Australia continues to face a challenging outlook, with inflation remaining elevated, interest rates still weighing on borrowers, and cost-of-living and housing pressures persisting. Alongside global instability and slowing economic growth, many Australians are bracing for a more constrained period ahead and are closely examining what has been announced, and what may be hidden in the detail.

Through our From Hidden to Headline lens, we explore the key takeaways from the 2026 Federal Budget and what’s now coming into view for businesses, industries, and communities across Australia, highlighting potential risks, challenges, emerging trends, and areas of opportunity.

What the Federal Budget means for you

Our Fast Facts provide a snapshot of the key announcements and insights, helping you understand the impacts for your sector.

Take a look at what the Federal Budget means for you in 2026:

Individuals & SMEs

Property & Infrastructure

R&D

Agribusiness

Energy & Resources

Financial Services

Follow us on LinkedIn to receive the latest updates on Federal Budget and other important industry news.

The post FedBud 26 overview appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

The story so far

Toowoomba Regional Council applied for a private ruling asking whether Grand Central’s car park — which offers three hours’ free parking, a $20 all-day maximum cap, and multiple free-parking concessions — qualifies as a ‘commercial parking station’ under sections 39A and 136 of the FBTAA. The answer matters because the Council’s premises are location within one kilometre of the centre, which would trigger FBT on free employee parking.

How the case unfolded

Round 1: February 2025 - Logan J (FCA)

‘Commercial’ requires a profit-making purpose. As the Grand Central car park was operated to attract shoppers rather than generate profit, the Council succeeded.

Round 2: April 2026 - McElwaine, Feutrill & Wheatley JJ (FCAFC)

The Full Federal Court rejected that approach, holding that ‘commercial’ simply means engaged in commerce, with no profit motive required. The Commissioner’s appeal was allowed.

What the Full Court held

The majority (McElwaine and Wheatley JJ) held that the statutory text does not confine a ‘permanent commercial car parking facility’ to operations run for profit. Instead, the definition requires physical permanence, availability to the public in the ordinary course of business, and the payment of a fee — nothing more. Parliament cast the net wide to address tax inequity, and that introducing a profit requirement would bring an unverifiable internal management test that the legislation simply does not support.

Feutrill J reached the same result, but by a different route, stating that a ‘commercial parking station’ must be a facility where fees reflect arm’s length market value. On that view, the Explanatory Memorandum examples, including penalty-rate shopper car parks, are not appropriate comparators precisely because their fees do not reflect that market value. However, that is not the same as requiring the operator to be profit-motivated.

The Full Court also noted that the 1994 amendment expressly excluded kerbside parking meters, which are unlikely to be profitable, confirming that profitability was never a precondition in the original text.

What this means for you

The ATO’s interim decision impact statement (DIS), which directed continued reliance on TR 2021/2, has been vindicated. Employers who stopped treating shopping centre, hospital, university, or hotel car parks as ‘commercial parking stations’ following Logan J’s decision should now review their compliance position for:

• the current FBT year (ended 31 March 2026) and consider their car parking FBT position
• the prior FBT year (ended 30 March 2025) and consider whether amended returns are needed.

For employers who did comply with TR 2021/2 throughout, no change is required.

How SW can help

For employers who may now have FBT exposure on car parking because of the Toowoomba decision, SW can assist in assessing your position and ensuring compliance with the ATO’s current interpretation. This includes reviewing historical and current FBT obligations, identifying potential amendments, and advising on practical next steps.

For tailored support with your FBT car parking obligations, our CTSplus FBT team can help you navigate the requirements and manage your compliance obligations with confidence and clarity. To find out more, click here to email our CTS team and a member of our team will be in touch within one business day. You can also visit our CTSplus FBT page to learn more about how we can support your FBT compliance needs.

