TR 94/30
Income tax: capital gains tax implications
of varying rights attaching to shares
This ruling contains references to repealed provisions, some
of which may have been rewritten. The ruling still has
effect. Paragraph 32 in TR 2006/10 provides further guidance
on the status and binding effect of public rulings where the
law has been repealed or repealed and rewritten. The
legislative references at the end of the ruling indicate the
repealed provisions and, where applicable, the rewritten
provisions.
This document has changed over time. View its history.
|
|
Date |
Version |
Change |
|
|
6 October 1994 |
Original
ruling |
|
|
You
are here ® |
29 November 2006 |
Original
ruling + note |
Repeal provision note |
|
|
contents |
para |
|
What this Ruling is about |
1 |
|
Ruling |
8 |
|
Date of effect |
13 |
|
Definitions |
16 |
|
Explanations |
18 |
|
Nature of a share |
18 |
|
Whether a right attaching to a
share is a CGT asset |
32 |
|
Disposal |
34 |
|
Full disposal |
34 |
|
Part disposal |
40 |
|
Deemed disposals - subsections
160M(6) and 160M(7) |
43 |
|
Subsection 160M(6) |
44 |
|
Subsection 160M(7) |
46 |
|
Section 160ZZP rollover |
50 |
|
Examples |
53 |
|
Scope of this Ruling |
63 |
|
How Ruling relates to Div 19B |
63 |
Preamble
|
This Ruling, to the
extent that it is capable of being a 'public ruling'
in terms of Part IVAAA of the Taxation
Administration Act 1953, is
a public ruling for the purposes of that Part.
Taxation Ruling TR 92/1 explains when a Ruling is a
public ruling and how it is binding on the
Commissioner. |
What this Ruling is about
1. This Ruling clarifies whether any disposal of a right, or
a share with that right attached, occurs for the purposes of
Part IIIA of the Income
Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA)
when the bundle of rights that comprise the share is varied.
In particular, it considers whether there is:
-
(a)
-
a full disposal under
subsection 160M(1);
-
(b)
-
a part disposal under section
160R; or
-
(c)
-
a deemed disposal under
subsection 160M(6) or 160M(7).
2. This Ruling
applies only to those transactions where the share value
shifting provisions of Division 19B of Part IIIA do not
apply (see
paragraphs 63 to 69 below). Division 19B applies to a
significant range of share value shifts that occur after
12:00 midday, Eastern Summer Time, 12 January 1994. This
Ruling does not consider Division 19B in any detail.
3. The main types of variations to share rights considered
in this Ruling broadly include:
-
(a)
-
an alteration in voting
rights;
-
(b)
-
a change in entitlements of
shareholders to share in the assets of the company
on winding up;
-
(c)
-
a change in dividend
entitlements, including a change from a cumulative
right to dividends to a non-cumulative right to
dividends or vice versa;
-
(d)
-
an alteration in rights to
participate in other distributions of surplus assets
and profits;
-
(e)
-
conversion of a share from one
class to another; and
-
(f)
-
any other variation in rights
where consideration is received or paid in respect
of rights relinquished or acquired.
4. Where a disposal does occur, the circumstances under
which section 160ZZP rollover relief can be obtained (where
shares in a company are exchanged for other shares in the
same company) will be examined.
5. This Ruling does not deal with situations where:
-
(a)
-
rights attaching to units in
unit trusts are varied;
-
(b)
-
share splits or consolidations
occur; or
-
(c)
-
a shareholder receives a
payment to refrain from exercising a right or as an
inducement to exercise a right in a certain way.
6. This Ruling also does not consider the possible
application of the general anti-avoidance provisions of Part
IVA. However, it needs to be kept in mind that a variation
may attract the application of Part IVA in certain
circumstances.
7. Key terms in this Ruling are defined in paragraphs 16 to
17 below.
Ruling
8. A variation in rights attaching to a share (including
those variations outlined in paragraphs 3(a) to (e) above)
does not result in a full disposal of an asset for the
purposes of Part IIIA unless there is a cancellation or
redemption of the share. In determining whether a disposal
has occurred under Part IIIA, it is not relevant to consider
whether the variation is slight (such as a small change to
the nominal value of shares) or more significant (such as
disposing of the preference to receive dividends).
