Audit Lowe Down – Related parties – what should I consider in identifying them?

Lowe Lippmann Chartered Accountants

Related parties – what should I consider in identifying them?

Related party disclosures is an area that is receiving more scrutiny from stakeholders in both the for-profit and the not-for-profit space.

Disclosure of transactions that have occurred with related parties are important since the terms and conditions are often different from those with unrelated parties, in some instances the transactions may have occurred for much lower or even nil consideration.

Often one of the biggest challenges for compiling the disclosures is working out who is a related party of an entity.

The definition of related parties in AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures is detailed, however we have summarised the definition into various elements below.

a. Think about entities who might be related to the reporting entity i.e.:

i. through control or significant influence,

ii. by the existence of material transactions or

iii. dependence on technical information or personnel provided by them.

b. Think about people who might be related to the reporting entity, i.e.:

i. Key management personnel, including all directors.

ii. Close family members of key management personnel (e.g. spouse, child).

c. Think about entities that the people identified in b. might control or significant influence, i.e.:

i. Family businesses

ii. Businesses which a close family member controls (i.e. senior partner in a legal or accounting firm).

Once you have identified a complete list of who is potentially a related party, analysis can then be performed to confirm they meet the criteria in AASB 124 and then identify any transactions with these parties.

Remember that transactions should be included whether or not a price was charged or whether the transaction was formally documented or not.

Please do not hesitate to contact your Lowe Lippmann Relationship Partner if you wish to discuss any of these matters further.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Tax Alert - High Court decision and ATO statement on Bendel’s Case

July 7, 2026

High Court decision and ATO statement on Bendel’s Case The High Court recently handed down its decision in Bendel’s Case, confirming that an unpaid present entitlement (or UPE) between a discretionary trust and a beneficiary company does not fall within the extended definition of a “loan” for Division 7A purposes. The Australian Taxation Office released a Decision Impact Statement in response to the High Court findings, concluding the High Court's reasoning makes it clear that where a beneficiary company is entitled to a share of trust income that remains unpaid (a UPE) and the company takes no positive actions to call for payment of the entitlement, this will not fall within the expanded definition of a "loan" for Division 7A purposes. This is in contradiction to the ATO’s historical position that treated UPEs as "loans".

Practice Update – July 2026

July 5, 2026

Government's tax reform package The Government has recently legislated several of the tax reform measures announced in the 2026 Federal Budget (and in later media releases). These include, among other things: Replacing the CGT discount with cost base indexation and a 30% minimum tax on gains accruing from 1 July 2027 (including gains on pre-CGT assets); Increasing the small business turnover threshold for the 50% active asset reduction from $2 million to $10 million; Limiting negative gearing for residential property to new residential dwellings from 1 July 2027 (subject to transitional rules); and Introducing the Working Australians Tax Offset from 1 July 2027, and the $1,000 instant tax deduction for work-related expenses from 1 July 2026. After a round of consultation, the Government has also announced further proposed measures, broadly including (among others): A new targeted CGT discount for investors in innovative start-ups; Barring SMSFs from utilising future limited recourse borrowing arrangements ( LRBAs ) to acquire residential property; and Exempting income of discretionary testamentary trusts from the minimum tax proposed for trusts. We recently released a Tax Alert considering the legislation restricting SMSFFs using residential property LRBAs – to read click here . For full details of each of the 2026 Federal Budget announcements, please see our Federal Budget Tax Alert – to read click here .

Tax Alert - Legislation restricting SMSFs using residential property LRBAs has now passed Parliament

June 28, 2026

Legislation restricting SMSFs using residential property LRBAs has now passed Parliament The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No 1) Bill 2026 ( the Reform No 1 Bill ) was passed by Parliament on Thursday 25 June 2026. Schedule 5 of the Reform No 1 Bill amends section 67A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to restrict future limited recourse borrowing arrangements ( LRBAs ) on real property to investments in “business real property” (as defined in section 66 of the SIS Act). Residential property of any kind is excluded from the definition of “business real property” in section 66 of the SIS Act. We note this also excludes newly constructed residential property, which is a distinction at odds with recent exemptions being given to new-builds with other Budget Night tax changes relating to negative gearing and restricting the CGT 50% discount. Super funds are not generally allowed to borrow for investments, but there has been a concession allowing a self-managed super fund ( SMSF ) to borrow money to buy single assets like property, if their loans were set up in line with particular requirements, known as LRBAs. This change means an SMSF will not be able to borrow to buy residential property after the start date of these changes.