Contributors

Rahul Sanghani

The post Full Federal Court confirms hospital, university & shopping centre car parks can be ‘commercial’ for FBT purposes appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Our experts will provide you with topical content of relevance as well as an update on what’s new in financial reporting, including information about the following topics:

• Accounting standard changes  
• International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee update  
• Key focus areas for 30 June reporting  
• ASIC update  
• Other regulatory changes
• Insights from the first sustainability reporting cycle

Financial Reporting update for 30 June 2026

Date

Tuesday 26 May 2026

Location

Online nationally – via Zoom webinar

Time

1pm – 2pm (AEST)

Expert speakers

Tom Mullarkey
Partner
SW

René Muller 
Partner
SW

Jimmy Cao
Associate Director
SW

The post Financial Reporting webinar series appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Our seminar will be delivered in an interactive format with SW experts Daren Yeoh, Tax Director, Antony Cheung, Associate Director and Ross Kelly, Transfer Pricing Manager. Our speakers will equip you with invaluable insights into the latest developments in corporate and international income tax.

This seminar will explore the following topics:

• Corporate tax updates – An overview of recent and proposed legislative changes, including debt and financing rule changes, non‑resident capital gains tax developments, ATO compliance priorities, recent court decisions, and other emerging issues relevant to corporate groups.
• Transfer pricing update – Key developments in transfer pricing, with a focus on changes to Country‑by‑Country (CbC) reporting requirements and what these mean in practice.
• Pillar Two update – An outline of Pillar Two compliance obligations, including practical considerations for the preparation and lodgement of the GloBE Information Return and the Combined Global and Domestic Minimum Tax Return.

Date

Thursday, 21 May 2026

Location

Online nationally – via Zoom webinar

Time

9am – 10am (AEDT)

SW Speakers

Daren Yeoh
Partner and Corporate & International Tax Director

Antony Cheung
Associate Director

Ross Kelly
Transfer Pricing Manager

The post Corporate Tax update appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Background

Mr Morton was a retired farmer who owned land in Tarneit, Victoria, known as ‘Dave’s Block’. The land had been used for farming continuously for many years before it was rezoned from rural to residential use in 2010, making farming increasingly unviable. Mr Morton and his family wanted to get the best value for their land, so they hired a developer to divide it up, prepare it, and sell it as a residential estate.

They signed contracts with the developer, who was given broad control over financing, dividing the land, earthworks, marketing, and selling the land. The developer was responsible for all the costs and activities and was paid a fee based on a percentage of sales. Critically, Mr. Morton insisted that his land not be used as security for any development finance.

The land was subdivided into residential and commercial lots, and settlements occurred between 2019 and 2021. The Commissioner issued amended assessments, treating the sale proceeds as assessable income, on the basis that Mr Morton was either carrying on a property development business or had ventured the land into a profit-making scheme.

Mr Morton disagreed, arguing that the sales represented a one-off gain from selling something he owned, not regular income from business.

Legal issues

The Commissioner argued that the proceeds were assessable income on two alternative grounds under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997:

• Mr Morton carried on a business of residential development, deeming the land trading stock
• the proceeds arose from a profit-making scheme under section 15-15.

Mr Morton argued that he had done no more than realise a long-held capital asset, by enterprising means.

The decision

The Full Court unanimously dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal, affirming the primary judge’s conclusion that Mr Morton was merely realising a capital asset.

The Court placed weight on the following factors:

No original profit-making purpose

Mr Morton acquired the land from his father in 1980 to farm, not to develop or sell. The decision to subdivide was driven by external forces — rezoning, rising rates and land tax, and the declining viability of farming.

Limited and passive involvement

Mr Morton played little active role in the development. He did not oversee the project, contribute to planning applications, organise finance, or manage construction. He did not even read the monthly reports the developer provided under the agreement.

Developer bore the commercial risk

The developer was solely responsible for all development costs and financing. Mr Morton’s land was not used as security — a condition he had insisted on from the outset. The Court found this to be a highly significant factor distinguishing realisation from business activity.

Developer acted independently, not as Mr Morton’s agent in a general sense

While the development agreement contained agency-type and power of attorney provisions, the Court found these were facilitative only and limited to enabling the developer to fulfil Mr Morton’s legal obligations, such as executing contracts of sale. They did not convert the developer’s activities into activities carried on by Mr Morton himself.