9. A variation in rights attaching to shares does not result
in a part disposal of an asset under section 160R.
10. Similarly, a variation in rights does not constitute a
deemed disposal under subsection 160M(6). However, a
variation in share rights for money or other consideration
does give rise to a deemed disposal under subsection 160M(7)
where the other requirements of that subsection are met. The
same results arise both before and after the amendments made
by the Taxation
Laws Amendment Act (No 4) 1992 (TLAA
(No 4) 1992) to those subsections. (See paragraph 69 below
in relation to the application of subsection 160M(7) where
the value shifting provisions of Division 19B of Part IIIA
apply.)
11. There is clearly a disposal for the purposes of Part
IIIA where shares are redeemed or cancelled because in these
circumstances paragraph 160M(3)(c) specifically deems a
change in ownership to have occurred for the purposes of
subsection 160M(1).
12. Rollover relief is available under section 160ZZP where
there has been a disposal in terms of subsection 160M(1)
(when read with paragraph 160M(3)(c)) and where certain
prerequisites are satisfied. The most pertinent of these
conditions is that the shares of a particular class must
actually be redeemed or cancelled by the company. Following
this, the company issues new shares in substitution for the
original holding of shares, but no other consideration must
flow to the taxpayer as a result of the redemption or
cancellation.
Date of effect
13. This Ruling applies to years commencing both before and
after its date of issue. However, the Ruling does not apply
to taxpayers to the extent that it conflicts with the terms
of a settlement of a dispute agreed to before the date of
issue of the Ruling (see paragraphs 21 and 22 of Taxation
Ruling TR 92/20).
14. If a taxpayer has a more favourable private ruling, this
Ruling applies, to the extent of the inconsistency, to that
taxpayer only in relation to variation of share rights after
the date of this Ruling. This is subject to the exception
that a public ruling cannot withdraw an earlier inconsistent
legally binding private ruling if the year of income to
which the private ruling relates has already commenced (see
Taxation Determination TD 93/34).
15. The share value shifting provisions in Division 19B of
Part IIIA apply to relevant share value shifts that occur
after 12:00 midday, Eastern Summer Time, 12 January 1994
(see paragraphs 63 to 69 below).
Definitions
The following definitions of key terms apply in this Ruling.
Cancel
16. The ordinary meaning of the term 'cancel' is to cross
out, to make void, annul or to render invalid for re-use. In
the context of corporation law, a cancellation usually
refers to a class of shares. The cancellation of ashare means
that it ceases to exist and is to be distinguished from the
mere cancellation of a share
certificate .
A share certificate is no more than evidence of a share
holding, meaning that the cancellation of the certificate
does not of itself cancel the share.
Redeem
17. The relevant Macquarie Dictionary meaning
of the term 'redeem' is 'to buy back or pay off'. In the
Corporations Law the term applies to shares originally
issued under a company's articles and redeemed out of the
company's capital (see section 192 of the Corporations Law).
Explanations
Nature of a share
18. In examining the capital gains tax (CGT) implications of
any variations in the rights which are attached to shares,
it is necessary to consider whether a share is one asset or
whether a series of assets are contained in the bundle of
rights that comprise a share. Furthermore, we need to
consider whether a change in rights attaching to a share
results in the creation of a new share comprised of a new
bundle of rights.
19. The explanation which follows considers the nature of a
share and then relates relevant concepts from that
discussion to the statutory requirements of Part IIIA.
20. The precise legal nature of a share has not been made
clear by the courts but some assistance can be obtained by
turning to company law concepts as well as to death duty
cases on the subject.
21. The rights of each shareholder in relation to each class
of share are usually contained in the memorandum and
articles of association of the company. The rights attaching
to a share are not ordinarily thought of as a separate piece
of property.
