Australia: ATO fact sheets continue the distribution confusion

Last Updated: 21 September 2011

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has released two draft fact sheets relating to the 2010 amendments to corporate law and the income tax in relation to dividends.

Some of the contentious propositions stated or implied by the fact sheets are as follows.

  • Distributions which result in negative retained earnings are taxable but not frankable.
  • Such distributions are only taxable because the ATO assumes 'for illustrative purposes' that they do not reflect a reduction of share capital, and are thus 'dividends', although they are not treated as being paid from profits either. No reasoning is given to support the assumption, in fact, the only direct authority cited by the ATO on the reduction of share capital point is actually contrary to their assumed position.
  • Such dividends are unfrankable because they are directly or indirectly sourced from share capital. This would appear to be inconsistent with the assumption adopted by the ATO in treating the dividend as taxable, although the ATO attempts to distinguish the relevant franking and taxing rules despite their being very similar in their literal terms.
  • The ATO appears to regard the source of corporate distributions as limited to either share capital or booked profits, and not also amounts that are not booked or cannot be recognised in the relevant company's accounts. This would appear to conflict with views previously expressed by the ATO, at least on unbooked profits.

In summary, not only do the fact sheets create potential traps for taxpayers in relation to corporate distributions, they are also part of a wider trend under which the ATO increasingly interprets the tax legislation to produce distributions that are taxed in full without the benefit of franking.

This tax brief relates the background to the amendments, provides an analysis of the fact sheets and the problems they will cause, and then sets them against a broader context of increasing taxpayer confusion in relation to corporate distributions.


Modern corporate law until 2010 provided that companies could only pay dividends 'out of profits'. Australian federal tax law has followed this approach from its earliest days. From a corporate law perspective there were a number of problems with the out of profits test including:

  • case law was unclear about what were, relevantly, 'profits';
  • in particular, it was unclear to what extent the test was based on the financial statements of the company;
  • the maintenance of capital rules, of which the out of profits rule was a part, had been significantly watered down over recent decades (share buybacks, abolition of par value for shares and greater freedom for returns of share capital) but the dividend rules remained in their previous form; and
  • IFRS had produced greater swings in the amount of corporate profits so that companies may have significant cash reserves or borrowing capacity and yet been unable to pay dividends because of uncertainty whether there were any profits in whatever sense was required.

The corporate law answer was to replace the out of profits requirement for the payment of dividends in section 254T of the Corporations Act with a three pronged test which followed other changes in the Corporations Act to the maintenance of capital rules by moving the emphasis to solvency, directors' duties and shareholder fairness. The resulting requirements for the payment of a dividend are as follows:

  1. the company's assets exceed its liabilities immediately before the dividend is declared and the excess is sufficient for the payment of the dividend; and
  2. the payment of the dividend is fair and reasonable to the company's shareholders as a whole; and
  3. the payment of the dividend does not materially prejudice the company's ability to pay its creditors.

For the purposes of (a), assets and liabilities are determined by accounting standards at the relevant time. There was a statement in the explanatory material to the 2010 amendments that where a company was not required to prepare financial statement in accordance with accounting standards, assets and liabilities could be determined by reference to its other accounting records but this has not been legislated.

This amendment to section 254T of the Corporations Act has caused considerable confusion among corporate advisers.

As accounting liabilities do not include shareholders funds, and these in turn are made up in a broad sense of share capital and profits, a dividend can now be paid even where there are not sufficient recognised profits to support it. Indeed that is the whole purpose of the amendment. The provision does not, however, spell out the implications of such distributions: accounting, corporate law and otherwise. For example, the corporate law still has rules about distributions of share capital which usually require a shareholders' resolution, whereas typically dividends can be paid without such a resolution. Can a distribution debited to share capital be treated as a dividend by the company and thus bypass the shareholder resolution requirement? Most corporate law advisers consider that the answer to this question should be no.

From a tax perspective, distributions by a company to its shareholders were dividends at the time of the 2010 amendments, except, relevantly, where debited to a company's share capital account. Such dividends were then included in the recipient shareholder's assessable income where 'paid out of profits' (under section 44(1)). Typically such dividends could also be franked.

The drafters of the 2010 amendments evidently recognised that the corporate law change to remove the requirement for dividends to be paid from profits may result in companies making distributions which would be characterised as neither a distribution of profits nor a share capital reduction. It was also contemplated that such a distribution would be a dividend under then current tax law because it would not fall within the exclusion for amounts debited to a company's share capital account, but that it would not be taxable as it would not be paid from profits.

Rather than remove the test which is deeply embedded in tax law in many provisions, the following simple amendment was inserted as section 44(1A) of the 1936 Act:

For the purposes of this Act, a dividend paid out of an amount other than profits is taken to be a dividend paid out of profits.

The effect is that any distribution within the definition of dividend for tax purposes is taken to be out of profits and taxable accordingly.