Scale alone is not determinative

The Court affirmed the well-established principle that the magnitude and the sophistication of a realisation alone does not convert it into a business or profit-making scheme.

Importantly, the Court looked beyond the legal form of the development agreement to its commercial substance — particularly who bore risk, who controlled the project, and whose business the development truly was.

Practical implications

The Morton case is a useful reference point for landowners and advisors navigating the capital/revenue boundary where subdivision is involved. It highlights that outcomes in subdivision cases remain highly fact-dependent. In particular, advisors should focus on:

• who bears financial risk, including funding and security arrangements
• the degree of the landowner’s control and involvement
• the commercial substance of the development agreement
• the landowner’s purpose at acquisition and at the time of subdivision.

The decision sits comfortably alongside earlier cases distinguishing mere realisation from development activity. It reinforces that even modern, large-scale subdivisions can remain capital on the right facts, for example where the landowner lacks development expertise, does not assume financial exposure, and does not exercise significant control over the project. The structure and substance of development agreements should be closely scrutinised.

How SW can help

The Morton decision confirms that tax treatment of land subdivision depends heavily on the specific facts and the terms of the development arrangements. Early and careful structuring of these arrangements is essential.

SW can assist by reviewing development agreements, assessing the risk and control profile of proposed arrangements, and advising on the appropriate tax treatment before transactions are committed to. Please contact your SW advisor to discuss further.

Contributors

Rahul Sanghani

Ned Galloway

Nicolas Hodge

The post Full Federal Court confirms capital treatment for subdivided farmland appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Treasury has released draft legislation that would materially widen the scope of assets subject to Australian capital gains tax by broadening the definition of taxable Australian real property. This would extend beyond land and buildings to a wider range of land‑connected assets, including infrastructure, energy projects, and certain water rights and entitlements.

The proposals include ‘clarifying’ amendments with retrospective effect and would significantly reshape exit economics for foreign investors – particularly in sectors where value is derived from Australian land or natural resources. While a temporary concession is offered for renewable energy investments, the overall policy direction is toward tougher enforcement, a broader CGT base, and reduced structural certainty for inbound capital.

What is being proposed

A broader CGT net focused on energy and infrastructure assets

The reforms retrospectively (from 2006) expand the definition of Taxable Australian Real Property (TARP) beyond traditional land and buildings to capture assets with a close economic connection to Australian land or natural resources. In practical terms, this significantly widens the CGT net over energy and infrastructure assets, including solar farms, wind projects, battery energy storage systems, and associated transmission assets, many of which have historically been treated as outside the foreign resident CGT regime.

The expanded definition also extends, on a prospective basis, to other land‑connected resource interests such as water rights and water access entitlements, particularly where these are integral to the productive use or value of land.

Federal tax law to override state property concepts (retrospective)

The draft legislation confirms that state and territory property law concepts – such as severance rules or statutory characterisations of fixtures, chattels, or resource rights – do not determine whether an asset is real property for federal CGT purposes.

Tightened rules for indirect interests

The principal asset test for indirect interests in companies and trusts is refined, moving from a point in time (CGT event date) to a 365-day test, reducing the ability to manage CGT exposure through timing or balance‑sheet structuring.

Time-limited concession for renewable energy assets

A targeted concession provides a 50% CGT discount for qualifying disposals of renewable energy assets (and certain indirect interests) by foreign residents, available only until 30 June 2030. While it offers transitional relief for solar, wind, and battery projects, the concession is expressly temporary and does not alter the longer‑term expansion of the CGT base.

The concession does not extend to other natural‑resource interests, such as water rights, and does not mitigate any historical exposure arising from the retrospective asset‑definition changes.

Treaty impact

Treasury proposes to amend the International Tax Agreement Act to ensure that the definition of real property and immovable property in Australia’s double tax agreements (DTAs) will be in line with the proposed domestic definition.