22. An often-used description of a share is that it is an
aliquot interest of a shareholder in a company as measured
by a sum of money. (An 'aliquot' part is part of a total
such that, if the total is divided by that part, there is no
remainder. For example, 5 is an aliquot part of 15.) Farwell
J followed this interpretation when describing the legal
nature of a share in Borland's
Trustee v. Steele Bros & Co Ltd [1901]
1 Ch 279 at 288:
'The contract contained in the articles of association
is one of the original incidents of the share. A share
is not a sum of money settled in the way suggested, but
is an interest measured by a sum of money and made up of
various rights contained in the contract, including the
right to a sum of money of a more or less amount.'
23. This description was endorsed by Williams J in the High
Court decision of Archibald
Howie and Others v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1948)
77 CLR 143 at 156. Dixon J at 152 also endorsed this
approach in the following terms:
'While a shareholder has not a proprietary right or
interest in the assets of an incorporated company, his
"share" is after all an aliquot proportion of the
company's share capital with reference to which he has
certain rights.'
24. The Corporations Law defines a share as personal
property which is transferable or transmissible and, subject
to the articles, able to be devolved (section 1085).
25. The nature of a share was considered in the death duty
case of Re
Alex Russell, deceased [1968]
VR 285. McInerney J of the Supreme Court of Victoria
considered the question of whether the right to convert a
preference share to an ordinary share could be transferred
at death. His Honour found that this right was still 'locked
up' and it could not be separated out of the actual estate.
Also examined was the question of whether the right to
convert could be separated out from the preference shares.
McInerney J commented at 299-300:
'It follows that while it is correct to speak of the
testator's preference shares as consisting of a bundle
or congeries of rights, it is not correct to speak of a
shareholder owning each of those rights as a separate
piece of property, or as a separate chose in action ...
It is not permissible, therefore to separate out the
various rights appertaining to the holder of preference
shares and to treat some of those rights as "actual
estate" and others as "notional estate".'
26. Accordingly while shares are comprised of a bundle of
rights, those rights are not separate pieces of property
capable of being divided out and held separately.
27. The implications of incidental changes to rights
attaching to shares was considered in the decision of the
New South Wales Court of Appeal in Rofe
& Others v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) 88
ATC 4865. This was a death duty case where the court had to
consider whether the conversion of ordinary shares into
cumulative preference shares not long before the death of
the testator was a 'disposition of property' and so dutiable
under the Stamp
Duties Act 1920 (NSW) (SDA
(NSW)).
28. The special resolution passed by the company in altering
the rights and liabilities of the shares set down that the
shares after conversion bore the same share numbers but
different rights (most notably the new right to a fixed
dividend) and privileges than the ordinary shares before
conversion. Mahoney JA, in finding that there was a
disposition of property, said that the effect of the
conversion of ordinary shares to cumulative preference
shares was that (at 4874):
'...The deceased ceased to hold property of one kind and
acquired property of another kind ... The rights of the
two classes of shares were, of course, fundamentally
different.'
29. The reasoning in this case relies heavily on the
provisions of the SDA (NSW). It ultimately was decided in
its particular statutory context of the definition of
'disposition of property'. The question in this case was not
whether there was a 'disposition of property' as this point
was conceded by the executors of the estate. Rather, the
question was whether there was a 'disposition of property'
because it was a 'transaction entered into with intent to
diminish the value of the shares', in the words of this Act.
Therefore the question of whether there was a disposition
arose only because it fell within the extended definition of
'disposition of property' in the SDA (NSW). As such, the
analysis is not applicable in the context of the ITAA.
30. The High Court has also looked into the nature of a
share in the death duty case of Robertson
v. FC of T (1952)
86 CLR 463. In that case, the articles of the company had
been altered so that upon the testator's death the shares
standing in the register in his name became No 2 class
shares with very limited rights. The shares were valued by
the Court on the basis of these reduced rights. Williams J
at 479-480 commented:
'The contract between the company and its members
created by section 20 of the Companies Act or the
contract thereby created between the members inter se,
if there be any such contract, could not cause the
beneficial interest in the shares of one member to pass
or accrue to or devolve upon the shares of another
member (perhaps "accrue" is the most apt word for
present purposes). The property in the shares is the
property that exists in the shares themselves. Shares do
not give an aliquot proprietary right in the property of
the company. The whole effect of Article 6 upon the
death of the deceased was to alter the existing
contractual rights of the company and inter se. The
article did not cause any beneficial interest in any
property owned by one person to accrue in any other
person. It merely altered the contractual rights upon
death of the deceased. It did not alter any proprietary
rights.'
