LEWSKI v FC of T

Judges:
Perram J
Pagone J
Moshinsky J

Court:
Full Federal Court, Victoria

MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [2017] FCAFC 145

Judgment date: 18 September 2017

Perram, Pagone and Moshinsky JJ

1. The applicant was, at all material times, a beneficiary of two trusts, known as the ACE No 4 Trust (the ACE Trust ) and the Arjod Trading Trust (the Arjod Trust ). On 14 May 2013, the respondent (the Commissioner ) issued amended assessments to the applicant with respect to the years of income ended 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 on the basis that she was assessable to a share of the net income of the ACE Trust (for the 2006 year) and the Arjod Trust (for the 2007 year) under s 97 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (the 1936 Act ). On 5 July 2013, the applicant objected to the amended assessments. On 9 July 2015, the Commissioner decided to allow in part the applicant's objection in relation to the 2006 year, and to disallow in full her objection in relation to the 2007 year.

2. On 4 September 2015, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal ) for review of the Commissioner's objection decision. On 9 December 2016, the Tribunal, constituted by a Deputy President, decided to affirm the Commissioner's decision.

3. The applicant 'appeals' to this Court on a question of law pursuant to s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). Although styled as an appeal, the proceeding is within the Court's original jurisdiction. In the circumstances of this case, that jurisdiction is being exercised by a Full Court: see s 44(3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.

4.

ATC 20024

Although the amended assessments relate to the 2006 and 2007 years of income, some of the issues in this appeal concern the availability of carry forward losses from previous years. In particular, during the year ended 30 June 1999, the trustee of the ACE Trust, Australian Commercial Property Syndications Pty Ltd ( ACPS ), was a member of a property syndicate known as the Glendale Property Syndicate. The manager of that syndicate was Glendale RV Syndication Pty Ltd ( Glendale ). Glendale entered into two interrelated contracts on 30 June 1999: a contract of sale of real estate between Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd as vendor and Glendale as purchaser (the Contract of Sale ); and a sale and purchase of business agreement (the Purchase of Business Agreement ) between Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd, Glendale and Prime Life Corporation Limited ( Prime Life Corporation ). As described below, one of the issues concerns whether two amounts that were payable under those contracts were incurred on 30 June 1999, the date that the contracts were entered into.

5. The issues raised by the appeal (including those raised by a notice of contention filed by the Commissioner) can be summarised as follows:

whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that a settlement amount of $1.74 million (the Settlement Amount ) payable under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price payable under the Purchase of Business Agreement (namely a balance of $5.51 million) were not "incurred" within the meaning of s 8-1(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (the 1997 Act ) on 30 June 1999 but were incurred later (the Incurred Issue );

whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the applicant was "presently entitled", within the meaning of s 97(1) of the 1936 Act, to a share of the income of the trust estate of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year of income and the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year of income; among other things, this requires consideration of the validity and effect of resolutions made by ACPS (as trustee of the ACE Trust) for the 2006 year and Drewvale Investments Pty Ltd ( Drewvale ) (as trustee of the Arjod Trust) for the 2007 year, including a 'variation of income' resolution made by each trustee (the Trust Resolutions Issue );

whether the Tribunal failed to apply, or misapplied, the principles governing whether the applicant should be given leave under s 14ZZK of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (the TAA ) to rely on grounds not in her objection (the Leave to Raise New Grounds Issue );

whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the applicant had not effectively disclaimed the relevant benefits and entitlements under the trusts by executing, on 15 December 2015, two deeds of disclaimer (the Deeds of Disclaimer ) (the Disclaimers Issue ); and

whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the applicant's contention that a resolution made by ACPS with respect to the 2006 year was ultra vires; the applicant had contended that the resolution, in purporting to appoint the "income", rather than the "Net Income", of the trust to the applicant was not authorised by the trust deed (the Ultra Vires Issue ).

6. In brief summary, our conclusions in relation to these issues are as follows:

7. It follows that the appeal is to be allowed. The decision of the Tribunal should be set aside and, in lieu thereof, orders made that the Commissioner's objection decision be set aside and the matter remitted to the Commissioner for redetermination according to law.

Background facts

8. The following statement of background facts is based on the findings in the reasons of the Tribunal (
TVKS and Commissioner of Taxation [2016] AATA 1010) (the Reasons ) and the documents in the Application Book filed in this Court. It will be convenient to deal, first, with the facts relating to the ACE Trust (which are relevant for the 2006 year) and then, second, with the facts relating to the Arjod Trust (which are relevant for the 2007 year).

The ACE Trust

9. The ACE Trust was established by a deed executed on 17 June 1997. By a deed executed on the following day, 18 June 1997, ACPS was appointed as trustee. The applicant was a General Beneficiary of the Trust. The applicant's husband, William Lewski ( Mr Lewski ), was the sole Specified Beneficiary.

10. By cl 2.1 of the trust deed, the Settlor declared that the Trustee would hold, and the Trustee declared that it held, the "Trust Fund and any Income or gain accruing to the Trust Fund upon the trusts and with and subject to the powers and provisions contained" in the trust deed. The "Trust Fund" was defined as meaning: the Settled Sum; all moneys, investments and property paid, transferred to, or accepted by the Trustee as additions to the Trust Fund; accumulations of Income directed or empowered to be made by the trust deed; all accretions and additions to the Trust Fund from any source; the investments and property from time to time representing the Settled Sum, money, investments, property, accumulations, accretions and additions; and any specific asset for the time being forming part of the Trust Fund.

11. "Income" was defined in cl 1.15 of the trust deed as including, but not being limited to, "assessable Income as defined in the Tax Law".

12. "Net Income" was defined in cl 1.17 of the trust deed as follows:

" Net Income " means the amount calculated as the net Income of the Trust Fund for an Accounting Period in accordance with section 95(1) of Tax Law including:

  • 1.17.1 any net capital gain included in the assessable Income of the Trust Fund by virtue of section 160ZO of Tax Law; and
  • 1.17.2 to the extent allowable, any taxation credits available to the Trustee under Tax Law including but not limited to:
    • 1.17.2.1 foreign tax credits;
    • 1.17.2.2 prescribed payment tax credits; and
    • 1.17.2.3 dividend imputation credits;

ATC 20026

unless the Trustee determines in respect of any Accounting Period that Net Income for that Accounting Period means the Income produced from the investment of the Trust Fund calculated in accordance with established accounting principles and trust law; …

13. Clause 3 was headed "Allocation of Income" and cl 3.1 set out certain rules that applied for the purpose of ascertaining the Net Income of the Trust Fund. Clause 3.2.1 provided that the Trustee "must, in respect of each Accounting Period, collect, receive and get in all dividends, interest, rents and all classes of Income arising from the constituent investments and the Trust Fund, pay all costs and disbursements, commissions, fees, taxes …, management charges and all other proper outgoings, losses and expenses …".

14. Clauses 3.3 and 3.4 provided as follows:

15. The word "Pay" was defined as including transfer, convey and assign. The words "Set Aside", in relation to a Beneficiary, were defined as including placing sums to the credit of such Beneficiary in the books of account of the Trust Fund. The term "Determination" was defined in cl 1.9 of the trust deed as meaning a determination made in any of the ways listed in cl 7.1. The definition also provided that a Determination "may be revocable or irrevocable but if not stated, the

ATC 20027

Determination shall be revocable". Clause 7.1.3 provided that, in the case of a corporate Trustee, a Determination in the exercise of any power, discretion or authority conferred on the Trustee by the trust deed could be made in the manner set out in cl 7.2. Clause 7.2 provided:

16. Clause 3.5 of the trust deed provided that if the Trustee did not exercise the discretion contained in clauses 3.3 and 3.4, or to the extent to which the Trustee did not exercise or did not effectively exercise the discretion, "the Trustee holds the Net Income for the Accounting Period upon trust for the Specified Beneficiaries living on the last day of the Accounting Period …".

17. Clause 3.6 set out certain provisions that applied to any Determination made pursuant to cl 3.3. These included that:

18. Clauses 3.8 and 3.9 of the trust deed provided:

19. Under cl 4, as from the Vesting Day, the trust was to be held for such charitable purposes, or for such of the Beneficiaries for their benefit, maintenance, advancement and education, as the Trustee should appoint, but insofar as it had not been disposed of, it was to be held for the Specified Beneficiary.

20. Clause 3.10 contained certain provisions that applied to any Determination made under cl 3. These included:

21. During the year ended 30 June 1999, ACPS as trustee of the ACE Trust was a member of a syndicate known as the Glendale Property Syndicate. The syndicate was managed by Glendale. As manager of the syndicate, Glendale entered into two contracts relating to an aged care facility known as the Glendale Aged Care Hostel situated in Glendale Court, Werribee, Victoria. The two contracts were:

22. Under the Contract of Sale, Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd agreed to sell, and Glendale agreed to purchase, the real property on which the aged care facility was located. Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd also agreed to make improvements to the existing buildings, cause a new hostel to be built, and procure the granting of 100 Approved Places in connection with the new hostel.

23. The "Price", as defined in the Contract of Sale, comprised:

24. The "Settlement Amount", as defined in the Contract of Sale, was $1.74 million.

25. The "First Post Settlement Amount", as defined in the Contract of Sale, was $2.5 million.

26. The "Final Post Settlement Amount" was defined as meaning the sum of $12 million subject to any adjustment pursuant to special condition 9.4.

27. The sum of the three amounts (putting to one side any adjustment) was $16.24 million.

28. Payment of the "Price" was dealt with in special condition 8.1, which provided that Glendale was to pay the Price in the following manner:

29. The "Settlement Date" under the Contract of Sale was 31 October 1999 or such other date upon which settlement occurs.

30. The Contract of Sale also referred, on the page headed "Particulars of Sale", to a deposit of $1 million. Given the definition of "Price" (referred to above), it appears that this amount was merely a deposit, rather than being an additional amount due under the contract. It was common ground before the Tribunal (as reflected in the parties' statements of facts, issues and contentions) that the deposit of $1 million was paid on 30 June 1999 and that it was incurred by Glendale on that date. It is not clear, on the basis of the materials before the Court, whether the deposit is to be treated as part of the Settlement Amount, the First Post Settlement Amount or the Final Post Settlement Amount (or as part of more than one of these amounts).

31.

ATC 20029

It is convenient to note at this point that, insofar as the issues before the Tribunal concerned the incurrence of outgoings under the Contract of Sale, the only outgoing in dispute was the Settlement Amount. There was no issue concerning the First Post Settlement Amount or the Final Post Settlement Amount (cf Reasons, [213]-[214]). The applicant accepted that these amounts were not incurred on 30 June 1999, but were incurred later (see the applicant's amended statement of facts, issues and contentions, [18A]).