On franking, the explanatory material to the 2010 amendments stated that 'subject to the operation of the current imputation integrity rules, these distributions will be frankable under section 202-40'. Relevantly, section 202-45(e) is an integrity rule which prevents the franking of a distribution sourced directly or indirectly from share capital.

An unfortunate consequence of the tax amendment to introduce section 44(1A), together with the corporate law amendments, is that taxpayers must now identify distributions which, although not paid out of profits, are nonetheless taxable dividends because they are not to be debited against a company's share capital account. This is not a straightforward exercise, as the immediate reaction may be to suggest that a distribution must be paid either from profits or share capital.

The ATO's response to this identification issue in its first fact sheet is to acknowledge the difficulties and then proceed on the basis of an assumption about the operation of corporate law in a particular fact situation for which they provide no justification other than it being for 'illustrative purposes'. What they proceed to illustrate in the second fact sheet is a taxable but unfrankable distribution. The fact sheets are examined in detail below.

Fact Sheets

What the 2010 amendments mean for tax and, incidentally, corporate law purposes is the subject of the two draft ATO fact sheets, the first dealing with the consequences for assessability under section 44(1) for dividends and the second dealing with the frankability of distributions.

There are two key examples, one of which is common to both fact sheets.

In the first example, the company does not have sufficient profits in its accounts to support a dividend but has a revaluation reserve which is debited with the distribution. In the second example, there is no revaluation reserve and insufficient profits to support the dividend which is debited to profits to produce negative retained earnings.

The ATO suggests that both distributions are dividends for tax purposes and therefore assessable under section 44(1) even though not out of (positive) profits. On imputation, the ATO states that the dividend debited to the revaluation reserve is frankable on the basis that the revaluation reserve is a 'profit' account. However, the dividend debited to profits to produce negative retained earnings is unfrankable as it is 'sourced indirectly' from share capital.

It is the second example that creates the problems and hence that is what we focus on here.

On the dividend point, the reasoning is effectively that the form of the transaction governs, that is, there has actually to be a debit to an account which is (part of) the share capital account for a distribution not to be a dividend. For imputation, however, the ATO asserts that substance (not formal accounting) applies and the amount must be indirectly sourced from share capital as there are no (positive) retained earnings.

The approaches adopted by the ATO to both the dividend and franking issues are somewhat concerning.

On the dividend issue, the ATO does question at one point whether an accounting debit to accumulated losses can properly be made where the distribution reduces the net assets of the company below the value of contributed share capital (ie, causes it to go into negative retained earnings) as such a distribution on one view must represent a share capital reduction. Without concluding on that point, the ATO proceed on the completely unsupported assumption that relevant provisions of the Corporations Act would not prohibit the distribution 'because share capital is not reduced'.

Given the implications that flow from the interaction between the ATO's initial position on the dividend point and its position on imputation, it could reasonably be expected that the ATO would express a concluded view on this point, rather than relying on an unsubstantiated assumption.

Furthermore, even if that assumption is correct, the ATO's position that the distribution is not a tax dividend depends on a further conclusion that no amount has been debited against the company's share capital account for tax purposes in this situation. Any possible distinction between the Corporations Act concept of a share capital reduction and the tax concept of a debit against a company's share capital account (based on its definition under the tax legislation) is not acknowledged in the fact sheet.

Some of the issues mentioned above were recently raised in the Consolidated Media share buyback case.

In Consolidated Media, the company created a negative 'Share Buy-back Reserve Account' in its accounts to reflect the amount paid to its sole shareholder as consideration for buying back some of the shares it held. The company separately kept an account of its contributed share capital titled 'Shareholder's Equity Account', the balance of which was unaffected by the buyback. It was held that the Share Buy-back Reserve Account reflected part of the account kept by the taxpayer of its share capital (so that it was part of its share capital account for tax purposes) and its creation reflected the debiting of an amount to that share capital account. Accordingly, the buyback consideration was not a dividend for tax purposes.

The ATO refers to the Consolidated Media decision in its dividend fact sheet. The ATO implies that the Court held that where a debit is made to a new account producing a debit balance, regard may be had to the substance of the transaction in determining the source of the debit. Despite this statement, no attempt is then made to apply Consolidated Media in determining whether the accumulated losses/negative retained earnings account in the example in the fact sheet may reflect an amount debited to the company's share capital account. If so, it would not be a dividend and the related imputation issues would not arise.

It is not immediately clear why the ATO does not address Consolidated Media in this context. The ATO may simply be uncertain whether the distribution in the example reflects a return of share capital, whereas this appeared to be relatively clear in Consolidated Media, at least for tax and also under the then Corporations Act. In addition, the facts of that case occurred before the relevant tax and Corporations Act amendments and before the introduction of IFRS accounting standards. It must also be acknowledged that at the time of release of the draft fact sheets, Consolidated Media was within the statutory appeal period and no appeal notice had then been lodged.

In turn, the ATO's justification for its substance approach in relation to franking comes in three main parts and is highly debatable.

