendments and their practical consequences are then closely scrutinised and found wanting in a number of respects. Alternative strategies are suggested to arrive at an equitable solution to the avoidance mischief.

Charitable grants and donations from maching gaming sources : Does it all work out in the wash up?

Material for this paper comes partly from a report commissioned by the Department of Family Services, Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. The report is the result of a multi-strategy research project designed to assess the impact of gaming machines on the fundraising capacity of charitable and community organisations in Queensland. The first Queensland gaming machine was commissioned on 11 February 1992. By 30 November 1994 there were: · 636 clubs operating 13,162 gaming machines · 436 hotels/taverns operating 3,468 gaming machines.1 It was anticipated that the introduction of gaming machines would impact on charities and community organisations. The adverse impacts would be through competition with charity gaming and disposable income that might otherwise be directed towards donations. Some also expressed concern that charities would be relied on to finance social services for problem gamblers. This paper seeks to describe the donations and grants derived by charities from Gaming Machine revenues. Such revenues primarily come from either government distributions from its gaming machine taxes and levies or gaming machine club donations. A final comment is made on the opinions of charitable fundraising professionals about the impact of gaming machine levies on club donations.

Small business entity tax concessions : through the eyes of the practitioner

The often competing imperatives of equity, simplicity and efficiency in the income tax regime, particularly the notion of simplicity, has been most evident within Australia’s small business sector over the last decade. In an attempt to provide tax simplification and reduce the tax compliance burden faced by Australian small businesses, provisions collectively referred to as the ‘simplified tax system’ or STS were introduced. The STS was designed to provide eligible small businesses with the option of adopting a range of ‘simplified’ tax measures designed to simplify their tax affairs whilst at the same time, reducing their tax compliance costs. Ultimately, a low take-up rate and accompanying criticisms led to a remodelled and rebadged concessionary regime known as the ‘Small Business Entity’ (SBE) regime which came into effect from 1 July 2007. This paper, through a pilot study, investigates the SBE regime though the eyes of the practitioner. In line the Australian Federal Government’s objective of simplification and reduced compliance costs, the purpose of the study was to (1) determine the extent to which the SBE concessions are being adopted by tax practitioners on behalf of their clients, (2) gain an understanding as to which individual SBE tax concessions are most favoured by practitioners, (3) determine the primary motivation as to why tax practitioners recommend particular SBE concessions to their clients, and (4) canvass the opinions of practitioners as to whether they believed that the introduction of the SBE concessions had met their stated objective of reducing tax compliance costs for small businesses. The findings of this research indicate that, while there is a perception that the SBE concessions are worth embracing, contrary to the policy intent, the reasons behind adopting the concessions was the opportunity to minimise a clients’ tax liability. It was revealed that adopting particular concessions had nothing to do with compliance costs savings and, in fact, the SBE concessions merely added another layer of complexity to an already cumbersome and complex tax code, which resulted in increased compliance costs for their small businesses clients. Further, the SBE concessions allowed tax practitioners the opportunity to engage in effective tax minimisation, thereby fulfilling the client advocacy role of the tax practitioner in maximising their clients’ tax preferences.

Charity tax exemptions : a stitch in time saves nine

The Industry Commission has recently released a wide ranging draft report on charitable organisations. Part of the Inquiry's terms of reference required the Commission to examine the appropriateness of the taxation treatment of charities. The findings of the draft report when combined with the recommendations of the Federal Parliament's Follow the Yellow Brick Road Report point to a systematic review by the Australian Tax Office (ATO) of its dealings with charitable organisations. Generally prevention rather than cure is the better strategy in taxation issues. This article raises a number of issues charitable organisations might consider as part of their prevention strategy. As the ATO administers all the taxes discussed in this article and as the tests for exemption are similar, charitable organisations should find that "getting it right" for one tax means that their affairs will be in order for most taxes.

A taxing definition — a comment on the industry commission's draft proposals for defining community social welfare organisations

The draft report of the Industry Commission's charitable organisations inquiry introduces a new term for nonprofit organisations delivering human services. The new term is "community social welfare organisation" or "CSWO". The report recommends that tax deductibility of donations be extended such organisations. It then hints at making the definition of CSWO a standard criteria for state taxation exemptions. This paper examines the definition of the new term community social welfare organisation and charts its possible consequences if adopted by the federal government. The promise of tax deductibility status to previously shunned organisations is largely illusory. The Commission's aim of simplification through clarification of the definition is flawed and will not reduce the administration costs for the Australian Tax Office (ATO) or organisations.

The inherent international tax regime and its constraints on Australia's sovereignty

On 1 November 2011 the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Honourable Bill Shorten MP, announced that Australia would be undertaking a reform of the ‘transfer pricing rules in the income tax law and Australia’s future tax treaties to bring them into line with international best practice, improving the integrity and efficiency of the tax system.’ Mr Shorten stated that the reason for the reform was that ‘recent court decisions suggest our existing transfer pricing rules may be interpreted in a way that is out-of-kilter with international norms.’ Further, he stated that ‘the Government has asked the Treasury to review how the transfer pricing rules can be improved, including but not limited to how to be more in line with international best practice.’ He urged all interested parties to participate in this consultation process. On 16 March 2012, an Exposure Draft and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum outlining the proposed amendments to implement the first stage of the transfer pricing reforms were released. Within the proposed changes is the explicit embedding of the use of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations to help determine the arm’s length price. Does this mean that Australia engages in an international tax regime?

Australia's adoption of an international tax regime : to engage or not to engage?

On 1 November 2011 the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Honourable Bill Shorten MP, announced that Australia would be undertaking a reform of the ‘transfer pricing rules in the income tax law and Australia's future tax treaties to bring them into line with international best practice, improving the integrity and efficiency of the tax system.’ Mr Shorten stated that the reason for the reform was that ‘recent court decisions suggest our existing transfer pricing rules may be interpreted in a way that is out-of-kilter with international norms.’ Further, he stated that ‘the Government has asked the Treasury to review how the transfer pricing rules can be improved, including but not limited to how to be more in line with international best practice.’ He urged all interested parties to participate in this consultation process.

"Money pouring out of its ears" : on the taxation of really profitable nonprofit organisations in Australia

Under current law Australia appears to be a tax haven for certain non-governmental institutions. Millions of ordinary business income may go untaxed and the deductibility for donations is unlimited - both are very generous tax measures in an international context. The basic problems of most Australian nonprofit organisations are not taxation; they are just that: nonprofit. Anybody interested in the non-governmental sector should be willing to face the question: What is an equitable tax treatment? The short-term tactic of ducking the question may not be the best or most beneficial long term strategy.