Edited version of private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1011651666904

This edited version of your ruling will be published in the public Register of private binding rulings after 28 days from the issue date of the ruling. The attached private rulings fact sheet has more information.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. Contact us at the address given in the fact sheet if you have any concerns.

Ruling

Subject: Trust Resettlement

Will the extension of the vesting date result in a resettlement of the trust and a consequential occurrence of any capital gain tax (CGT) events A1, E1, E2 or E8 as described in Division 104 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) for the trustee or a beneficiary of the trust?

No.

This ruling applies for the following periods:

1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011

1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012

1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013

1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014

The scheme commences on:

1 July 2010

Relevant facts and circumstances

The trust is a discretionary trust and was appointed by deed of settlement.

An appointor has been appointed under the trust deed. No guardian has been appointed under the Trust Deed.

The trust has been established for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

The trust deed states that the vesting day is the day upon which the beneficiary attains a certain age.

The trustee wishes to amend the trust deed to extend the vesting date.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 104-10.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 104-55.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 104-60.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 104-90.

Reasons for Decision

Part 3-1 and 3-3 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) provides for situations where a capital gain or loss may arise if a CGT event occurs. CGT event E1, as provided in section 104-55 of the ITAA 1997, occurs where a trust is created over a CGT asset. This will apply if changes to a trust deed result in one trust ceasing and being replaced by another trust.

The Creation of a new Trust Statement of Principles August 2001 (Statement of Principles) outlines when the Commissioner will treat changes as giving rise to a new estate.

It is noted that as the Statement of Principles is the Commissioner's view on the resettlement of trusts, the Commissioner must follow the guidelines outlined in the paper.

The Statement of Principles makes it clear that a change to the essential nature and character of the original trust relationship creates a new trust. The Statement of Principles considers a number of changes that may result in the creation of a new trust, which are listed below:

· Any change in beneficial interests in trust property

· A new class of beneficial interest ( whether introduced or altered)

· A possible redefinition of the beneficiary class

· Changes in the terms of the trust or the rights or obligations of the trustee

· Changes in the nature or features of trust property

· Additions of property which could amount to a new and separate settlement

· Depletion of trust property

· A change in the termination date of the trust

· A change to the trust that is not contemplated by the terms of the original trust

· A change in the essential nature and purpose of the trust; and/or

· A merger of two or more trusts or a splitting of a trust into two or more trusts.

Depending on their nature and extent, and their combination with other indicia, these changes may amount to a mere variation of a continuing trust, or alternatively to a fundamental change in the essential nature and character of the trust relationship. In the second case, the original trust is brought to an end and/or a new trust created.

The Statement of Principles highlights that creating a new trust will depend on the terms of the original trust, and on the powers of the trustee. In addition, the original intentions of the settlor must be considered in determining whether a new trust has been created.

Under part 5.2 of the Statement of Principles, the ATO will accept that in most circumstances the mere extension of the term of a trust is consistent with a continuing trust estate when:

· the trust deed confers an express power to alter the termination date

· the deed and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate that a particular trust period was a fundamental feature of the particular trust relationship; and

· other accompanying circumstances do not indicate a fundamental change to the trust

In some trusts, the specified term may be an essential feature whose variation could be a factor pointing towards the creation of a new trust. In these situations the subject matter of the trust can be most accurately described as the income and other benefits arising from the trust property over a particular period.

Express Power

The trust deed confers wide discretionary powers on the trustee to alter any of the provisions of the trust deed on the proviso that any variation shall be in favour of the General Beneficiaries or the Primary Beneficiaries or the next of kin as defined and not affect their beneficial entitlement. In addition, any variation shall not be in favour of the trustee or settlor.

In relation to whether the wide powers provided to the Trustee are sufficient to determine that the Deed confers an 'express power' to extend the vesting date, the Full Federal Courts comments in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Commercial Nominees Australia Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 147; (1999) 99 ATC 5115; (1999) 43 ATR 42 are relevant:

So long as any amendment of the trust obligations relating to such property is made in accordance with any power conferred by the instrument creating the obligations, and the continuity of property that is subject of trust obligations is established, there will be identity of the 'taxpayer…..notwithstanding any amendment of the trust obligation and any change in the property itself (emphasis added).