32. Special condition 6 of the Contract of Sale was headed "Interdependence" and provided in part as follows:

33. Special condition 8.2 provided that Settlement of the contract would "take place contemporaneously with completion under the Sale and Purchase of Business Agreement". The term "Settlement" was defined as meaning "payment of the Settlement Amount by the Purchaser to the Vendor at which time the Vendor will transfer title to the Property to the Purchaser".

34. Special condition 8.3 of the Contract of Sale provided:

35. General condition 9.1 of the Contract of Sale incorporated general condition 12 in Table A of the Seventh Schedule to the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) ( Table A ) into the Contract of Sale. That condition provided that "[u]pon payment of all purchase and other moneys payable by the purchaser under the contract the vendor shall deliver to the purchaser such registrable instrument or instruments of transfer of the land sold as will enable the purchaser to become registered as proprietor of the land sold …". For completeness, we note that special condition 2 of the Contract of Sale provided that general conditions 3 and 13.1 did not apply to the contract. General condition 3 is not presently relevant. General condition 13.1 (which did not apply by virtue of special condition 2) stated that "[t]he purchaser must provide the instrument of transfer required by General Condition 12 of Table A, or the assurance required by the Third Schedule (as the case may be), to the vendor or the vendor's solicitor at least 10 days prior to the settlement date".

36. Turning then to the Purchase of Business Agreement, this was an agreement for the sale and purchase of the business conducted by Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd in connection with the Glendale Aged Care Hostel. It was stated in recital C to the agreement that, as an inducement to Glendale entering into the agreement, Prime Life Corporation had agreed to enter into certain covenants set out in the agreement. These covenants related to the transfer of 127 Approved Places (in connection with the hostel) to Glendale.

37.

ATC 20030

The agreement for the sale and purchase of the business was dealt with in cl 2.1. Clause 2.2 provided for payment of the Purchase Price (which was defined as meaning the sum of $7.26 million) as follows:

38. The "Completion Date", as defined in the Purchase of Business Agreement, was 31 October 1999, or such other date as agreed between the Vendor and the Purchaser. "Completion" was defined as meaning completion of the sale and purchase of the business as contemplated by the agreement.

39. It was common ground before the Tribunal that the deposit of $1.75 million, which was paid by Glendale on 30 June 1999, was incurred on that date. The issue concerned the balance of the purchase price (an amount of $5.51 million, putting to one side any adjustment). The applicant contended that this amount was incurred on 30 June 1999; the Commissioner contended that it was not incurred until the Completion Date, 31 October 1999.

40. Clause 3 of the Purchase of Business Agreement dealt with the transfer of the 127 Approved Places. Prime Life Corporation (defined as "Prime Life" in the Purchase of Business Agreement) held these places. Clause 3 was in the following terms:

The "Department" was defined in cl 1.12 to mean the Department of Health and Aged Care (the Department ). "Approval" was defined in cl 1.3 to mean "the written approval by the Department to the transfer of the Approved Places from Prime Life to the Purchaser". "Approved Provider" was defined in cl 1.5 to mean "an approved provider as set out in Part 2.1 of the Aged Care Act 1997".

41. Clause 6 of the Purchase of Business Agreement dealt with completion. Completion was to take place on the Completion Date (cl 6.1). Clause 6.3 provided that, on Completion, the Purchaser "shall do and execute all such other acts and documents as are required by this Agreement to be done or executed by the Purchaser at Completion". Clause 6.4 set out certain documents and things required to be delivered by the Vendor to the Purchaser on Completion.

42. Clause 8.2 provided that the title to the Business and the Assets and the benefit of the Goodwill would pass to the Purchaser upon payment by the Purchaser of the balance of the Purchase Price.

43. Clause 11.1 of the Purchase of Business Agreement provided that the agreement was "interdependent" with the Contract of Sale. Clause 11.2 was in the following terms:

44. In addition to entering into the two contracts, on 30 June 1999 Glendale paid a syndication fee of $3 million in connection with the Glendale Aged Care Hostel. It was common ground before the Tribunal that this outgoing was incurred by Glendale on 30 June 1999.

45. On 22 December 2003, ACPS (as trustee of the ACE Trust) and the Commissioner entered into a deed of settlement in relation to ACPS's tax liability in respect of the Glendale Property Syndicate. The Commissioner accepted that, as at 30 June 1999, ACPS had a 40% interest in the Glendale Property Syndicate. In the following years, up to the year ended 30 June 2006, ACPS had a 2% interest in the syndicate.

46. On 30 June 2006, Mr Lewski, as the sole director of ACPS, executed a document headed "Resolution of Sole Director". The document comprised four resolutions of ACPS as trustee of the ACE Trust. The relevant resolutions were as follows:

ATC 20032


Income of the trust fund: In accordance with the trust deed it was resolved to determine that for the year ended 30 June 2006 income of the trust includes all amounts (including capital gains) taken into account in calculating the net income of the trust.  
Distribution of trust income: It was resolved to pay, apply and set aside the income of the trust, as defined in the deed, for the year ending 30 June 2006 to or for the benefit of the beneficiaries in the manner and of the type as allowed under the deed such that the assessable income for taxation purposes of each beneficiary (and the class of assessable income from which their respective entitlements are appointed) is:  
  Beneficiary Amount  
  Roslyn Lewski 100% of income  
Variation of income: It was resolved that should the Commissioner of Taxation disallow any amount as a deduction or include any amount in the assessable income of the trust, and not distribute that amount so disallowed as a deduction, or so include in the assessable income in accordance with the above appropriation, such amount or amounts are to be deemed to be distributed on 30 June 2006 in the following manner:  
  Beneficiary Amount  
  Australian Commercial Underwriting Pty Ltd 100% of income  
       

47. As at 30 June 2006, the financial statements for the ACE Trust showed a profit of $10,374,993. This amount was also shown as a distribution to beneficiaries.

The Arjod Trust

48. The Arjod Trust was established by a deed executed on 19 May 1986. On 29 March 1989, the initial trustee retired and was replaced by Drewvale. The trust was varied by a further deed executed on 5 December 1995. Although the trust deed generally refers to "Trustees" (plural), for ease of expression in circumstances where there was a single trustee we will refer to the provisions as though they referred to the "Trustee" (singular).

49. The applicant was a General Beneficiary under the trust. Mr Lewski, the applicant's husband, was one of the Specified Beneficiaries.

50. Clause 3(1) of the trust deed provided that the Trustee could, prior to the Vesting Day, at any time and from time to time, during any Accounting Period, with respect to all or any part or parts of the net income of the Trust Fund for such Accounting Period, determine:

The word "pay" was defined in the trust deed to include transfer, convey and assign. The words "set aside", in relation to a beneficiary, were defined to include placing sums to the credit of such a beneficiary in the books of account kept by the Trustee in relation to the Trust Fund.

51. Clause 3(2) of the trust deed set out certain provisions that applied to any determination made pursuant to cl 3(1). These provisions included that:

52. The expression "Free Net Income" was defined in cl 1(27) of the trust deed as follows:

" Free Net Income " in relation to a particular Accounting Period means so much of the net income of the Trust Fund for such Accounting Period as shall not at the expiry of such Accounting Period be the subject of a valid and effective determination by the Trustees during that Accounting Period under any of sub-clauses (1), (2) or (3) of clause 3 of this Deed and includes where the Trustees have purported to make a determination to accumulate the income of the Trust Fund of that Accounting Period or any part or parts of such income and such determination is wholly or partially invalid or ineffective by reason of the law applying to any disposition of property to the Trustees to hold on the trusts of this Settlement or by reason of the law applying to the vesting of any part of the Trust Fund

ATC 20034

in a new trustee or new trustees hereof upon any change in the trustees of this Settlement the amount of such income or part which is the subject of such invalid or ineffective determination or the subject of the invalid or ineffective part of such determination PROVIDED THAT if prior to the end of such Accounting Period that income has been made the subject of a later valid and effective determination by the Trustees under any of sub-clauses (1), (2) or (3) of clause 3 of this Deed or is included in general words of a valid and effective determination made earlier in relation to that Accounting Period under any of those sub-clauses which effectively deals with that income it shall not be or form part of the Free Net Income; …

53. Clauses 3(4) and 3(5) of the trust deed provided:

54. Clause 26 of the trust deed dealt with the Trustee's mode of acting. Clause 26(2) provided that, in the case of a sole corporate trustee, any exercise by the Trustee of any power or discretion conferred on it by the trust deed could be made in the manner set out in cl 26(4). That clause relevantly provided that every Trustee which is a corporation may exercise any discretion or power conferred on the Trustee "by a resolution of such corporation or by a resolution of its Board of Directors or governing body …".

55. On 30 June 2007, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Drewvale took place. Present were Mr Lewski and David Lewski. Mr Lewski chaired the meeting. The Board made four resolutions, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The relevant resolutions as recorded in the minutes were as follows:

Income of the trust fund: In accordance with the trust deed it was resolved to determine that for the year ended 30 June 2007 income of the trust includes all amounts (including capital gains) taken into account in calculating the net income of the trust.  
Distribution of trust income: It was resolved to pay, apply and set aside the income of the trust, as defined in the deed, for the year ending 30 June 2007 to or for the benefit of the beneficiaries in the manner and of the type as allowed under the deed such that the assessable income for taxation purposes of each beneficiary (and the class of assessable income from which their respective entitlements are appointed) is:  
  Australian Investment Securities Pty Ltd First $3,500,000  
 

ATC 20035

Roslyn Lewski The balance  
Variation of income: It was resolved that should the Commissioner of Taxation disallow any amount as a deduction or include any amount in the assessable income of the trust, and not distribute that amount so disallowed as a deduction, or so include in the assessable income in accordance with the above appropriation, such amount or amounts are to be deemed to be distributed on 30 June 2007 in the following manner:  
  Australian Investment Securities Pty Ltd 100%  
       

56. As at 30 June 2007, the financial statements for the Arjod Trust showed a profit of $6,643,498. The financial statements showed a distribution to beneficiaries of $6,643,199.

Tax returns

57. The applicant lodged her tax return for the 2006 year on 20 December 2006. She declared assessable income of $9,000. She did not return any amount as a distribution from a trust. On 25 January 2007, the Commissioner assessed the applicant's income tax on the basis that her taxable income was $9,000.

58. ACPS, as trustee of the ACE Trust, lodged its tax return for the 2006 year on 16 May 2007. It did so on the basis that it had net income of $676,209 and carry forward losses of $11,053,152.

