Tax Bites

Tax Bites are regular, short communications containing a snapshot of various common tax issues of interest to professional advisers. Here are some of our previous Tax Bites. Should you wish to subscribe to receive Tax Bites via e-mail, please click on the "Subscribe to Tax Bites" button to the right.

Board of Taxation review of Small Business tax concessions

17th May 2018

The Board of Taxation is conducting a review of Australia’s Small Business tax concessions.  This includes the Small Business CGT concessions.  The Board’s review will involve ... read more

Draft legislation introduced re Small Business CGT concession integrity measures

9th April 2018

The Government has introduced draft legislation into Parliament (Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2018) in relation to proposed amendments to the Small Business CGT co... read more

Redemption of redeemable preference shares out of profits

14th November 2017

Capital reductions can sometimes occur via the redemption of redeemable preference shares under Part 2H.2 of the Corporations Act 2001. A redemption should give rise to CGT event C2 (cancel... read more

Taxation disputes with the ATO – AAT vs the Federal Court

7th September 2017

So you have a taxation dispute with the ATO.  You may have received the ATO’s initial decision and also their subsequent objection decision.  If you still have a genuine taxation ... read more
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

About Tax Bites

Tax Bites are general in nature and are not a substitute for specific advice. They are the opinion of Tax Advisory Specialists, and the ATO or the Courts may take a different view. They are not updated for changes in the law or the interpretation of the law since publication.

 

Request Advice

 

 

Latest Tax Bite

Valuation issues following Miley’s case – Discounts and restrictive covenants for the purpose of the Maximum Net Asset Value test

Miley’s case was originally heard by the AAT, then the Federal Court, then back to the AAT.  It involved the sale by a taxpayer of a 1/3rd interest in a company as part of a package where the two other shareholders also sold their 1/3rd interests in the company for a 100% sale.  
 
A brief summary of the relevant issues and decisions is below.
 
First AAT case – The taxpayer contended that, for the purpose of the MNAV test, a discount for lack of control should be applied to the market value of his shares on the basis that his 1/3rd interest was not a controlling interest.  The AAT agreed indicating that the market value of the taxpayer’s shares alone should be considered rather than the market value of the package of shares making up 100% of the company with control.
 
Federal Court case – The Federal Court disagreed with the AAT’s position on the basis that the reality of the market was that there was a willing purchaser for all of the shares in the company.  The Federal Court further said that if the recent sale transaction can be said to be one between a willing but not anxious seller, and willing but not anxious buyer, the price that the buyer and seller actually agreed on may generally be taken to be the market price, or at least a reliable indicator, if not the best evidence, of the market price.  The Federal Court distinguished other cases where a discount for lack of control was considered appropriate on the basis that in those cases the purchaser was unable to acquire the remaining shares in a company.  The Federal Court remitted the case back to the AAT for determination according to the law.
 
Second AAT case – In the second AAT case (remitted from the Federal Court), the taxpayer argued that the value attributed to his shares should be reduced on the basis that part of the price he received under the sale contract was attributable to the non-competition clauses in the contract rather than the value of the shares, with these rights not existing “just before the CGT event”, and therefore the value attributed to the restrictive covenants should not be included in the MNAV test.  The AAT disagreed, indicating that without the sale, the covenants probably had no value: they were only valuable to a buyer in connection with the sale because they protected and preserved the goodwill that was embedded in the price paid for the shares.  It followed that the value of the shares just before their sale was impacted by the terms of the deal that was formally struck immediately thereafter.  As such, the value of the restrictive covenants should be included in the value of the shares just before the CGT event for the purpose of the MNAV test.

Share on
View Past Tax Bites Subscribe to Tax Bites
Want to know more?

If you would like to know more about how we can help you, please contact us via:

Number0414 965 653
Copyright © 2012 Tax Advisory Specialists Sutherland Shire Web Design