The comment in the above case support the conclusion that the implied power conferred in the Trust Deed meets the definition of express power and is sufficient to alter the extension date.

If the conditions in the relevant clauses of the trust deed are therefore satisfied, the trustee has the power to change the vesting date.

Under the current trust deed, neither the trustee nor the settlor are beneficiaries of the trust. As they are not beneficiaries, the assets can not be returned to the settlor or trustee.

As the proposed amendment is merely affecting the vesting date of the trust, the amendment will not be in favour of or for the benefit of the settlor or trustee.

In addition, the proposed amendments are not altering in any form any amounts that the beneficiaries are entitled to under the trust deed. The beneficiaries' entitlements which the trustee determines during the life of the trust and at the vesting date will therefore not be impacted by the proposed variation of the vesting date.

It is concluded that as the conditions in the relevant clause of the trust deed are satisfied, the trustee has an express power to alter the vesting date under the trust deed.

Trust period

It is provided in the Statement of Principles that in some trusts, the specified term may be an essential feature whose variation could be a factor pointing towards the creation of a new trust. In these situations, the subject matter of the trust can be most accurately described as the income and other benefits arising from the trust property over a particular period.

In this case, the Trust was established for the benefit of the beneficiaries outlined in the trust deed. The trust is therefore for the benefit of the beneficiaries and is not as a vehicle for a particular project or to hold an asset of intrinsically limited duration.

Therefore, the deed and surrounding circumstances do not indicate that the current term of the trust is a fundamental feature of the trust.

Fundamental change to the trust

The third matter to be considered by the Commissioner is whether the Vesting Date is considered to be a fundamental feature of the trust relationship. If so, then a variation to it will indicate a resettlement.

The trust deed provides for the trust fund to vest in the beneficiaries who are living when the trust ends. Although the trustee has absolute discretion to determine shares and proportions on distribution of the trust assets, the trust fund has to be transferred to any living beneficiaries once the Trust ends.

The Statement of Principles, at chapter 5.1, considers the addition and removal of beneficiaries and confirms that the identity of those for whose benefit the trust exists is an essential element of the trust obligation and hence the trust relationship. Therefore, changes amounting to a redefinition of the membership class or classes would terminate the original trust. By contrast, changes in the membership of a continuing class are consistent with a continuing trust.

The relevant beneficial interests in a trust fund obviously constitute a critical element in a trust relationship. In circumstances where default beneficiaries have vested, but defeasible interests in the trust capital, an extension to the vesting date means there may be changes in those beneficial interests. That is, the change may be considered likely to alter who ultimately has the beneficial interests.

But, even before the existing vesting date, those interests might have been defeated. That is, the beneficial interests remain vested and defeasible, both before and after the change to the vesting date, though the likelihood of their being defeated may in some cases be considered greater after the change. Further, the class of beneficiaries may be unchanged. Where the class of beneficiaries includes children unborn at the original vesting date, any children who may come to hold relevant beneficial interests after that date, were always part of the original class of beneficiaries.

In this case, the extension of the Vesting Date will potentially vary the beneficial interest. The question is whether this potential change to beneficial interest is fundamental enough to cause a resettlement of the Trust.

It is the Commissioner's opinion that whilst there will be a potential variation in the beneficial interest as a result of the amendment of the vesting date, the variation is consistent with changes in the membership of a continuing class and therefore not significant enough to cause a resettlement of the trust.

The facts in this case do not disclose any fundamental change in the trust relationship. As discussed above, the potential variation to beneficial interests in the Trust fund is not considered to result in a fundamental change in the essential nature and character of the trust.

Conclusion

As all three requirements under part 5.2 of the Statement of Principles are satisfied, the amendment to the Vesting Date will not be treated as giving rise to a new trust estate.

As there has not been a deemed disposal of trust assets, no capital gains tax provisions are applicable.