59. By letter dated 14 October 2009, Mr Lewski requested on behalf of ACPS that its tax return for the 2006 year be amended so that, among other things, its net income was $10,108,621 instead of $676,209.

60. The applicant lodged her tax return for the 2007 year on 30 January 2008. She returned $9,500 as assessable income. She did not return any amount as a trust distribution. On 22 February 2008, the Commissioner assessed the applicant's income tax liability on the basis that her taxable income was $9,500.

61. On 27 March 2008, the applicant lodged an amended tax return for the 2007 year. In it she declared an additional amount of $40,083 as assessable income from franked dividends with franking credits of $12,000. The total assessable income returned was $61,832. She did not return any amount as a trust distribution.

62. For the 2007 year, Drewvale as trustee of the Arjod Trust lodged its tax return on 12 March 2008. It did so on the basis that it had net income of $6,643,498 and carry forward losses of $2,143,060, resulting in a net taxable income of $4,500,438.

The amended assessments

63. The Australian Taxation Office ( ATO ) conducted an audit into the affairs of Mr Lewski and associated entities. On 20 December 2012, the ATO wrote to Mr Lewski enclosing a position paper explaining the ATO's position in relation to losses of the ACE Trust in the 1999 and 2000 years "and the consequences for [the applicant] in the 2006 year". Among other things, the position paper described, and set out the ATO's position with respect to, the ACPS resolutions dated 30 June 2006. Further, on 22 January 2013, the ATO wrote to Mr Lewski enclosing a position paper explaining the ATO's position in relation to losses of the Arjod Trust in the 2000 year "and the consequences for [the applicant] in the 2007 income year". Among other things, the position paper described, and set out the ATO's position with respect to, the Drewvale resolutions of 30 June 2007.

64. On 14 May 2013, the Commissioner issued notices of amended assessment to the applicant with respect to the 2006 and 2007 years. In relation to the 2006 year, the Commissioner assessed the applicant on the basis that her taxable income was $10,117,621. This amount was determined on the basis that:

65.

ATC 20036

In relation to the 2007 year, the Commissioner assessed the applicant on the basis that her taxable income was $3,204,593. This amount was determined on the basis that:

The objection and objection decision

66. On 5 July 2013, the applicant objected to the amended assessments.

67. On 9 July 2015, the Commissioner allowed the applicant's objection to the following extent: ACPS (as trustee of the ACE Trust) was entitled to a deduction of $230,000 in the 2006 year in relation to the Glendale Property Syndicate; and, accordingly, an amount of $9,878,621 (instead of $10,108,621) was to be included in the assessable income of the applicant for the 2006 year, as a result of her being presently entitled to 100% of the net income of the ACE Trust. Otherwise, the objection was disallowed.

68. On 18 August 2015, the Commissioner issued to the applicant a further amended assessment for the 2006 year.

The disclaimers

69. On 15 December 2015, the applicant executed the Deeds of Disclaimer. Each was headed "Disclaimer of Entitlement to Income". One related to the ACE Trust and the other to the Arjod Trust. The terms of the disclaimer in relation to the ACE Trust were as follows:

I understand and acknowledge that I am one of the beneficiaries of the ACE No 4 Trust ( ACE No 4 ).

I hereby disclaim and reject absolutely any entitlement I have to any interest whatsoever that I may have now or in the future or have had at any time since 1 July 2005, to any income, capital or gift at all from ACE No. 4.

This disclaimer takes effect on and from 1 July 2005.

70. The Deed of Disclaimer with respect to the Arjod Trust was in similar terms:

I understand and acknowledge that I am one of the beneficiaries of the Arjod Trading Trust ( Arjod ).

I hereby disclaim and reject absolutely any entitlement I have to any interest whatsoever that I may have now or in the future or have had at any time since 1 July 2006, to any income, capital or gift at all from Arjod.

This disclaimer takes effect on and from 1 July 2006.

The Tribunal decision

71. On 4 September 2015, the applicant lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of the Commissioner's objection decision.

72. The issues before the Tribunal were identified in the following documents filed by the parties:

73. In relation to the ACE Trust, the applicant stated in her amended statement of facts, issues and contentions that ACPS had prepared its tax returns on the basis that: it was a 40% member of the Glendale Property Syndicate in 1999; the syndicate had incurred outgoings in the 1999 year pursuant to the Contract of Sale and the Purchase of Business Agreement; and as a result of deductions that ACPS was entitled to claim based on those outgoings, ACPS was entitled to claim carry forward losses. The applicant contended as follows:

74. The applicant raised two contentions in the Tribunal that had not been included as grounds in her objection. These contentions were as follows:

75. As these issues had not been included in the applicant's grounds of objection, one of the issues for the Tribunal was whether the applicant should be given leave pursuant to s 14ZZK of the TAA to rely on these contentions.

76. On 9 December 2016, the Tribunal decided to affirm the Commissioner's objection decision. We now provide an overview of the Reasons of the Tribunal as they pertain to the issues raised on appeal. It will be convenient to summarise the salient conclusions of the Tribunal in the order that the issues are to be considered on the appeal, rather than in the order set out in the Reasons.

77. Two of the issues before the Tribunal are not relevant for the purposes of the appeal. Those issues were: whether the Commissioner was out of time to amend the assessments of the applicant for the 2006 and 2007 years; and whether the shortfall interest charge for the 2006 and 2007 years should be remitted either in whole or in part. Those aspects of the Reasons can be put to one side.

Whether carry forward losses were available to ACPS in its capacity as trustee of the ACE Trust in the 2006 year

78. The Tribunal considered, at [190]-[215] of the Reasons, whether carry forward losses were available to ACPS in its capacity as trustee of the ACE Trust in the 2006 year. This issue turned on whether certain outgoings relating to the Glendale Property Syndicate were incurred during the year ended 30 June 1999. The Tribunal set out s 8-1(1) of the 1997 Act and discussed relevant authorities, including
Commissioner of Taxation v Raymor (NSW) Pty Ltd (1990) 24 FCR 90 ( Raymor );
Commissioner of Taxation v Woolcombers (WA) Pty Ltd (1993) 47 FCR 561 ( Woolcombers );
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Malouf (2009) 174 FCR 581 ( Malouf ); and
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Citylink Melbourne Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 1 ( Citylink ). The Tribunal concluded that the Settlement Amount under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price under the Purchase of Business Agreement were not incurred on 30 June 1999. After describing, at [207]-[211], aspects of the Contract of Sale and the Purchase of Business Agreement, the Tribunal reasoned as follows:

Whether the ACPS Further Resolution and the Drewvale Further Resolution were effective in preventing the applicant from being presently entitled to a share of the income of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year or the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year

79. The Tribunal considered the effect of the 'Further Resolutions' (that is, the 'variation of income' resolutions) made by ACPS with respect to the 2006 year (as set out at [46] above) and Drewvale with respect to the 2007 year (as set out at [55] above) at [141]-[160] of the Reasons. The applicant contended that the effect of the Further Resolutions was that the income of each trust was distributed to an entity other than the applicant. The applicant submitted that the intention of the Trustee, in each case, was clear: it was to distribute the amount to Australian Commercial Underwriting Pty Ltd ( Australian Commercial Underwriting ) or Australian Investment Securities Pty Ltd ( Australian Investment Securities ) (as the case may be) if any amounts were disallowed as deductions, or added to the assessable income of the trust, by the Commissioner. In the alternative, the applicant contended that, in each case, the 'distribution of trust income' resolution was contingent upon the Further Resolution and was thus ineffective, relying on
Walsh Bay Developments Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 130 ALR 415 ( Walsh Bay ) and
Glenn v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1915) 20 CLR 490. The Commissioner, on the other hand,

ATC 20039

submitted that the Further Resolutions were ineffective. After considering the authorities, the Tribunal concluded that, in each case, the 'distribution of trust income' resolution exhausted the Trustee's power to distribute and there was nothing left to be distributed by the Further Resolutions. The Tribunal's reasons were as follows:

Whether the applicant should be given leave to rely on additional grounds not in her objection

80. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant should be given leave to rely on the Deeds of Disclaimer at [46]-[61] of the Reasons. The Tribunal set out the parties' submissions and referred to cases on s 14ZZK of the TAA, including
Lighthouse Philatelics Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 32 FCR 148 ( Lighthouse Philatelics );
Gilder v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 22 ATR 872; and
McLean v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 66 FCR 106. Ultimately, the Tribunal refused the applicant leave to rely on the Deeds of Disclaimer. Its reasoning for this conclusion was as follows:

81. The Tribunal considered, at [99]-[107], whether the applicant should be given leave to expand her grounds of objection to include the ground that the ACPS resolution, in referring to "income" rather than "Net Income", was ineffective to distribute income to the applicant. After setting out the parties' submissions, the Tribunal refused the applicant leave to rely on this additional ground. Its reasoning on this issue was as follows:

Whether the Deeds of Disclaimer were effective to prevent the applicant being presently entitled to the trust income in the relevant years

82. Although the Tribunal decided not to give the applicant leave to rely on the Deeds of Disclaimer, it nevertheless went on to consider, at [62]-[98] of the Reasons, whether they were effective to prevent the applicant being presently entitled to the net income of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year and the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year. The Tribunal considered this issue on the assumption that the respective resolutions of the trusts for the 2006 and 2007 years had been validly made: see Reasons, [62]. The Tribunal, at [63]-[75], referred to the evidence concerning the management of the

ATC 20042

applicant's finances and taxation affairs. The Tribunal referred next to cases concerning the right of a donee to disclaim a gift, including
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Ramsden (2005) 58 ATR 485 ( Ramsden );
JW Broomhead (Vic) Pty Ltd (in liq) v JW Broomhead Pty Ltd [1985] VR 891 ( Broomhead ); and
Re Applicant and Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2008) 73 ATR 675. The Tribunal also referred to
Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634 ( Sargent ) and
NIML Ltd v Man Financial Australia Ltd (2006) 15 VR 156 ( NIML ), in relation to the attribution of the knowledge of an agent to a principal. At [95]-[98] of the Reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not effectively disclaimed the relevant benefits and entitlements under the trusts:

Whether the ACPS resolution was ineffective to appoint Net Income to the applicant

83. Although the Tribunal decided not to give the applicant leave to contend that the ACPS resolution, in referring to "income" rather than "Net Income", was ineffective, the Tribunal nevertheless went on to consider this issue at [108]-[140] of the Reasons. The Tribunal set out the parties' submissions and then referred to cases on the interpretation of contracts and trust instruments, including
Segelov v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd (2015) 89 NSWLR 431 ( Segelov ) and
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104. The Tribunal also referred to
BRK (Bris) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 46 ATR 347 ( BRK ) and
Turner v Turner [1984] Ch 100 ( Turner ). The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that the ACPS resolution was ineffective on the ground that it purported to pay, apply and set aside the "income", rather than the "Net Income", of the trust. The Tribunal's reasoning was as follows:

The appeal to this Court

84. The applicant appeals to this Court from the entire decision of the Tribunal. The notice of appeal sets out the following questions of law:

85. The grounds relied upon by the applicant are sufficiently indicated in our consideration, below, of the appeal issues.

