Disclaimer
This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication. It should not be regarded as indicative of the ATO's current views. The law may have changed since original publication, and views in the edited version may also be affected by subsequent precedents and new approaches to the application of the law.

You cannot rely on this record in your tax affairs. It is not binding and provides you with no protection (including from any underpaid tax, penalty or interest). In addition, this record is not an authority for the purposes of establishing a reasonably arguable position for you to apply to your own circumstances. For more information on the status of edited versions of private advice and reasons we publish them, see PS LA 2008/4.

Edited version of your written advice

Authorisation Number: 1051265725581

Date of advice: 16 August 2017

Ruling

Subject: Approved worker entitlement fund

Question 1

Will the Fund continue to be entitled to be endorsed as an approved worker entitlement fund pursuant to subsection 58PB(4) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA) in Scenario 1?

Answer

Yes

Question 2

Will the Fund continue to be entitled to be endorsed as an approved worker entitlement fund pursuant to subsection 58PB(4) of the FBTAA in Scenario 2?

Answer

Yes

Question 3

Where the Commissioner answers “no” to questions 1 and/or 2, will the Termination Entitlement Contribution (TEC) amounts received by the Fund from a specific employer in those scenarios constitute assessable income under section 6-5(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)?

Answer

No

Question 4

Where the Commissioner answers “no” to questions 1 and/or 2, will the Fund be liable to pay Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) under section 66(1) of the FBTAA in respect of the TEC amounts paid to the employees of an employer in those scenarios?

Answer

No

Question 5

Will a tax benefit for the Fund arise under section 177C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2?

Answer

No

Question 6

Will the Commissioner exercise his power to cancel a tax benefit under section 177F(1) of the ITAA 1936 under Scenario 1 or Scenario 2?

Answer

No

This ruling applies for the following periods

Year ending 31 March 2018

Year ending 31 March 2019

Year ending 31 March 2020

Year ending 31 March 2021

Year ending 31 March 2022

The scheme commenced on

1 April 2017

Relevant facts

The Fund is a trust established by deed. The terms of the trust deed are incorporated into and form part of the scheme

The trustee of the Fund is currently a nominee company. The administrator of the Fund is currently an independent third party.

The administrator of the Fund is responsible for the Fund’s administration in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. Since its establishment to date, the Fund has been entitled to be endorsed as an approved worker entitlement fund (AWEF).

The Fund was established for the following purposes as stated in the Background section of the trust deed:

The Trust has been established:

A specific employer is currently a participating employer in the Fund.

Previous arrangement between a specific employer and the Fund

A specific employer previously had an enterprise agreement in place, (previous EA), that was approved by the Commissioner of the Fair Work Commission.

The previous EA:

Under the terms of the previous EA, employer contributions of a certain amount per week, per employee, were to be made by a specific employer into the Fund.

When an employee leaves employment with a specific employer, they will be entitled to access the employer contributions accrued on their behalf.

Termination Entitlement Contribution

The TEC was made by a specific employer in addition to and did not offset any statutory entitlements that employees would otherwise be entitled to receive upon their termination including redundancy payments, leave payments, etc. The Fund accepted the TEC amounts from a specific employer and held the TEC amounts until they became payable under the terms of the trust deed.

A specific employer, as an employer, was required to sign a deed of adherence to ensure that the minimum contribution rate (as prescribed in the existing EA) is paid to the Fund.

In accordance with the trust deed, the TEC amounts paid by a specific employer to the Fund on behalf of its employees were credited to separate member (employee) accounts identifying the contributions for that member.

While employer contributions were credited to personal accounts of the Members, the trust deed provides that Members have no entitlement to the payment of an amount until the conditions set out in the trust deed have been satisfied.

The trust deed governs the conditions under which monies are held and payments are made under the Fund in relation to an employee’s entitlement. Payments may be made by a nominee company (as trustee of the Fund) to a specific employer (as the employer) and/or directly to the employee.

An employee of a specific employer would ordinarily receive their accrued TEC payment upon the termination of their employment.

A specific employer’s actions

A specific employer has since sought to alter the terms of the previous EA given the significant financial costs associated with contributing the current TEC amounts. A new enterprise agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission (new EA).

Existing arrangement between a specific employer and the Fund (Scenario 1)

The first scenario involves the adoption of the new EA by a specific employer.

Where the arrangements in Scenario 1 are adopted:

In this scenario, there will be no change to the terms of the trust deed for the Fund and the Fund would continue to:

There will be no change to the fund administrator of the Fund.