First, it is stated that the imputation system is only intended to apply to distributions of realised or taxed profits. There is no statement in the material quoted by the ATO that supports this proposition. Since its inception the basic imputation system has gone out of its way to avoid any such tracing because it would place an impossible burden on the company. If the ATO approach is taken at face value it would mean that imputation would not apply to a dividend paid out of traditional profits unless the company can show that those very profits were realised or taxed. The ATO to date has relied on anti-avoidance provisions such as section 177EA when it wished to assert this proposition, not on the basic nature of the imputation system.

Second, the ATO states that the words 'sourced indirectly' in the imputation rule for unfrankable dividends require a substance approach. For this purpose they quote selectively from cases on the geographic source of income (a very different issue) relying in particular on the judgment of Gibbs J in the Esquire Nominees case which was overruled by the Full High Court on appeal on the source issue. In this context the ATO also states that the rule was intended to continue the policy of the so called 'tainting' rules in the former inter-corporate dividend rebate. An inspection of those rules indicates clearly that they operate off the form of the accounting entries and that 'indirectly' is intended to refer to the situation where a share capital account is debited and a profit account credited followed by a distribution debited to a profit account. Further, the ATO is silent on the interaction of section 44(1A) deeming the dividend to be paid out of profits for all purposes of the Act. It could be arguable that this provision is designed to nullify section 202-45(e).

Third, the ATO relies on the recent decision in the Consolidated Media share buyback case (which, as already noted, was subject to appeal when the fact sheets were released). As noted above, in that case, the proceeds of a buyback were debited to a newly created 'Share Buy-back Reserve Account'. The company had no retained profits and the debit was the only entry in that 'reserve'. Emmett J concluded that the buyback reserve was 'part of' the account kept by the taxpayer of its share capital and that therefore the consideration for the buyback was debited to the share capital account. That is, the distribution was sourced directly from share capital.

The ATO relies on this decision to conclude that a 'dividend' debited to negative retained earnings is indirectly (though inferentially not directly) sourced from share capital. It is doubtful if this is consistent with the decision which concerned what is a debit to a share capital account – the ATO's view of the decision would suggest that the account is part of the share capital account when negative and not part of the share capital account when positive. The decision however says nothing about amounts sourced indirectly from share capital as the legislation in question had no such provision.

More broadly there is an assumption in the fact sheets that because accounts are an element of the new corporate law dividend rule, it is only the accounts that can be looked at for the purposes of the tax rules. They simply fail to acknowledge that directors, having satisfied themselves that the accounts reveal an excess of assets over liabilities, could then agree to pay a dividend under the other parts of the corporate law rules because they reasonably believe that the company has unrealised profits which are not (or depending on the situation cannot be) recognised in the accounts and which justify paying a dividend rather than distributing share capital. The ATO operates on the assumption that if the accounts do not reveal sufficient retained earnings then any dividend must be from share capital for imputation purposes whereas in the scenario just described a negative retained earnings figure is a much truer representation of what the directors have decided.

This position would appear to be slightly at odds with views previously expressed by the ATO in relation to the concept of profits where dividends are concerned. For instance, TR 2003/8 broadly indicated that where a company distributed assets to its shareholders on a demerger, the market value of the assets in excess of the amount debited to the company's share capital account would be treated as an assessable dividend paid 'out of profits' even where the assets were only recognised in the company's accounts at a value which reflected the amount debited to the share capital account. This followed an earlier public ATO ruling (IT 2637) which suggested that 'profits' for dividend purposes essentially was any accretion in value of an asset since its acquisition.

Until the issues in the ATO's approach identified above are resolved, clearly there are significant tax risks in making franked distributions which involve debiting an account to produce or increase negative retained earnings, or treating such a distribution as a return of capital which writes down the CGT cost base of the shares.

Broader issues

Increasingly the ATO is adopting positions which treat payments from companies to shareholders as taxable in full without the benefit of imputation, quite apart from the anti-avoidance imputation and capital benefit rules, for reasons which are difficult to understand.

Another recent example aside from the current fact sheets is the draft ruling on retail premiums associated with rights issues, TR 2010/D8. There is now a decade of history of related activity which has completely confused taxpayers as to how corporate distributions are taxed including TR 2003/8 with the related Condell case on distributions in a foreign demerger and CR 2001/75 together with the McNeil case on St George Bank's sellback rights.

The 2010 amendments are being interpreted to the same effect. It has become clear from a corporate law perspective that those amendments have created confusion rather than assisting companies even though they were 10 years in the making. At least the corporate law problems are being discussed. The ATO fact sheets, unsatisfactory though they are, have not begun to scratch the surface of the even more problematic nature of the tax amendments.

On the one hand, it is possible that the amendments have done away with the need for various deemed dividend provisions in the tax law, which was not stated to be the intention. Section 47 on liquidation distributions is a case in point. On the other hand, many other provisions in the tax law still require a determination that a distribution is out of profits for various purposes (private company deemed dividends, the impact of distributions of pre-acquisition profits on the reduced cost base of shares and the franking of distributions on non-share equity) so that the tax amendment has not done away with the out of profits concept for tax purposes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.