86. The Commissioner contends that the decision of the Tribunal should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied on by the Tribunal. The grounds set out in the notice of contention are as follows:

87.

ATC 20046

The issues raised by the notice of appeal and the notice of contention have been summarised at [5] above. We will address the issues in the following order, which reflects the way the parties dealt with the issues in oral submissions:

Consideration

The Incurred Issue

88. This issue may be stated as: whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the Settlement Amount payable by Glendale under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price payable by Glendale under the Purchase of Business Agreement were not "incurred" within the meaning of s 8-1(1) of the 1997 Act on 30 June 1999 but were incurred later. The issue arises in circumstances where: Glendale entered into the contracts in its capacity as the manager of the Glendale Property Syndicate; ACPS as trustee of the ACE Trust was a member (as to 40%) of the Glendale Property Syndicate as at 30 June 1999; the ACE Trust claimed carry forward losses in the 2006 year on the basis that it was entitled to a deduction in the 1999 year as to 40% of the relevant amounts; and (subject to the other issues to be considered on the appeal) the applicant was entitled to 100% of the net income of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year.

89. Section 8-1 of the 1997 Act (as applicable to the 1999 year) relevantly provided:

90. The predecessor provision, considered in some of the cases discussed below, was s 51(1) of the 1936 Act. The differences between that provision and s 8-1 are not material.

91. In Citylink, Crennan J (with whom Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ agreed) referred (at [91]) to the observations of Dixon J in
New Zealand Flax Investments Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1938) 61 CLR 179. In that case, Dixon J noted that the words of the income tax legislation give rise to particular difficulties when a transaction takes more than a year to complete, because it is the words of the section (which may not apply comfortably to certain economic or commercial practices), rather than general principles, which contain the test for deductibility (at 199, 206-207). Crennan J then observed that the infinite variety of factual situations that have fallen to be considered since New Zealand Flax have led to continuing elucidation of the test for deductibility and how it applies to different facts.

92. The applicable principles were set out by Crennan J in Citylink at [122]-[125] as follows:

93. Three decisions of the Full Court of this Court were the focus of submissions in the present appeal in respect of the Incurred Issue. They were, in chronological order, Raymor, Woolcombers and Malouf.

94. In Raymor, the respondent was a supplier of goods including copper tubing. It entered into agreements for the purchase of copper tubing from a supplier. The agreements, which were in similar terms, provided for the sale by the supplier to the respondent of a specified quantity and quality of copper tubing, the delivery of the copper tubing and the payment of the purchase price. The purchase price was payable upon execution of each agreement. The price was, however, subject to variation, taking into account movement in the Australian copper price at the date of delivery. The relevant agreements were entered into in June 1984 and June 1985 and the purchase price stipulated in each agreement was paid in those months. Delivery under the June 1984 agreement started in July 1984 and continued for several months. Delivery under the June 1985 agreement started in July 1985 and continued for several months. In the 1985 and 1986 years of income, the price of copper rose from time to time so that, pursuant to each agreement, further amounts became payable by the respondent to the supplier under the rise and fall clause. These amounts were shown as part of the respondent's costs of stock and were allowed as a deduction in the years of income in which they were paid. They were not in dispute. The

ATC 20048

dispute concerned the respondent's claim for deductions under s 51(1) of the 1936 Act for the purchase price (before adjustment) under the June 1984 agreement in the 1984 year of income, and the purchase price (before adjustment) under the June 1985 agreement in the 1985 year of income.

95. The Full Court (Davies, Gummow and Hill JJ) held that when the respondent bound itself to pay the purchase price shown in each agreement, it then incurred that amount as an outgoing, notwithstanding that the price could be varied under the rise and fall provisions in each agreement. It was further held that payment of the price was strictly irrelevant to the time at which the outgoing was incurred. The Court said (at 97):

… at the point of time at which the respondent bound itself as a party to each of the contracts, and so became committed to pay the amount shown in each contract to [the supplier], it incurred the respective amount, notwithstanding that its obligation could be increased or reduced under the rise and fall provisions of the contract: cl 8. Payment thereafter was strictly irrelevant to the time at which the outgoing was incurred. It merely operated to discharge in the year of income the outgoing already incurred in that year. In this sense it is strictly incorrect to speak of the payment here in question as a prepayment. A presently existing obligation had arisen and had been discharged.

96. Their Honours also said (at 101):

Once, however, it is appreciated that an outgoing may be deductible notwithstanding that it may be defeasible, there can be no logical reason why an outgoing pursuant to a contract may not be deductible notwithstanding that the ultimate price payable upon delivery of the goods the subject of a contract may be varied upwards or downwards to reflect the increased cost of the goods. If the price increases, as it did in each of the years in question, the additional amount incurred on delivery will be deductible in the year in which delivery occurs. If it decreases, the amount credited or refunded to the purchaser will form part of the proceeds of business of the trader in the same way as would an exchange gain which results in a lesser amount of Australian dollars becoming payable for stock.

97. In Woolcombers, the taxpayer, a wool trader, entered into a number of forward contracts to purchase wool from woolgrowers. The purchase price in most cases was fixed at the time of the contract. However, in some cases, the purchase price was variable. In all of the contracts, payment was due a certain number of days after delivery, and property in the wool was to pass to the taxpayer upon payment. In the 1988 year of income, the taxpayer claimed as a deduction under s 51(1) of the 1936 Act its estimated liability under the forward contracts entered into during that year. The Full Court (Beaumont, French and Foster JJ) held that the primary judge's analysis of the effect of the contractual provisions, namely that an accrued obligation or present liability was imposed on the taxpayer by a definite contractual commitment, was correct (at 573). It followed that an "outgoing" was "incurred" within the meaning of s 51(1) of the 1936 Act in the 1988 year of income. The Full Court referred (at 574) to a submission by the Commissioner that, because delivery of the wool was a condition precedent to the performance of the taxpayer's obligations, no present liability to make a payment accrued until after the wool was delivered, that is, in the 1989 year. The Full Court considered that the cases relied upon by the Commissioner were distinguishable, with each case depending upon "the true interpretation of the particular language of the contract" (at 574-575). After noting that the Commissioner also relied on the 'force majeure' provisions of the contracts as indicating that no liability to pay the purchase price accrued to the taxpayer until delivery, the Full Court said it had difficulty accepting this submission, especially as a term to similar effect would ordinarily be implied in contracts of that kind in any event. Their Honours said (at 575):

In our view, much will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case at hand. If the defeasibility takes the form of a contingency such as drought or a similar frustrating event which ordinarily would be implied as a matter of business efficacy, it is

ATC 20049

difficult to argue that by reason of the existence of this contingency, no liability to pay the price has accrued.

98. In Malouf, which bears some factual similarly to the present case, the taxpayer was the purchaser under a contract for the sale and purchase of a retirement village. Upon entering into the contract (during the 1999 year of income), the taxpayer paid a deposit. The taxpayer was required to pay the balance of the purchase price in the sum of $33.25 million (the residue ) upon settlement. Under the terms of the contract, settlement was not to occur until the vendor had completed Stage 1 of the contracted development work and upon the vendor being in a position to deliver a transfer of land. The primary issue in the appeals was whether the residue payable on settlement was "incurred" at the time the contract was entered into by the taxpayer (and so incurred during the 1999 year of income).

99. The findings of fact made by the primary judge, which were not disputed on appeal, included the following:

100. The Full Court (Sundberg, Jessup and Middleton JJ) considered in some detail the earlier Full Court decisions in Raymor and Woolcombers. In relation to Raymor, the Full Court considered the terms of the arrangements in that case to be materially different from those of the contract under consideration (at [33]). In relation to Woolcombers, the Full Court considered the contract terms in that case to be of a similar nature to those before the Court on appeal, but said that much will depend upon the true interpretation of the particular language of the contract and upon the nature of the contractual arrangements (at [45]). The Full Court concluded that the pecuniary liability was not incurred at the time of entering into the contract, but would only be incurred at settlement. Their Honours said (at [48]-[50]):

101. In the present case, the applicant submits that the Reasons of the Tribunal demonstrate that it wrongly thought that deductions were being sought for the First Post Settlement Amount and the Final Post Settlement Amount payable under the Contract of Sale. The applicant also submits that: the Tribunal did not provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that the Settlement Amount under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price under the Purchase of Business Agreement were not incurred on 30 June 1999; the Reasons at [212] suggest that the Tribunal thought the possibility of a future breach or insolvency prevented amounts being incurred; if the possibility of a future breach or insolvency is reason to conclude that an amount payable under a contract cannot be incurred on entry into the contract, no amount payable in the future would be able to be incurred on entry into any contract; and the Tribunal misunderstood or misapplied the applicable principles.

102. The Commissioner accepts that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the applicant's claim under the Contract of Sale was limited to the Settlement Amount. Further, the Commissioner accepts that, in its analysis of the two contracts, the Tribunal misconstrued some of the provisions of the contracts. The Commissioner relies on grounds 1 to 4 of the notice of contention to uphold the decision of the Tribunal on the issue of whether the relevant amounts were incurred on 30 June 1999.

103. In our view, the Tribunal at [212]-[215] of the Reasons (set out above) effectively adopted a meaning of the term "incurred" in s 8-1(1) of the 1997 Act that was contrary to that which has been established by legal decisions: cf
Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1995) 59 FCR 6 at 12-13 per Davies and Beazley JJ, with whom Hill J agreed; approved in
Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 233 FCR 315 at [200] per Allsop CJ, Kenny, Besanko, Robertson and Mortimer JJ. In particular, the Tribunal relied on the fact that, under the Contract of Sale, the Glendale Property Syndicate was entitled to terminate the contract if an insolvency event occurred in relation to Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd as a basis for concluding that "it was not known whether the Contract of Sale would proceed" (Reasons, [212]). However, the cases discussed above do not suggest that, without more, this type of contingency is enough to conclude that an outgoing is not incurred upon execution of a contract. Further, the reasons set out by the Tribunal at [213]-[214] of the Reasons were directed to the First Post Settlement Amount and the Final Post Settlement amount under the Contract of Sale, rather than the Settlement Amount. It was not explained why the Settlement Amount was not incurred upon execution of the Contract of Sale (apart from the reason given in [212], referred to above). Insofar as the balance of the purchase price under the Purchase of Business Agreement was concerned, the Tribunal said that this amount was incurred on the Completion Date (31 October 1999) because that was the day on which Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd "would deliver what it was required to deliver" (Reasons, [212]). But the fact that Prime Life (Glendale Hostel) Pty Ltd was required to deliver certain things, including a registrable transfer, on the Settlement Date was not determinative. Insofar as the Tribunal relied upon the interdependence of the Purchase of Business Agreement with the Contract of Sale, we refer to the matters discussed above in relation to the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the Contract of Sale.

