Tax Alert -Federal Court delivers a Division 7A win for taxpayers in Bendel Case decision

Lowe Lippmann Chartered Accountants

Federal Court delivers a Division 7A win for taxpayers in Bendel Case decision


Last week the Full Federal Court handed down a unanimous decision that an unpaid present entitlement (or UPE) owed by a discretionary trust to a corporate beneficiary is not a “loan” for Division 7A purposes, which is a set of anti-avoidance provisions that could deem such a loan to be a deemed dividend.


This decision focuses on arrangements that will be familiar and common for many private groups across Australia that use discretionary trusts.


A brief history of the Bendel Case


The Bendel case involves two taxpayers, an individual and a private company, and both were beneficiaries of a discretionary trust. The individual was the director of both the corporate trustee of the discretionary trust and the corporate beneficiary.


For various income years, the trustee of the discretionary trust resolved to distribute income to the corporate beneficiary. The corporate beneficiary did not call for (or demand) payment of those entitlements. This is an unpaid present entitlement or UPE. This is a very common arrangement within private groups in Australia.


Since 2010, the Commissioner of Taxation has applied Division 7A on the basis that if a UPE owing by a discretionary trust to a corporate beneficiary is left unpaid, it could be a “financial accommodation” from the company to the trust and therefore be treated as a “loan”.


This loan is then deemed to be a dividend from the corporate beneficiary to the discretionary trust for the purposes of Division 7A.

In the Bendel case, the Commissioner decided that a deemed dividend would be included in the discretionary trust’s net income and assessed the taxpayers on their respective shares of that deemed dividend.


The taxpayers appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which found for the taxpayers. Then the Commissioner appealed to AAT decision the Full Federal Court.


After waiting over a year, last week the Full Federal Court handed down a unanimous decision that a UPE owed by a discretionary trust to a corporate beneficiary is not a “loan” for Division 7A purposes.


Why is a UPE not treated as a “loan” now?


Broadly, a UPE arises where a trustee of a trust makes a beneficiary presently entitled to trust income, but the beneficiary does not receive payment for the entitlement.


The Full Federal Court’s decision clarified that for an arrangement to constitute a “loan,” there must be an obligation to repay an amount, rather than merely an obligation to pay an amount.


This critical finding distinguishes a UPE from a traditional loan, by reinforcing that a UPE does not inherently create a repayment obligation.


Beware Subdivision EA is still in play


While the decision provides a new interpretation regarding UPEs for Division 7A loan purposes, this decision does not change the potential for exposure to Subdivision EA.


Subdivision EA is a rule within Division 7A, which can be triggered if a trust makes a UPE to corporate beneficiary, and then the trust makes a payment or loan (for example) to the shareholders (or associates) of the corporate beneficiary.


Therefore we need to continue to monitor compliance with Subdivision EA, as it can still apply to deem the UPE to be a deemed dividend in certain circumstances.


What can the Commissioner do next?


While this decision represents a significant change in the interpretation of the Division 7A rules, it is unlikely to be the final word on the matter.


The Commissioner can still seek leave to appeal the Bendel decision to the High Court.


Another possibility for the Commissioner if he does not seek an appeal, is to approach the government to consider making amendments to the tax legislation and/or the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) guidance or administrative practices currently in place.



This decision is also likely to empower the accounting and taxation sector to continue to lobby the government to consider a broader review of the Division 7A rules, which we all agree is long overdue.


It is also worth noting that arrangements involving UPEs are still at risk of the ATO seeking to apply other taxation provisions such as Section 100A, which is an anti-avoidance provision that applies when a beneficiary’s entitlement to trust income results from a “reimbursement agreement”.  Broadly, this is an arrangement where a beneficiary becomes presently entitled to trust income, and someone (other than the beneficiary) receives a ‘benefit’ in relation to the arrangement with one of the parties having the intent of reducing tax. If a company’s entitlement to income remains unpaid by the trust indefinitely with no commercial arrangements to address it, Section 100A could well be an issue.


What can we do now?


Unfortunately, there is an element of having to “wait and see” what the Commissioner does next. However, there are some actions we can take in preparation for what developments come next.


If a taxpayer has been subject to ATO review or audit based on the previous interpretation of UPEs as loans and been forced to pay penalties, it would be relevant to consider the process for lodging an objection or seeking an amendment to their previous tax assessments.  This could potentially lead to the remission of primary tax, interest, and penalties.


It may also be relevant for any taxpayers currently being audited in this regard to discuss this new decision with their ATO audit case manager.


We will continue to stay updated on any new guidance or administrative practices issued by the ATO in response to the Full Federal Court's decision, as the ATO may provide further clarification or updates on how they may change their interpretation of UPEs going forward.



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


July 21, 2025
New Tax Agent Obligations from 1 July 2025 From 1 July 2025, “small” firms of tax practitioners (with 100 or less employees) must ensure they are complying with the eight new Code of Professional Conduct obligations from the Tax Practitioners Board ( TPB ). These new Code obligations were introduced by the Government under the Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024. The new Code obligations have already commenced for large tax practitioners (with over 100 employees) from 1 January 2025. As tax agents, Lowe Lippmann Chartered Accountants are committed to upholding our professional and regulatory obligations, including with the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 which includes the Code of Professional Conduct as regulated by the TPB.
July 16, 2025
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.
July 4, 2025
Changes to car thresholds from 1 July The car limit for the 2026 income year is $69,674. This is the highest value that a taxpayer can use to calculate depreciation on a car where they use the car for work or business purposes and they first use or lease the car in the 2026 income year. If a taxpayer is buying a car and the price is more than the car limit, the highest input tax ( GST ) credit they can claim (except in certain circumstances) is one-eleventh of the car limit. For the 2026 income year, the highest input tax credit they can claim is $6,334 (i.e. one-eleventh of $69,674). The luxury car tax ( LCT ) threshold for the 2026 income year is $91,387 for fuel-efficient vehicles, and $80,567 for all other luxury vehicles. Input tax credits need to be claimed within the four-year time limit. A taxpayer cannot claim an input tax credit for luxury car tax when they buy a luxury car, even if they use it for business purposes.
More Posts