31. Clearly in this case there was a change in the relative
interests of shareholders following the change in rights.
For taxation purposes, the issue that needs to be determined
is whether the variation in relative interests in a share
amounts to a disposal of that share. A disposal of rights
attaching to a share (or asset) for the purposes of Part
IIIA of the ITAA, or a part disposal of the share, envisages
that the rights be capable of being separated out of the
share or assigned. That is, they would need to be regarded
as assets in their own right.
Whether a right attaching to a share is a CGT asset
32. In considering the nature of a share, it has been the
prevailing view of the courts that the rights attaching to
shares cannot be dealt with separately from the share
itself. It is clear that these rights were not assets under
the definition of 'asset' in section 160A as it existed
before being amended by the TLAA (No 4) 1992.
33. We also consider that the current extended definition of
'asset' in section 160A, which applies to the construction
or creation of assets after 25 June 1992, does not alter
this position. The expression 'any other right' is a general
provision which, under the rules of statutory
interpretation, does not take precedence over a more
specific provision. As a share is a chose in action,
subparagraph 160A(a)(iii) takes precedence over subparagraph
160A(a)(iv) to the effect that a share itself is the asset
and not its constituent rights. The concept of a share as a
whole being the relevant asset is also supported by other
provisions in Part IIIA: see, for example, paragraphs
160M(5)(a), 160T(1)(c) and 160T(1)(j).
Disposal
Full disposal
34. Section 160M is the provision dealing with disposals for
CGT purposes. For a disposal to occur under subsection
160M(1), there must be a 'change in the ownership' of the
asset. Generally, this occurs where there is both a disposal
of the asset by the person who owned it immediately before
the change and an acquisition of the asset by the person who
owned it immediately after the change. However, a variation
in share rights may not necessarily result in an acquisition
by a person (for example, where shareholders relinquish
rights without any other shareholders gaining those rights).
35. Paragraph 160M(3)(c) is the disposal provision which
specifically refers to a share. It provides that a change in
ownership of an asset, being a share, is deemed to occur
where the share is redeemed or cancelled. If there is no
redemption or cancellation, no disposal takes place in terms
of that paragraph.
36. The terms 'cancel' and 'redeem' are defined at
paragraphs 16 and 17 above. Cancellation of a share
certificate does not mean that the share itself is
cancelled. Share scrip is of evidentiary value and may be
cancelled for a variety of reasons all of which have no CGT
consequences. Examples of where a company may cancel a share
certificate include where:
-
(a)
-
the balance of a partly paid
share is later paid by the shareholder. A new
certificate may issue to show that the share is now
fully paid;
-
(b)
-
a company changes its name and
new certificates are issued;
-
(c)
-
a share certificate is lost or
damaged and a substitute or replacement or
substitute certificate is issued;
-
(d)
-
a shareholder having one
certificate as evidence of a share holding transfers
part of that share holding . The company may cancel
the original share certificates and issue two new
certificates: one to evidence the new share holding
and the other to evidence the shares transferred.
The shares transferred will of course be subject to
the provisions of Part IIIA.
37. Of course, a company may specify in the articles that a
cancellation of shares is to occur at a particular time or
on the happening of an event such as giving up the share
scrip.
38. The administration of the ITAA is not constrained by the
usage of terms in the Corporations Law. However, if it is
clearly a requirement that a transaction calls for a
redemption and cancellation of shares, in terms of the
Corporations Law, a disposal has to have taken place for the
purposes of the ITAA, by virtue of paragraph 160M(3)(c).
39. A variation in share rights that does not involve a
cancellation or redemption of the share does not amount to a
disposal of the share for the purposes of subsection
160M(1).
Part disposal
40. It could be argued that a variation in share rights
amounts to a part disposal of the share on the basis that
some of the rights are relinquished. Paragraph 160M(3)(c)
refers to a redemption of a share in whole or in part.