104.

ATC 20051

It follows that the Tribunal's decision, insofar as it concerned whether the Settlement Amount under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price under the Purchase of Business Agreement were incurred on 30 June 1999, is to be set aside. It is appropriate in the circumstances for the issue to be reconsidered by this Court. The parties approached the matter on this basis.

105. The Commissioner submits that the Settlement Amount under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price under the Purchase of Business Agreement were not incurred on 30 June 1999. The Commissioner's submissions can be summarised as follows:

106. However, for the reasons that follow, we consider that both the Settlement Amount under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price under the Purchase of Business Agreement were incurred upon execution of the contracts on 30 June 1999.

107. As set out above, an outgoing may be incurred if it is definitively committed to and presently existing, notwithstanding that it may be theoretically defeasible or possibly contingent:
Coles Myer Finance Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1993) 176 CLR 640 at 670-671 per Deane J, cited with approval in Citylink at [124]-[125]. Where an amount is payable under a contract, determining whether and, if so, when the amount is incurred requires reference to "the true interpretation of the particular language of the contract": Woolcombers at 575, applied in Malouf at [45]. Further, much will depend upon the nature of the contractual arrangements, which involves looking at the circumstances of the particular case: Malouf at [45].

108. In this case, the provisions of the Contract of Sale demonstrate that the Settlement Amount was required to be paid on 31 October 1999 and was definitively committed to on 30 June 1999. There was no obligation on the Vendor to deliver an instrument of transfer prior to any obligation to pay coming into existence: see special condition 8.1 and general condition 12 in Table A. Nor was there any condition precedent requiring the Vendor to take any action before there was an unqualified obligation to pay the Settlement Amount. It is important to distinguish the Settlement Amount from the two other amounts payable under the contract, namely the First Post Settlement Amount and the Final Post Settlement Amount. Unlike those amounts, the obligation to pay the Settlement Amount was not referable to the obtaining of planning approval or the completion of building works. In this sense, the outgoing in issue (namely, the Settlement Amount) was materially different from the outgoing in issue in Malouf. Further, the fact that the transaction in question involved the sale and purchase of real property, while a relevant aspect, does not of itself require the established principles to be applied in a particular way. The issue in such a case remains whether the outgoing is definitively committed to and presently existing, which is to be determined by reference to the true interpretation of the particular language of the contract.

109. The terms of the Purchase of Business Agreement demonstrate that payment of the balance of the purchase price under that agreement was definitively committed to on 30 June 1999: see clauses 2.2, 6.4, 8.2 and the definitions of "Completion" and "Completion Date". There was no obligation on the Vendor to deliver anything to bring the payment obligation into existence. Clause 2.2 was expressed in unconditional language and imposed an obligation to pay the balance of the

ATC 20053

purchase price (see [37] above). The obligation was to make payment on a fixed date; and upon such payment being made, title to the Business and the Assets and the benefit of the Goodwill would pass to the Purchaser (cl 8.2) (see [42] above).

110. Neither approval of the Purchaser as an Approved Provider nor approval of the transfer of the Approved Places from Prime Life Corporation to the Purchaser was a condition for payment of the balance of the purchase price. The obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price was not expressed to be conditional upon these matters. Further, we do not accept the Commissioner's submission that, if the Secretary of the Department refused the Purchaser's application for Approved Provider status before the Completion Date, the contract would be frustrated, this being outside the range of circumstances contemplated by cl 3.6.1 (set out at [40] above). We think the better view is that the words "has not granted" in cl 3.6.1 are capable of covering a situation where the application has been refused (as well as a situation where it is still being considered). This construction is open on the ordinary meaning of the words used. Further, this construction gives the provision a sensible operation in circumstances where, for example, a refusal is open to review or there is the potential for a new application for approval to be made. Accordingly, we do not accept the submission that, in the circumstance that the Secretary of the Department refused to grant Approved Provider status to the Purchaser before the Completion Date, the contract would be frustrated.

111. As we have concluded that both the Settlement Amount under the Contract of Sale and the balance of the purchase price under the Purchase of Business Agreement were incurred on 30 June 1999, the interdependency of the two contracts does not provide a basis to conclude that either outgoing was not incurred until a later point in time. Finally, we note for completeness that Taxation Ruling TR94/24 - Income tax: taxation amounts received by retirement village owners from incoming residents does not affect the above analysis. That ruling (now withdrawn) provided (in paragraph 7) that certain expenditure incurred by the owner in acquiring or developing a retirement village was considered to be expenditure of a revenue nature and "[a]ccordingly, a deduction will be allowed for that expenditure in the year in which it is incurred". The ruling did not, however, address the time at which the outgoing was incurred.

The Trust Resolutions Issue

112. This issue may be stated as: whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the applicant was "presently entitled", within the meaning of s 97(1) of the 1936 Act, to a share of the income of the trust estate of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year of income and the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year of income.

113. The trust resolutions, by ACPS as trustee of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year and by Drewvale as trustee of the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year, are set out at [46] and [55] above. The resolutions are relevantly in similar terms. In each case, there was a resolution described as 'distribution of trust income' that resolved to pay, apply and set aside the income of the trust for a particular beneficiary or beneficiaries (in the 2006 year, 100% to the applicant; in the 2007 year, the first $3.5 million to Australian Investment Securities and the balance to the applicant). (We put to one side for present purposes whether, in appointing "income" rather than "Net Income", the ACPS resolution was ineffective: this is the Ultra Vires Issue, to be discussed below.) Further, in each case, there was a 'variation of income' resolution broadly to the effect that, should the Commissioner disallow any amount as a deduction or include any amount in the assessable income of the trust, there would be a deemed distribution of such amount or amounts to a different beneficiary or in a different proportion (in the 2006 year, 100% to Australian Commercial Underwriting; in the 2007 year, 100% to Australian Investment Securities).

114. The applicant contends that the resolutions were either effective in accordance with their terms - given the fact that the Commissioner subsequently did deny that the trustees were entitled to carry forward losses - to confer a present entitlement on Australian Commercial Underwriting and Australian Investment Securities, or (more probably) ineffective to confer a present entitlement on

ATC 20054

any of the named beneficiaries because the proviso (ie, the 'variation of income' resolution) involved a contingency. It follows, the applicant contends, that the applicant was not "presently entitled" under s 97(1) of the 1936 Act to a share of the income of the trust estate of the ACE Trust in the 2006 year or the Arjod Trust in the 2007 year.

115. The Commissioner supports the Tribunal's analysis, to the effect that: the trustees intended to distribute the whole of the income in the manner indicated in the 'distribution of trust income' resolutions; the beneficiaries had interests vested in interest and in possession at the date of the relevant resolutions; the attempt to deem otherwise could not change that result; and the trustees had exhausted their powers to distribute and there was nothing left to distribute.

116. In the 2006 and 2007 years, s 97(1) of the 1936 Act relevantly provided that "where a beneficiary of a trust estate who is not under any legal disability is presently entitled to a share of the income of the trust estate" the assessable income of the beneficiary includes "so much of that share of the net income of the trust estate as is attributable to a period when the beneficiary was a resident". In Walsh Bay, Beaumont and Sackville JJ (with whom Jenkinson J agreed) said (at 427) that, in order for a beneficiary of a trust to be "presently entitled" to a share of the income of a trust within s 97(1) of the 1936 Act, it is necessary to show, as the High Court held in
Harmer v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1991) 173 CLR 264 at 271, that:

(a) the beneficiary has an interest in the income which is both vested in interest and vested in possession; and (b) the beneficiary has a present legal right to demand and receive payment of the income, whether or not the precise entitlement can be ascertained before the end of the relevant year of income and whether or not the trustee has the funds available for immediate payment.

117. In Walsh Bay, Beaumont and Sackville JJ explained (at 427-428):

A vested interest is one where the holder has an "immediate fixed right of present or future enjoyment":
Glenn v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1915) 20 CLR 490 at 496, per Griffith CJ. In relation to land, an estate is vested in possession where there is a right of present enjoyment, as where A has a life estate or fee simple estate in the land. An estate is vested in interest where there is a present right of future enjoyment. Thus where T holds in trust for A for life and then in trust for B in fee simple, B's equitable fee simple estate is vested in interest during A's lifetime. The estate will vest in possession on A's death: Glenn v Commissioner, at 496; Dwight v FCT, at FCR 192.

An estate is contingent if the title of the holder depends upon the occurrence of an event which may or may not take place: E H Barr, Cheshire's Modern Law of Real Property (11th ed, 1972), p 241. However, the mere fact that an estate will not fall into possession until the regular determination of a prior estate does not make the first estate contingent. As stated in C Fearne, Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises (10th ed, 1844), vol 1, p 216:

It is not the uncertainty of ever taking effect in possession that makes a remainder contingent; for to that, every remainder for life … is and must be liable; as the remainder-man may die … before the death of the tenant for life. The present capacity of taking effect in possession, if the possession were to become vacant, and not the certainty that the possession will become vacant before the estate limited in remainder determines, universally distinguishes a vested remainder from one that is contingent.

ATC 20055

For these reasons it is said that before a beneficiary is entitled to a vested interest two things must occur:
  • (a) his identity must be established;
  • (b) his right to the interest (as distinguished from his right to possession) must not depend upon the occurrence of some event.

(See Cheshire's Modern Law of Real Property, p 42.)

The distinction between a vested but defeasible interest and an indefeasible interest is stated by Fearne (vol 2, p 30) as follows:

A defeasible interest is an interest that is subject to be defeated by the operation of a subsequent or mixed condition.

An indefeasible interest, or an absolute interest as opposed to a defeasible interest, is one that is not subject to any condition.

There is also a distinction between a contingent interest and a defeasible interest. The latter is a vested interest, which is liable to be divested by a supervening event. This distinction is not always easy to apply. For example, the rule of construction in
Phipps v Ackers (1842) 9 Cl & Fin 583; 8 ER 539, is that:

where a settlor makes a gift to A if A fulfils in the future some condition, and to B if A does not fulfil that condition, his intention is to make to A an immediate gift of the property including its income, of which, however, A is liable to be divested if and when the condition becomes impossible of fulfilment:
Re Kilpatrick's Policies Trusts [1966] Ch 730 at 764, per Diplock LJ.