Proposed arrangement between a specific employer and the Fund (Scenario 2)

In the second scenario, a specific employer will negotiate a further alteration to the new EA whereby any interest generated from the accrued TEC amounts in the fund will be credited to (or reinvested in) the relevant employees’ Fund accounts.

In this scenario, the relevant employees will not have access to the TEC amounts prior to the termination of their employment. However, they will be entitled to receive the TEC upon the termination of their employment.

In this scenario, there will be no change to the terms of the trust deed for the Fund and the Fund would continue to:

There will be no change to the fund administrator of the Fund.

Relevant legislative provisions

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 58PB

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 66(1)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Part IVA

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 6-5(1)

Taxation Administration Act 1953 Section 426-55 of Schedule 1

Reasons for decision

Question 1

Will the Fund continue to be entitled to be endorsed as an approved worker entitlement fund pursuant to subsection 58PB(4) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA) in Scenario 1?

A fund will be an approved worker entitlement fund (AWEF) in either of the following two situations:

The Fund is currently endorsed as an AWEF. As such, it is relevant to consider whether the Fund would continue to be entitled to be endorsed as an AWEF where scenarios 1 and 2 are undertaken.

Conditions for endorsement as an AWEF

Section 426-55 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA) provides that endorsement of a fund as an AWEF through subsection 58PB(2) of the FBTAA may be revoked by the Commissioner if, at any time after endorsement, the entity is not entitled to endorsement.

Subsections 58PB(4), (4A) and (5) of the FBTAA set out the conditions that the Fund must satisfy in order to be entitled for endorsement as an AWEF under subsection 58PB(3) of the FBTAA. These subsections state that:

(vii) to pay the reasonable administrative expenses of the fund;

(ix) to pay interest on, or to repay, money lent to the fund; and

(i) a purpose mentioned in subparagraphs (c)(ii) to (ix);

(ii) to make payments to contributors to the fund;

(e) under the fund’s constituting documents:

(f) the fund, or the entity that operates the fund, has an ABN.

58PB(4A) An entity is entitled to be endorsed for the operation of a fund as an approved worker entitlement fund if the fund is entitled to be endorsed as an approved worker entitlement fund.

(c) either:

In scenario 1, a specific employer has adopted the new EA, meaning that:

Condition 1: subsection 58PB(4)(a)

The management of the fund will be unchanged. The contributors to the fund are various employers. The Fund is not associated with, and is acting at arm’s length to the employers who are contributing to the fund. In addition, the fund administrator has been appointed as an independent administrator of the Fund since the date of its establishment and will continue to be the fund’s administrator where the arrangements in this scenario are undertaken.

Therefore, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(a) is satisfied.

Condition 2: subsection 58PB(4)(b)

The Fund’s constituting documents, the trust deed, must specify that no more than 5% of the total assets of the fund are invested in an entity controlled by a contributor or an associate of a contributor, and the assets of the fund are not to be used to provide any financial assistance to a contributor or their associate or a person in respect of whom contributions are made or their associates.

The trust deed includes the following clauses:

Therefore, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(b) is satisfied.

Condition 3: subsection 58PB(4)(c)

Under the Fund’s constituent documents, the trust deed, payments from contributions to the fund will continue to be made only to pay worker entitlements.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2003 clarifies what is considered to be a worker entitlement at paragraph 7.39:

The Fund’s trust deed defines 'Employee Entitlements’ as:

The TEC amounts paid to the employees of a specific employer will be considered to be “worker entitlements” given:

The Fund will pay the worker entitlements, in the form of the TEC amounts, to persons, being employees of a specific employer, in respect of whom contributions are made.

Therefore, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(c) is satisfied.

Condition 4: subsection 58PB(4)(d)

Under the Fund’s constituting documents, the trust deed, payments from the income of the fund can only be made for the following purposes:

In this scenario, payments made from the income of the Fund would be made in relation to payments of the kind specified in subsection 58PB(5) given the following:

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2003 further supports the above reasoning and clarified at paragraph 7.38 that:

Payments are made of a worker entitlement nature to return contributions to contributors, or persons in respect of whom contributions are made, employees of a specific employer and other employers.

Therefore, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(d) is satisfied.

Condition 5: subsection 58PB(4)(e)

This condition specifies that the fund’s constituting document, the trust deed, must specify that:

In this scenario, the Fund’s trust deed would continue to provide that:

Therefore, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(e) is satisfied.