However, the specific section dealing with part disposals is
section 160R, which is premised on the basis that Part IIIA
applies to that part of an asset which is capable of
disposal. If it cannot in fact and at law be separately
disposed of, the section does not deem it to be capable of
being separately disposed of.
41. By way of judicial comment on section 160R is an obiter
dictum comment
by Deane J in the High Court case of Hepples v.
FC of T (1991)
173 CLR 492 at 516; 91 ATC 4808 at 4821; (1991) 22 ATR 465
at 480:
'It seems to me that the preferable approach is to treat
section 160R as applying to a case where there has been
a disposal, in
the sense of a change of ownership of
any part of the rights involved in the ownership of an
asset, those rights themselves constituting an asset for
the purposes of Part IIIA.'(Emphasis added.)
42. His Honour's view still requires that there be a change
of ownership for section 160R to apply. We consider that
there is no change in ownership of a share (or part of a
share) where a company varies one or more of the rights
attaching to the share. This is because there is no
redemption of part of a share and the rights attaching to a
share are not assets separate from the share.
Deemed disposals - subsections 160M(6) and 160M(7)
43. Subsections 160M(6) and 160M(7) are key provisions
dealing with situations giving rise to deemed disposals. We
consider that section 160M(6) does not apply to a variation
in share rights, but that subsection 160M(7) applies when
money or other consideration is received as a result of the
variation. The same results arise both before and after the
1992 amendments to those subsections.
Subsection 160M(6)
44. Before their amendment by the TLAA (No 4) 1992 with
effect after 25 June 1992, the previous subsections 160M(6)
and 160M(7) operated. The former subsection 160M(6) was
interpreted by the Full Federal Court in Hepples v.
FC of T 90
ATC 4497; (1990) 21 ATR 42 to apply only to assets which
were created out of or over existing assets. In Reuter
v. FC of T 93
ATC 4037 at 4051; (1993) 24 ATR 527 at 545, the Federal
Court (Hill J) observed that this view also represented the
majority judgment of the Full High Court in Hepples
v. FC of T (1991)
173 CLR 492; 91 ATC 4821; (1991) 22 ATR 465. We accept that
the former subsection 160M(6) applied only to assets created
out of or over an existing asset. Accordingly, this
subsection did not apply to a variation of share rights
during the period of its operation.
45. The present subsection 160M(6) applies to the
construction or creation of assets after 25 June 1992. The
broad criteria which trigger the new subsections 160M(6) to
160M(6D) are that a person must create an asset, not being
corporeal property, which on its creation is vested in
another person. As all these requirements are not present
when a company resolves to vary the rights attaching to its
shares, the subsection will not apply.
Subsection 160M(7)
46. The former subsection 160M(7) deemed a disposal of an
asset where an act, transaction or event occurred and money
or other consideration was received or was entitled to be
received as a consequence of the action or event.
47. The same applies for the new subsection 160M(7) which
applies only if the other provisions of Part IIIA do not
apply. The present subsection operates where a person who
owns an asset has received, or is entitled to receive,
consideration by reason of an act or transaction that has
taken place in relation to the asset (whether it affects the
asset or not) or an event that has affected the asset. It
does not matter whether the asset is affected adversely or
beneficially or neither adversely nor beneficially. Where
subsection 160M(7) applies, the person is deemed to have
acquired the notional asset created by the disposal
immediately before the deemed disposal. There is necessarily
a broad spectrum of possible variations to share rights
which can be carried out and differing financial
implications attached to those situations. However, we
consider that the section applies to a variation of share
rights where money or other consideration is received or is
entitled to be received as a result of the variation.
48. Subsection 160M(7) does not apply to a variation in
share rights if the taxpayer does not receive, or is not
entitled to receive, money or other consideration in
relation to the relevant transaction (see Taxation
Determination TD 93/238).
49. Paragraph 69 below discusses the application of
subsection 160M(7) where the value shifting provisions of
Division 19B of Part IIIA apply.
Section 160ZZP rollover
50. Section 160ZZP has application where there is a
reorganisation of share capital and as a result of which a
company redeems or cancels all the shares of a particular
class.