118. An initial question to be addressed is the construction of the 'variation of income' resolutions made by ACPS for the 2006 year and Drewvale for the 2007 year. In each case, there is some difficulty in making sense of the words "and not distribute that amount so disallowed as a deduction". These words relate back to the words "should the Commissioner of Taxation". At first blush, the words appear to contemplate the Commissioner distributing an amount to a beneficiary, which does not make sense. However, we think it is tolerably clear that the words were concerned with a scenario where the Commissioner disallows a deduction claimed by the trust and, as a consequence, the amount of that deduction is not available in calculating the amount distributed to the beneficiary or beneficiaries. Likewise, we think it is tolerably clear that the words "or so include in the assessable income in accordance with the above appropriation" were concerned with a scenario where the Commissioner decides that an additional amount is to be included in the assessable income of the trust and, as a consequence, that additional amount is included in calculating the amount distributed to the beneficiary or beneficiaries.

119. Another question to be addressed is whether, in each case, the making of the 'variation of income' resolution was authorised by the relevant trust deed. In considering whether the resolutions were authorised by the relevant trust deed, the provisions of each trust deed are to be construed consistently with the principles that apply to the construction of contracts:
Byrnes v Kendle (2011) 243 CLR 253 at [59] per Gummow and Hayne JJ; at [102]-[105] per Heydon and Crennan JJ; Segelov at 447 per Gleeson JA (Meagher and Leeming JJA agreeing). In relation to the resolution made by ACPS, the trust deed for the ACE Trust provided that the Trustee could, at any time before the expiration of any Accounting Period, and with respect to all or part of the Net Income of the Trust Fund for that Accounting Period, determine to "pay, apply or set aside the same" to or for any General Beneficiary (cl 3.3, set out at [14] above). "Pay" was defined as including transfer, convey and assign. "Set Aside", in relation to a Beneficiary, was defined as including placing sums to the credit of such Beneficiary in the books of account of the Trust Fund. These definitions do not exclude the possibility of income being distributed on alternative bases. (The word "apply" was not defined.) A number of the provisions relating to the distribution of trust income contemplated adjustments, of one type or another, being made after the end of a particular Accounting Period: see clauses 3.3.4 and 3.6.2. In light of these provisions, and in the absence of an express

ATC 20056

provision to the contrary, we incline to the view that it was open to the Trustee of the ACE Trust, before the expiration of an Accounting Period, to determine to distribute all or part of the Net Income of the Trust Fund on alternative bases; for example, to resolve to distribute the income to X, but provide that if certain events happen, then the income is distributed to Y. An amount cannot, of course, be distributed more than once. A distribution once made cannot be unmade, but a resolution can be made in terms which are contingent upon events so that its distribution is determined by reference to those events which have occurred.

120. In relation to the 'variation of income' resolution made by Drewvale, the trust deed for the Arjod Trust provided that the Trustee could, at any time and from time to time during the Accounting Period, and with respect to all or part of the net income of the Trust Fund for such Accounting Period, determine to "pay apply or set aside the same" for any one or more of the General Beneficiaries (cl 3(1)(a), set out at [50] above). The word "pay" was defined as including transfer, convey and assign. The words "set aside", in relation to a beneficiary, were defined as including placing sums to the credit of such beneficiary in the books of account kept by the Trustee in relation to the Trust Fund. Again, these definitions do not exclude the possibility of distributions being made on alternative bases. (The word "apply" was not defined.) As with the ACE Trust, a number of provisions relating to the distribution of trust income in the trust deed for the Arjod Trust contemplated adjustments being made after the end of a particular Accounting Period: see clauses 3(1)(c) and 3(2)(b). In light of these provisions, and in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, we incline to the view that it was open to the Trustee of the Arjod Trust, before the expiration of an Accounting Period, to determine to distribute all or part of the net income of the Trust Fund on alternative bases, as described at [119] above.

121. Assuming that each of the 'variation of income' resolutions was authorised by the relevant trust deed, the next question is whether the applicant was "presently entitled" within the meaning of s 97(1) of the 1936 Act to a share of the net income of the relevant trust estate (that is, 100% of the net income of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year, and 100% of the net income of the Arjod Trust above $3.5 million for the 2007 year). In concluding, at [154]-[157] of the Reasons, that the applicant was presently entitled, the Tribunal treated the 'distribution of trust income' and the 'variation of income' resolutions as distinct and sequential. However, we do not consider it correct to treat the resolutions in this way. In the case of the ACPS resolutions, the two resolutions were made at the same time: they were set out in a single document signed by the sole director of the company. In the case of the Drewvale resolutions, the two resolutions were made at about the same time, at a meeting of the Board of Directors. In both cases, the resolutions were interdependent in that both resolutions dealt with the same subject matter - the distribution of the income of the trust for a particular year of income - with the latter resolution varying, in certain circumstances, the distribution made by the former resolution. In light of these matters, it is artificial to treat the two resolutions (namely, the 'distribution of trust income' resolution and the 'variation of income' resolution) as separate and sequential for the purposes of deciding whether the applicant was "presently entitled". Rather, the two resolutions should be read together for the purposes of deciding this question. There does not appear to be any issue between the parties that, if the two resolutions are read together, the distribution to the applicant was contingent: it depended on the occurrence of an event that may or may not take place (namely, the Commissioner disallowing a deduction or including an additional amount in assessable income). It follows that, assuming that each 'variation of income' resolution was authorised by the relevant trust deed, the applicant was not "presently entitled" to a share of the net income of the trust estate of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year or the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year.

122. Although we incline to the view that each 'variation of income' resolution was authorised by the relevant trust deed, as the matter is not free from doubt we will also consider the position on the alternative basis that each such resolution was not authorised. If this is the correct analysis, a question of severance arises: can the invalid

ATC 20057

'variation of income' resolution be severed, leaving in place the 'distribution of trust income' resolution? The common law principles regarding ultra vires legislation and subordinate legislation may be applied by analogy. In the context of legislation, the common law rule is that "[n]o severance could be effected unless an inference that the provisions are not to be interdependent can be positively drawn from the nature of the provisions, from the manner in which they are expressed or from the fact that they independently affect the persons or things within power in the same way and with the same results as if the full intended operation of the legislation had been valid":
Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1 at 370 per Dixon J. The common law position as regards subordinate legislation is substantially the same:
Harrington v Lowe (1996) 190 CLR 311 at 329 n 50, citing
Owners of the SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689 at 713. Alternatively, analogy may be found in the principles regarding severance of an uncertain contractual provision. In that context, whether an uncertain provision can be severed "depends on the intention of the parties to be gathered from the instrument as a whole":
Whitlock v Brew (1968) 118 CLR 445 at 461, citing
Life Insurance Company of Australia Ltd v Phillips (1925) 36 CLR 60 at 72; see also
United Group Rail Services Ltd v Rail Corporation New South Wales (2009) 74 NSWLR 618 at [90]. In the present case, for the reasons given above, we consider the two resolutions (that is, the 'distribution of trust income' resolution and the 'variation of income' resolution) to be interdependent: both resolutions dealt with distribution of the income of the trust for the same year, with the latter resolution varying the distribution made by the former. Thus, if the correct analysis is that the 'variation of income' resolution was invalid, whether legislative or contractual principles are applied by analogy, we do not consider severance to be available and both resolutions would fail. It follows that, on this analysis, the applicant was not "presently entitled" to a share of the net income of the trust estate of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year or the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year.

123. In summary, whether or not the 'variation of income' resolution was authorised by the relevant trust deed, the result is the same: the applicant was not "presently entitled" to a share of the income of the trust estate of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year or the Arjod Trust for the 2007 year. In our respectful opinion, for the reasons indicated above, the Tribunal erred in its approach to this question and its decision, to this extent, should be set aside.

Leave to Raise New Grounds Issue

124. This issue concerns whether the Tribunal failed to apply, or misapplied, the principles governing the grant of leave to rely on new grounds under s 14ZZK(a) of the TAA. That provision provides that, on an application for review of an objection decision, "the applicant is, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise, limited to the grounds stated in the taxation objection to which the decision relates". At the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant sought to rely on two grounds that were not stated in her objection. The first concerned the Deeds of Disclaimer. The second involved the contention that the ACPS 'distribution of trust income' resolution was ineffective on the basis that it purported to appoint "income" rather than "Net Income" to the applicant. The Tribunal refused the applicant leave to rely on the additional grounds.

125. The principles applicable to an application to rely on grounds additional to those stated in an objection were considered by the Full Court of this Court in Lighthouse Philatelics. That case concerned s 190(a) of the 1936 Act, which provided that, in proceedings under the relevant Part on a review before the Tribunal or on appeal to a court, "the taxpayer shall, unless the Tribunal or court otherwise orders, be limited to the grounds stated in his objection". Neither party to this appeal suggested that there is any relevant distinction between s 190(a) of the 1936 Act, as considered in Lighthouse Philatelics, and s 14ZZK(a) of the TAA. The Full Court (Lockhart, Burchett and Hill JJ) said (at 150) that the words of s 190(a) were, on their face, "wide and unambiguous". Noting that they empowered

ATC 20058

the Tribunal or the court, as the case may be, to relieve a taxpayer from the constraint of the subsection, their Honours said: "Unless there is something in the legislative history or context which requires a departure from the literal meaning of the words, they should be given effect to." After describing the legislative history of the provision, including the 'mischief' to which it was directed, the Full Court rejected the Commissioner's submission that s 190(a) did not permit the taxpayer to raise entirely new grounds in total substitution of those originally raised (at 155-156). Their Honours said (at 156):

… the whole statutory background leads to the conclusion that the natural meaning of the words used should be given effect to. The amendment to s 190(a) introduced by the Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Act 1986 (Cth) was of a remedial kind and thus must be construed in accordance with well-established principles relating to ameliorating legislation. It follows that the Tribunal or the court has power to permit a taxpayer to argue that the taxable income and tax payable are incorrect and "excessive" for reasons not initially advanced, even if those reasons involve, as in the present case, entirely fresh grounds in substitution for the original grounds, or even if they require consideration of matters not considered by the Commissioner in the original assessment process.

The decision whether to allow an amendment ought to be made on the same considerations of justice upon which such decisions are regularly made in litigation. It was in the past a reproach to the law that the real issues in taxation appeals could be refused a hearing for a defective objection, and Parliament has legislated to remove that reproach; an amendment under s 190 should not be considered with reluctance, but on its merits.