Condition 6: subsection 58PB(4)(f)

This condition requires that either the fund, or the entity that operates the fund, has an Australian Business Number (ABN) in place.

In this scenario, the Fund, the nominee company (as trustee of the Fund), and the fund administrator who will continue to operate the Fund, have current ABNs in place.

Therefore, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(f) is satisfied.

Conclusion

The Fund will continue to satisfy all the conditions in section 58PB(4)(a) to (f) to be entitled to be endorsed as an AWEF in scenario 1.

Question 2

Will the Fund continue to be entitled to be endorsed as an approved worker entitlement fund pursuant to subsection 58PB(4) of the FBTAA in Scenario 2?

In scenario 2, it is proposed that a specific employer will amend the new EA so that:

Unlike scenario 1, the employees will not have access to the TEC amounts prior to the termination of their employment and will only be entitled to receive the TEC upon the termination of their employment.

Condition 1: subsection 58PB(4)(a)

For the reasons given in scenario 1, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(a) is satisfied.

Condition 2: subsection 58PB(4)(b)

For the reasons given in scenario 1, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(b) is satisfied.

Condition 3: subsection 58PB(4)(c)

In scenario 2, the payments made to the employees would essentially consist of two components being:

For the reasons given in scenario 1, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(c) is satisfied.

The subsection relates to 'payments from contributions to the fund.’ The payment of interest will not be made from the contributions that a specific employer will make to the Fund. The subsection is not required to be satisfied with respect to interest payments to employees.

Condition 4: subsection 58PB(4)(d)

As in scenario 1, payments are made of a worker entitlement nature to return contributions to contributors, or persons in respect of whom contributions are made.

In the new EA, interest will be paid to relevant employees of a specific employer. Paragraph 58PB(4)(d) of the FBTAA allows a fund to be entitled to endorsement where, under the fund’s constituting documents, payments from the income of the fund are made according to the circumstances of subsection 58PB(5) of the FBTAA.

A payment of interest will be made by the Fund to an employee of a specific employer in circumstances where:

Therefore, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(d) is satisfied.

Condition 5: subsection 58PB(4)(e)

For the reasons given in scenario 1, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(e) is satisfied.

Condition 6: subsection 58PB(4)(f)

For the reasons given in scenario 1, the condition under subsection 58PB(4)(f) is satisfied.

Conclusion

The Fund will continue to satisfy the conditions to be entitled as an endorsed AWEF in scenario 2.

Question 3

Where the Commissioner answers “no” to questions 1 and/or 2, will the Termination Entitlement Contribution (TEC) amounts received by the Fund from a specific employer in those scenarios constitute assessable income under section 6-5(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)?

Section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997 provides that assessable income includes income according to ordinary concepts (ordinary income).

In Scott v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1966) 10 AITR 367; (1966) 117 CLR 514; (1966) 14 ATD 286 Windeyer J stated that:

In G. P International Pipecoaters Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 170 CLR 124; (1990) 21 ATR 1; 90 ATC 4413 the High Court considered the following factors important in determining the nature of a receipt:

Contributions to the Fund will be assessable income of the Trustee if they are income according to ordinary concepts under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997.

The Trust Deed states that the Fund has been established to provide a facility to enable employers to fund employee entitlements required under industrial agreements by holding the entitlements until they become payable under the terms of the Trust Deed.

The purpose of the Fund is therefore to use the contributions to protect employee entitlements under the various industrial instruments. The purpose is not to elicit funds from employers; the contributions are required by industrial instruments.

Pursuant to the powers of investment in the Trust Deed, the trustee can invest the contributions in their absolute discretion. The trustee must return any income and receipts from these investment activities to the revenue account which, after losses and outgoings, must be distributed to employers and/or members in accordance with the Trust Deed.

The contributions to the Fund are capital in nature and represent the corpus of the trust. Accordingly, the contributions are not assessable income of the trustee under section 6-5 of the ITAA 1997.

Question 4

Where the Commissioner answers “no” to questions 1 and/or 2, will the Fund be liable to pay Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) under section 66(1) of the FBTAA in respect of the TEC amounts paid to the employees of a specific employer in those scenarios?

Fringe benefits tax (FBT) is a tax payable by an employer for the benefits provided to an employee, or an associate of the employee, by the employer, or an associate of the employer.