51. Sections 193 and 195 of the Corporation Law provide that
a company can alter its share capital if authorised by the
articles of association of the company and this can be
achieved in a number of ways:
-
*
-
increasing the share capital
by such sum to be divided into shares of such amount
as prescribed by the resolution;
-
*
-
cancelling certain shares -
unissued or unpaid shares;
-
*
-
by reducing share capital by
court-approved returns of capital (see section 195
of the Corporations Law) or by buy-backs (see
section 206AA of the Corporations Law);
-
*
-
consolidating all or some of
the share capital of the company into shares of a
larger amount than its existing shares;
-
*
-
splitting shares into shares
of a smaller denomination than that fixed by the
memorandum, so that the new shares bear the same
proportion of paid and unpaid shares as the old
shares.
52. The process of altering share capital, in broad terms,
involves the cancellation of old shares and the issue of new
shares. This qualifies for rollover relief under section
160ZZP where the other requirements of the section are
satisfied. In particular, the taxpayer must not receive any
consideration other than the new shares by reason of the
redemption or cancellation (see paragraph 160ZZP(1)(f)).
Examples
Important note: all of the following examples involve
transactions that occur no later than 12:00 midday, Eastern
Summer Time, 12 January 1994. The possible application of
the value shifting provisions of Division 19B of Part IIIA
needs to be considered for equivalent transactions that
occur after that time (see paragraphs 63 to 69 below).
Example 1
Rights attaching to
shares for no consideration
53. On 1 July 1993, Ausco holds a meeting of shareholders
and obtains approval to transfer all voting rights from B
class shareholders to A class shareholders. Russell holds
all A class shares and obtains the benefit of this variation
of rights attaching to the shares. Jill holds all B class
shares and loses the benefit of voting previously attached
to her share holding. There is no money or other
consideration which is received or receivable by Jill. It is
assumed that there is no cancellation or redemption of the
shares. No disposal or deemed disposal has taken place for
CGT purposes.
Example 2
Reduction in the par
value of shares
54. David holds ordinary shares in Changeco which were
issued at $0.50 par value. Changeco obtains court approval
to reduce the capital of the company to absorb accumulated
losses and properly to reflect the available assets of the
company. The par value of shares is reduced to $0.30 on 1
December 1993. No shares are cancelled or redeemed. David is
not subject to CGT as he has not disposed of any part of his
share holding as a result of the mere reduction of capital.
Example 3
Convertible preference
shares
55. On 1 July 1993, 100 convertible preference shares are
purchased for $2.00 each, and are expressed as preference
shares with a preferential right to dividends . On
conversion the preference shares convert to the
predetermined fixed value of ordinary shares with a right to
a return of capital on winding up and any bonus issues
available. These shares must be converted to ordinary shares
by 1 January 1996, if the shareholder opts to do so.
56. Lester converts his shares on 1 January 1994 when the
market value of the shares is $2.50. There is no CGT payable
in the 1993-94 income year due to the mere conversion to
ordinary shares. As the shares are not cancelled or redeemed
prior to conversion to ordinary shares by the company, there
is no disposal at this point. The ordinary shares upon
conversion will adopt the cost base of the preference
shares.
Example 4
Converting preference
shares
57. On 1 June 1992, converting preference shares are issued
for $1.00, being $0.50 par value and a premium of $0.50. The
preference shares offer priority over ordinary shareholders
as to payment of dividends. In addition the preference
dividends offer a fixed base dividend and a variable
supplementary component of dividend. The converting
preference shares are not redeemable and convert to the
predetermined fixed value of ordinary shares on 1 June 1993.
On conversion date the market value of the ordinary shares
has risen to $1.50 and so the converting preference share
becomes an ordinary share with a market value of $1.50. It
is assumed that there is no cancellation or redemption of
the shares.
58. There are no CGT consequences on the conversion of the
CPS to the ordinary share.
Example 5
Conversion of ordinary
shares to preference shares
59. On 1 July 1992, XCO obtains a special resolution of the
company shareholders to convert all its G class ordinary
shares to G class cumulative preference shares. The articles
of XCO allowed the company to take this course of action and
specified the rights of the holders of the new shares as
required by section 200 of the Corporations Law. The effect
of the resolution is that all the preference shares will at
some future date reconvert to ordinary shares.