126. It is common ground on this appeal that these are the applicable principles. Further, the applicant accepts that, in applying these principles, one should have regard to the current approach to the power of amendment in litigation, as stated in
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, rather than the more permissive approach reflected in
Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146. Subject to adjustments to reflect the particular context (ie, an application for review of an objection decision), the considerations referred to by the High Court in Aon are, in our view, relevant in determining an application for an order under s 14ZZK(a). In Aon, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ said that "[f]actors such as the nature and importance of the amendment to the party applying cannot be overlooked" (at [102]). Matters to be weighed against a grant of leave to amend include "the extent of the delay and the costs associated with it, together with the prejudice which might reasonably be assumed to follow and that which is shown" (at [102]). Further, "[m]uch may depend upon the point the litigation has reached relative to a trial when the application to amend is made" (at [102]). Their Honours also said, in relation to the discretion to permit an amendment, that "[i]nvariably the exercise of that discretion will require an explanation to be given where there is delay in applying for amendment" (at [102]).

127. In relation to whether the applicant should be given leave to rely on the Deeds of Disclaimer, the Tribunal took into account the fact that the passage of time might affect the Commissioner's ability to recover any tax payable by the trustees if the Commissioner were to assess the trustees on the basis that no beneficiary was presently entitled to the income of the ACE Trust as at 30 June 2006 or the Arjod Trust as at 30 June 2007 (Reasons, [60]-[61]). At [61] of the Reasons, the Tribunal considered whether it would be in the interests of justice to give leave in circumstances where the applicant had, at least through her husband and her advisers, been aware of the distributions for some years and taken no steps to execute disclaimers, raise the matter as a ground of objection, or pursue it in her application for review when it was lodged in September 2015.

128. In relation to whether the applicant should be given leave to contend that the ACPS 'distribution of trust income' resolution was ineffective on the basis that it purported to appoint "income" rather than "Net Income" to the applicant, the Tribunal expressed the view that: the Commissioner

ATC 20059

would be prejudiced as he had not had reason, at an earlier stage, to consider assessing ACPS as the trustee under s 99A of the 1936 Act; and, although the Commissioner may still be able to issue an assessment to ACPS, he may nevertheless be prejudiced due to an inability to recover the tax.

129. The Commissioner submits that the applicant has not shown any error in the Tribunal's exercise of the discretion in the sense of
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-505.

130. In view of the conclusions we reach below in relation to the Disclaimers Issue and the Ultra Vires Issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether the Tribunal erred in the exercise of the discretion. However, we make the following observations. First, the Tribunal does not seem to have, but should have, considered the nature and importance of each of the additional grounds, the reasons for not raising the issue earlier, the adequacy of the explanation given and the effect that a grant of leave would have on the hearing: cf
Ramsden v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 56 ATR 42 at [67] per Spender J (the issue did not arise on appeal).

131. Secondly, at [60]-[61] of the Reasons, the Tribunal suggested that there was an "open question" as to whether the Commissioner could recover any tax sought from the trustees if they were to be assessed and that granting leave to rely on the Deeds of Disclaimer could "prejudice the Commissioner in carrying out his statutory functions". While it is appropriate, and necessary, to take into account prejudice in the conduct of the proceeding before the Tribunal (for example, the Commissioner's ability to gather relevant evidence or to test the evidence may be prejudiced by a late amendment), we doubt that an inability to issue an assessment against another taxpayer or an inability to recover tax from another taxpayer should weigh heavily against a grant of leave. This would seem ordinarily to be outside the range of considerations referred to by the High Court in Aon, as adapted to the present context. The same point applies in relation to the application for leave to contend that the ACPS 'distribution of trust income' resolution was ineffective.

132. Thirdly, the contention that the ACPS 'distribution of trust income' resolution was ineffective on the basis that it purported to distribute "income" rather than "Net Income" to the applicant raised a question of construction. The contention was raised in December 2015, when the applicant's initial statement of facts, issues and contentions was filed in the Tribunal proceeding. This was several months before the hearing date. It is difficult to see how the Commissioner, who dealt with the issue in his responding statement of facts, issues and contentions, was prejudiced by the contention being raised.

133. Finally, we note that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that, if the applicant's contention regarding the ACPS 'distribution of income' resolution was correct, this would result in ACPS as trustee being liable to tax under s 99A of the 1936 Act. However, the position would have been that ACPS held the Net Income for the 2006 year upon trust for the Special Beneficiary, Mr Lewski (clause 3.5 of the trust deed).

The Disclaimers Issue

134. This issue may be stated as: whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the applicant had not effectively disclaimed the relevant benefits and entitlements under the trusts by executing the Deeds of Disclaimer.

135. The Deeds of Disclaimer, executed by the applicant on 15 December 2015, are set out at [69] and [70] above. The Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant had not effectively disclaimed the relevant benefits and entitlements under the trusts appears at [95]-[98] of the Reasons. The Tribunal found, at [95], that the applicant had given "unfettered authority to [Mr Lewski] to handle all of her financial affairs" and that "[h]e acted as her agent in relation to them". Based on those findings, the Tribunal concluded, at [97], that: Mr Lewski's knowledge of the applicant's financial affairs was attributed to the applicant; even if Mr Lewski was not aware of the distributions made to the applicant by the ACE Trust in the 2006 year and the Arjod Trust in the 2007 year at some earlier time, he was made aware of these distributions by receipt of the ATO's position papers dated 20 December 2012 and 22 January

ATC 20060

2013; this knowledge was to be attributed to the applicant; despite this knowledge, Mr Lewski (and so the applicant) did nothing to disclaim the distributions until 15 December 2015; by then, seven or eight years had passed since the distributions had been made and two or three years had passed since Mr Lewski (and so the applicant) had knowledge of them; and the passage of such a period of time was consistent with "an intention by [the applicant] not to disclaim her interests in those distributions" and with "an implied acceptance of those distributions".

136. The applicant's submissions on appeal in relation to this issue can be summarised as follows:

137. Contrary to the applicant's submission that, at its highest, the evidence establishes that the applicant trusted her husband to take responsibility for the family's financial affairs, we consider that it was open to the Tribunal, on the evidence, to find that the applicant had given "unfettered authority to [Mr Lewski] to handle all of her financial affairs" and that "[h]e acted as her agent in relation to them" (at [95]). These findings reflect the general tenor of the applicant's witness statement in the Tribunal. They are also consistent with, if not supported by, the applicant's own evidence that she had no knowledge of the existence of the trusts, the distributions or the assessments until 28 October 2015.

138. Having found that the applicant had given her husband unfettered authority to handle her financial affairs and that he acted as her agent in relation to them, we consider that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant was taken to have known of the distributions when Mr Lewski obtained knowledge of them. In NIML, Nettle JA, as his Honour then was, with whom Buchanan JA and Bongiorno AJA agreed, said at [38]-[40]:

139. In the current edition of Bowstead, namely Watts P and Reynolds FMB, Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency (20th ed, 2014), the relevant 'rules' are set out in Arts 94 and 95. We note that the rule corresponding to the second rule set out above is expressed in less absolute terms: "The law may impute to a principal knowledge relating to the subject matter of the agency which the agent acquires while acting within the scope of his authority" (art 95(1)). This revised formulation accommodates the flexibility that is required, given the different legal contexts in which the principles of attribution may operate.

140. In Sargent, one of the issues was whether the vendors in the third appeal before the High Court, the Turnbulls, had lost the right to rescind a contract for the sale of land. In the case of the Turnbulls, certain material facts (relevant in demonstrating that the right to rescind had been lost) were known, not by the Turnbulls, but by their solicitor. The question (as framed by Stephen J, with whom McTiernan ACJ agreed) was whether "this knowledge on the part of their solicitor will operate so as to attract to the acts of affirmation the irrevocability of an election" (at 648). Stephen J considered that the answer to this question could be approached in either of two ways and with the same result. Stephen J continued (at 648-649):

Election as between inconsistent contractual rights does not call for any conscious choice as between two sets of rights, it being enough that there should be intentional and unequivocal conduct together with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the legal rights. There need not, therefore, be a consciously "choosing mind", as there must, in fraud, be a "wicked mind". Now where, as in this case, a vendor employs a solicitor to attend to the carrying out of the legal aspects of a sale he necessarily authorizes that solicitor to attend to all the usual aspects of conveyancing practice; that authority will here extend to the obtaining of the necessary planning certificate and the solicitor's knowledge, gained from that certificate, may properly be imputed to his clients since it was acquired both for the purpose of that transaction and in the course of it (Bradley v. Riches; Re Philip-Stephan Photo Litho and Typographic Process Co. Ltd.; Dixon v. Winch; Ayrey v. British Legal and United Provident Assurance Co. Ltd.).

Again, where a vendor so arranges matters that his solicitor undertakes on his behalf the carrying out of a conveyancing transaction as a whole he thereby not only authorizes his solicitor to perform all necessary steps but also places the solicitor in the position of acquiring at first hand knowledge of relevant facts, at the same time depriving himself of the opportunity of acquiring such first hand knowledge. If any such steps taken by the solicitor happen to constitute acts of affirmation of the continued existence of the contract they will be binding upon the client (Provincial Insurance Co. of Canada v. Leduc). If they be unequivocal and are performed at a time when the solicitor has himself acquired knowledge of facts giving rise to a right to rescind the contract the client will, without the need to attribute to him the knowledge of his solicitor, be bound by those acts of affirmation as on an election; the duly authorized conduct of the solicitor, who has acquired the relevant

ATC 20063

knowledge, will, without either conduct or knowledge on the client's part, constitute an effective election not to rescind the contract (Hough v. Guardian Fire and Life Assurance Co. Ltd.; Ayrey's Case).

(Footnotes omitted.)

On the facts of the case, Stephen J considered that there had been an irrevocable election to affirm the contract. In a separate judgment, Mason J, after noting that in the case of the Turnbulls a question arose as to whether the knowledge of a solicitor is to be attributed to his client, said (at 658-659):

As against a third party the law imputes to a principal knowledge gained by his agent in the course of, and which is material to, a transaction in which the agent is employed on behalf of the principal, under such circumstances that it is the duty of the agent to communicate it to the principal. In the words of James L.J. in Vane v. Vane, "the actual knowledge of the agent through whom an estate is acquired is … equivalent to the actual personal knowledge of the principal". In my view this principle applies to information acquired by a solicitor in the course of acting for his client in a conveyancing matter (Dixon v. Winch). The solicitor is to be regarded as the alter ego of the client and the rights of the other party to the contract cannot be made to depend upon the diligence or lack of diligence exhibited by the solicitor in his dealings with his client.

(Footnotes omitted.)