Subsection 66(1) of the FBTAA provides that:

Employees of a specific employer, or an associate of a specific employer, are not employees of the Fund, or an associate of the Fund. There is no relationship of employment between the Fund and the employees of a specific employer. The Fund is not liable to pay FBT under subsection 66(1) of the FBTAA where TEC amounts are paid to the employees of a specific employer in either scenario 1 or 2.

Question 5

Will a tax benefit for the Fund arise under section 177C(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2?

Broadly, for Part IVA of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) to apply to an arrangement, each of the following requirements must exist:

The term 'scheme’ is defined in subsection 177A(1) of the ITAA 1936 as follows:

In this ruling, the scheme would likely involve the decision to implement the arrangements in scenario 1 and 2. For Part IV A to apply there must be a tax benefit attributable to the Fund.

The term 'tax benefit’ is defined in subsection 177F(1) to include:

In determining whether a tax benefit has arisen, there are two methods for quantifying the tax benefit.

The first method is the 'would have’ limb, or 'annihilation approach’, where the scheme is completely ignored, as stated in subsection 177CB(2) of the ITAA 1936:

The second method is the 'might reasonably be expected to have’ limb, or 'reconstruction approach’, where the tax benefit is based on a reasonable alternative hypotheses, as stated in subsection 177CB(3) of the ITAA 1936:

Annihilation approach

The annihilation approach involves an application of the following steps when determining whether a tax benefit would exist:

The TEC amounts contributed to the Fund in scenarios 1 and 2 are capital in nature and represent the corpus of the fund. The amounts are not treated as assessable income under subsection 6-5(1) of the ITAA 1936.

Alternatively, where scenarios 1 and 2 are not undertaken and are ignored in their entirety, the TEC amounts contributed to the Fund would still be capital in nature and represent the corpus of the fund. The amounts would not be treated as assessable income under subsection 6-5(1) of the ITAA 1936.

Given there would be no difference in the tax position of the Fund where the scheme is either in place or ignored in its entirety, there would be no tax benefit for the Commissioner to quantify if the annihilation approach was used.

Reconstruction approach

The reconstruction approach can be applied through the following steps to determine whether a tax benefit would exist:

Parameters of the scheme

Subsection 177CB(4) of the ITAA 1936 sets out the parameters of the scheme, as follows:

(a) have particular regard to:

(i) the substance of the scheme; and

In this case, the substance of the scheme is largely driven by the roles and objectives of the key stakeholders of the scheme being:

Based on the above, and where the scheme, being either scenario 1 or 2 are implemented, the results and consequences, other than tax results, for the Fund will be:

Possible alternative postulates

Alternative postulates need to be considered to identify other ways that the Fund could have started in the same position before carrying out the scheme, and ended in the same or similar position, apart from the tax result, as they did under the scheme.

The possible alternative postulates to scenario 1 based on the substance of the scheme would be:

Conversely, the possible alternative postulates to scenario 2 would be:

Comparability of the possible alternative postulates

Each of the alternative postulates would be considered to be reasonable alternative postulates for the Fund as each would achieve the objectives of each of the key stakeholders of the scheme.

Identifying a reasonable alternative postulate

In determining a reasonable alternative postulate having regard to the substance of the scheme:

In each of these postulates, the roles and objectives of the key stakeholders will remain the same. The purpose of the Fund will continue to be as follows:

Quantification of the tax benefit

Any difference between the tax position of the Fund under the scheme and under a reasonable alternative postulate constitutes a tax benefit.

The TEC amounts contributed to the Fund under the scheme in both scenarios 1 and 2 will be capital in nature and represent the corpus of the fund. The amounts will not be treated as assessable income under subsection 6-5(1) of the ITAA 1936.

The roles and objectives of the Fund will continue to be the administration of the fund. The tax position under each of the reasonable alternative postulates will not change. As a result, there will be no tax benefit for the Fund under either scenario 1 or 2.

Conclusion

There will be no tax benefit for the Fund under both the annihilation and reconstruction approaches where either scenario 1 or 2 is undertaken.

Question 6

Will the Commissioner exercise his power to cancel a tax benefit under section 177F(1) of the ITAA 1936 under Scenario 1 or Scenario 2?

The Commissioner has the power to 'cancel’ a tax benefit arising under a scheme to which Part IVA applies as stated in subsection 177F(1)(a) of the ITAA 1936 above.

In this case, there is no tax benefit for the Fund, and as such, the Commissioner cannot exercise his powers under section 177F(1) of the ITAA 1936 to cancel the tax benefit.


Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).