60. Ian takes up the offer to convert his G class ordinary
shares. On conversion the company redeems Ian's shares.
Consequently, there is a disposal under paragraph 160M(3)(b)
and CGT is triggered on conversion of the shares.
61. When the shares reconvert at some future date to
ordinary shares, the treatment would be the same as that for
example 3.
Example 6
Change in cumulative
rights to dividends to non cumulative rights to a dividends
62. The articles of Bibco allowed it to vary the nature of
dividends payable to shareholders. On passage of the
shareholders' motion on 1 June 1993, rights were varied to
change dividends to non-cumulative, without cancellation or
redemption of the shares. No CGT implications arise.
Scope of this Ruling
How Ruling relates to Division 19B
63. This Ruling applies only to those transactions where the
share value shifting provisions in Division 19B of Part IIIA
do not apply. Division 19B, comprising sections 160ZZRI to
160ZZRQ, was inserted by theTaxation
Laws Amendment Act (No 2) 1994 (TLAA
(No 2) 1994). It applies to share value shifts that occur
after 12:00 midday, Eastern Summer Time, 12 January 1994.
64. Section 160ZZRI states that the object of Division 19B
is to remove the CGT advantages of share value shifting
arrangements. Varying rights attaching to shares (say, by
changing dividend or voting rights in the company) is an
example of how value can be shifted from one share or class
of shares in a company into another share or class of
shares. Another example is the issuing of new shares for
less than market value, resulting in a general dilution of
value of existing shares.
65. Division 19B does not apply to all cases of share value
shifting. For the Division to apply, both of the following
threshold requirements must be met:
-
(a)
-
there is a controller of a
company; and
-
(b)
-
there is an arrangement under
which something is done in relation to a share or
shares in the company and it is reasonable to
conclude that what was done caused both a 'material'
decrease in value of shares owned by a controller or
associates that were acquired on or after 20
September 1985 and an increase in value (or issue at
less than market value) of another share or other
shares in the same company held by that person or an
associate of that person. (See subsection
160ZZRM(1).)
66. Broadly stated, a decrease in value of a share is
'material' if it is at least 5%, or if it is part of a total
decrease in value of shares of $100,000 or more. (See
subsection 160ZZRO(1).)
67. If the threshold requirements are met, there is:
-
(a)
-
a capital gain to the extent
that:
-
-
-
the shares which
increase in value were acquired by the
shareholder before 20 September 1985 or are
owned by another person; and
-
-
-
the amount of the
decrease in value of the decreased value
shares which relates to that increase
exceeds the cost base or indexed cost base
attributable to that decrease; and
-
(b)
-
in all cases, appropriate cost
base adjustments to the shares involved in the value
shift having regard to the capital gain and to
ensure that there are no CGT advantages to be gained
from the shift. (See sections 160ZZRP and 160ZZRQ.)
68. This Ruling applies mainly to all variations in share
rights that occur no later than 12:00 midday, Eastern Summer
Time, 12 January 1994 (the time after which Division 19B
applies). The Ruling also applies to those variations in
share rights that occur after that time to which Division
19B does not apply. For example, the share value shifting
rules in Division 19B do not apply in any of the following
situations:
-
(a)
-
the shares which decrease in
value are not held by a controller or associates;
-
(b)
-
the value shift is from shares
in one company to shares in another company rather
than to shares in the same company;
-
(c)
-
the shares into which the
value is shifted are not owned by the controller or
associates; or
-
(d)
-
the decrease in value of the
decreased value shares is less than 5% and part of a
total decrease of less than $100,000.
69. Paragraphs 10 and 47 of this Ruling state that a
variation in share rights for money or other consideration
may give rise to a deemed disposal under subsection 160M(7).
By its terms, subsection 160M(7) is subject to the other
provisions of Part IIIA, making it a provision of last
resort. Accordingly, subsection 160M(7) cannot apply to
those transactions to which Division 19B applies even if the
taxpayer receives, or is entitled to receive, money or other
consideration.
Commissioner of Taxation
6 October 1994
Previously released in draft form as TR 94/D5 |