141. In considering whether the knowledge of the agent is to be imputed to the principal, it is necessary to consider the context of the particular legal issue that gives rise to the question: see Bowstead & Reynolds (20th ed, 2014) at [8-208], p 541. In the present case, the particular legal issue concerns the acceptance of a trust distribution. In Broomhead, McGarvie J said that the general principles which apply to the making and acceptance of gifts, apply where the gift is of a beneficial interest made by way of declaration of trust (at 930). By extension, those general principles also apply to a distribution of trust income by the trustee of a discretionary trust. As stated by McGarvie J in Broomhead, positive acceptance by the words or conduct of a donee is not necessary to complete a gift; acceptance may be presumed unless the donee disclaims the gift (at 930). Ordinarily, a gift vests in the donee before he or she knows of it, subject to the donee's right when informed of the gift to repudiate or reject it:
Standing v Bowring (1885) 31 Ch D 282 at 288; Broomhead at 930. In Broomhead, McGarvie J held that the test for whether a beneficiary is entitled to disclaim is "whether in the circumstances he has accepted by words or other conduct or has remained silent for so long that the proper inference is that he has determined to accept the interest" (at 931). This statement was approved by the Full Court of this Court (Lee, Merkel and Hely JJ) in Ramsden at [53]. When the particular legal issue is so identified, it does not seem inapposite to apply the principles for attribution of knowledge discussed by the High Court in Sargent. Although the issue in that case concerned the loss of a right to rescind and, in particular, whether the vendors were taken to have made an irrevocable election to affirm the contract, the question whether a donee is to be taken to have accepted a gift, or an object of a discretionary trust is taken to have accepted a distribution, is broadly similar.

142. Here, the applicant had handed over all of her financial affairs to Mr Lewski. It was within the scope of Mr Lewski's authority to receive knowledge of the relevant trust distributions. We consider that Mr Lewski was under a duty to inform the applicant of the distributions as they were material transactions that affected her financial position (including her potential liability to tax). There is no question that Mr Lewski was aware of the distributions, as he either made or participated in the making of the relevant resolutions. (He was also informed of the distributions by way of the ATO position papers in December 2012 and January 2013.) Neither the applicant, nor Mr Lewski on her behalf, took any step to disclaim the distribution before 15 December 2015. In these circumstances, and taking into account the particular legal context, we consider the conclusion that the applicant was taken to have had knowledge of, and to have accepted, the gifts before 15 December 2015 to be consistent with the cases and principles discussed above.

143.

ATC 20064

For these reasons, we reject the applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant had not effectively disclaimed the relevant benefits and entitlements under the trusts. In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider whether, as the Commissioner contends (in paragraph 5 of his notice of contention), even if there had been valid disclaimers, the disclaimers had no operation or effect for the purposes of s 97(1)(a)(i) of the 1936 Act. We note that a contrary view was accepted by the Full Court of this Court in Ramsden at [30], but the issue was not in dispute in the appeal (see [25]). See also
Nemesis Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2005) 150 FCR 152 at [50], where a contrary submission by the Commissioner was accepted.

Ultra Vires Issue

144. This issue may be stated as: whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the applicant's contention that the 'distribution of trust income' resolution made by ACPS with respect to the 2006 year was ultra vires. In the proceeding before the Tribunal, the applicant had contended that this resolution, in purporting to appoint the "income", rather than the "Net Income", of the trust to the applicant, was not authorised by the trust deed. The issue arises in the following way. By the 'distribution of trust income' resolution (see [46] above), ACPS resolved to pay, apply and set aside "the income of the trust, as defined in the deed" for the year ended 30 June 2006 to or for the benefit of the applicant. However, cl 3.3 of the trust deed (set out at [14] above) provided that the Trustee may, at any time before the expiration of any Accounting Period, "with respect to all or any part or parts of the Net Income of the Trust Fund for such Accounting Period" determine to "pay, apply or set aside the same to or for any one or more of the General Beneficiaries". "Net Income" had a particular definition in the trust deed (see [12] above).

145. The Tribunal, at [135]-[140] of the Reasons, rejected the applicant's contention. The Tribunal, at [139], said that ACPS had distributed "not the Income as defined in cl 1.17 but the Profit, being the net income determined according to accounting principles and trust law earned for that year". The Tribunal considered that ACPS's intention to do this was apparent from its determination that the income of the trust included all amounts (including capital gains) taken into account in calculating the net income of the trust (ie, the 'income of the trust fund' resolution).

146. The applicant's written submissions on the appeal can be summarised as follows:

147. In the Commissioner's written submissions on the appeal, he submitted that, contrary to the applicant's submissions, the trustee could distribute the net income according to accounting principles and trust law. This was because, it was submitted, the definition of "Net Income" expressly authorised the trustee to determine that "Net Income" meant income calculated in accordance with established accounting principles and trust law. Implicit in these submissions was a contention that the trustee (ACPS) had made a determination, pursuant to the last paragraph of the definition of "Net Income", that the Net Income for the year ended 30 June 2006 was the income produced from the investment of the Trust Fund "calculated in accordance with established accounting principles and trust law".

148. This contention was responded to in the applicant's reply submissions. By these submissions (as amended during oral submissions), the applicant submitted that: the applicant's objection noted specifically that no such determination had been made (ie, a determination under the last paragraph of the definition of "Net Income"); the Commissioner's reasons for the objection decision accepted specifically that no determination had been made by ACPS that trust income and net income should not be the same; the case proceeded on the basis that no determination had been made; and the Commissioner did not suggest otherwise to any of the applicant's witnesses.

149. Extracts from the transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal show that: in opening the Commissioner's case (after the applicant's witnesses had completed their evidence), counsel for the Commissioner submitted that the balance sheet of the ACE Trust for the 2006 year was "consistent with a determination of income in accordance with accounting principles in trust law, given that it shows a distribution of the net profit to beneficiaries …"; in closing submissions, counsel for the Commissioner submitted that the balance sheet of the ACE Trust showed a distribution of accounting net profit to beneficiaries, which was "consistent with a determination by the trustee that net income was the income calculated in accordance with established accounting principles and trust law"; and, in closing submissions, counsel for the applicant objected to the Commissioner's submission on the basis that the Commissioner's statement of facts, issues and contentions had not suggested that the trustee had made a determination that Net Income was to be income calculated in accordance with established accounting principles and trust law.

150. We do not read [137]-[139] of the Reasons of the Tribunal as containing a finding to the effect that ACPS made a determination, pursuant to the definition of "Net Income" in the trust deed, that the Net Income for the year ended 30 June 2006 was the income produced from the investment of the Trust Fund "calculated in accordance with established accounting principles and trust law". In circumstances where no such determination was in evidence, no witness gave evidence that such a determination had been made, and the Commissioner did not positively contend that such a determination had been made, it is unsurprising that the Tribunal did not make such a finding.

151. Proceeding on the basis that ACPS did not make a determination pursuant to the definition of "Net Income" as described above, the question remains whether the 'distribution of trust income' resolution was ultra vires. Contrary to the applicant's submissions, we consider the correct construction of the 'distribution of trust income' resolution to be, as the Tribunal in substance decided, that the Trustee resolved to pay, apply and set aside the Net Income of the trust. In circumstances where there are two open constructions, one of which results in validity and one of which results in invalidity, it is in accordance with established principle to prefer the construction that preserves validity:
Langston v Langston (1834) 2 Cl & Fin 194 at 243; 6 ER 1128 per Lord

ATC 20066

Brougham LC, approved in
Fell v Fell (1922) 31 CLR 268 at 275 per Isaacs J;
Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571 at 589 per Mason J; see also
In re Baden's Deed Trusts [1969] 2 Ch 388 at 400, 402;
Inland Revenue Commissioners v McMullen [1981] AC 1 at 14. Here, we consider the construction that the Trustee resolved to pay, set aside and apply the Net Income of the Trust Fund to be, at least, an open construction. First, the 'distribution of trust income' resolution should be read in the context of the immediately preceding resolution (the 'income of the trust fund' resolution). This referred to "the net income of the trust". It is open to infer that, in referring to "the income of the trust" in the 'distribution of trust income' resolution, the Trustee was intending to refer again to the net income of the trust, having referred to this in the immediately preceding resolution. Secondly, the 'distribution of trust income' resolution referred to "the income of the trust, as defined in the deed", but the words "the income of the trust" were not defined in the trust deed (cf the word "Income"). This raises a question as to which defined term ("Income" or "Net Income") the Trustee was intending to refer. Thirdly, although of less weight, we note that the 'distribution of trust income' resolution used the word "income" with a lower case rather than an upper case first letter. This may suggest that the trustee was not intending to pick up the defined term "Income". (In referring in this paragraph to the trustee's intention, we refer to its objectively ascertained intention: see the cases referred to at [119] above; see also
City of Subiaco v Local Government Advisory Board (2011) 184 LGERA 200; [2011] WASC 322 at [49]-[52] per Edelman J.) For these reasons, we consider it to be, at least, open to construe the resolution as referring to the Net Income of the trust. As this construction preserves the validity of the resolution, it is to be preferred.

152. Accordingly, we consider that the Tribunal was correct to reject the applicant's ultra vires contention, and we reject the applicant's challenge on appeal to that conclusion.

Conclusion

153. For the reasons given above, the appeal is to be allowed. It would seem to follow that the Commissioner should pay the applicant's costs of the appeal. We will make an order to this effect, but also provide that if either party seeks a variation of the costs order, the party may give written notice within seven business days. In that event, we will make directions for the filing and service of written submissions on costs, with a view to determining the issue on the papers.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 9 December 2016 at Melbourne be set aside and, in lieu thereof, it be ordered that:

3. Subject to paragraph 4, the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.

4. If either party seeks a variation of the costs order in paragraph 3, the party shall give written notice to the Court and the other party within seven business days. Directions will then be made for the filing and service of written submissions on costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

 

Disclaimer and notice of copyright applicable to materials provided by CCH Australia Limited

CCH Australia Limited ("CCH") believes that all information which it has provided in this site is accurate and reliable, but gives no warranty of accuracy or reliability of such information to the reader or any third party. The information provided by CCH is not legal or professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, no responsibility for damages or loss arising in any way out of or in connection with or incidental to any errors or omissions in any information provided is accepted by CCH or by persons involved in the preparation and provision of the information, whether arising from negligence or otherwise, from the use of or results obtained from information supplied by CCH.

The information provided by CCH includes history notes and other value-added features which are subject to CCH copyright. No CCH material may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy for your personal use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. In particular, the reproduction of any part of the information for sale or incorporation in any product intended for sale is prohibited without CCH's prior consent.