Most of Australia’s treaties already permit Australia to tax capital gains derived from real property situated in Australia, including gains from indirect interests in land‑rich entities. The reforms operate by materially expanding the domestic definition of ‘real property’, meaning that a broader range of assets is more likely to fall within those existing treaty taxing rights. As a result, while treaty protection remains available in principle, fewer assets will qualify for it.

Importantly, the retrospective nature of the domestic law changes will impact investors in various jurisdiction differently, depending on the allocation of taxing rights to income not expressly mentioned in DTAs.

Who is most affected

Investments in Australian land‑connected assets may now be subject to Australian CGT, and may, in some cases, have already been subject to CGT even where they were previously treated as outside the regime.

Taxpayers most affected by these proposals include:

• foreign investors in energy and infrastructure assets, including solar, wind, battery energy storage projects, transmission assets, and other land‑connected infrastructure
• investors holding interests in land‑rich companies, trusts, or stapled structures, particularly where value is driven by fixed assets installed on Australian land
• foreign investors relying on state‑law characterisation or treaty assumptions to support CGT outcomes for land‑connected assets
• funds with near‑term exit, refinancing, or portfolio rebalancing events, where CGT now affects pricing and internal rates of return
• investors in agricultural or farmland assets where water rights or water access entitlements are a significant component of asset value, particularly where those rights are economically integrated with land use or productivity.

Timing and transitional snapshot

The proposed statutory definition of ‘real property’ (including assets with a close economic connection to Australian land) is intended to apply retrospectively to CGT events occurring on or after 12 December 2006, except for water rights, which will apply prospectively.

By contrast, the broader net‑widening reforms to the foreign resident CGT regime generally apply prospectively to CGT events occurring from the quarter following when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The 50% CGT discount for renewable energy assets applies only from commencement until 30 June 2030 of the legislation and does not provide relief for any historical or retrospective exposure.

How SW can help

We can assist you in understanding the proposed reforms and their potential impact on existing and future investments. In particular, we can help you to:

• map assets and investment structures against the expanded definition of taxable Australian real property
• re‑model exit scenarios on the basis of full Australian CGT exposure
• reassess reliance on treaty protections and state‑law concepts in light of the proposed changes
• identify eligibility and timing constraints associated with the renewable energy CGT concession
• engage early in transaction planning and, where appropriate, prepare submissions as part of the consultation process
• incorporate CGT risk more explicitly into acquisition, holding, financing, and exit decisions.

Contributor

Ned Galloway

The post Foreign investors in the firing line: Treasury’s expanded CGT regime appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Following public consultation and the release of Taxpayer Alert TA 2026/1, which we discussed in a previous alert here, this new draft guideline focuses on PDAs where a landowner engages a related-party developer in projects spanning more than one income year.

These structures are not uncommon in the property industry and are not inherently problematic when used for commercial reasons. However, the ATO is concerned about non-arm’s length PDAs under common ownership that are designed to defer payment of tax.

Key compliance framework: green vs red risk zones

PCG 2026/D2 divides arrangements into two risk zones – green (low risk) and red (high risk) – based on the features of the deal and how income is recognised for tax purposes. The risk categorisation will determine the ATO’s level of compliance scrutiny:

Green zone (low risk)

Characterised by profit recognition during the project. Common green zone features include instances where:

• progress payments are made by the landowner to the developer as the project progresses, and the developer correspondingly returns income progressively over the project’s life
• no progress payments are made, but the developer still recognises income in stages, similar to an estimated profits basis under Taxation Ruling TR 2018/3 for long-term construction contracts
• annual land value increases are returned as income under trading stock rules, where the landowner holds the land as trading stock for tax purposes and annually includes any increase in the land’s value due to development work, in their assessable income.

Red zone (high risk)

Characterised by arrangements that artificially defer or mismatch income and deductions. Common red zone features include all the following:

• related parties and non-arm’s length terms
• use of a separate developer entity as a ‘buffer’
• timing mismatch, with deductions upfront and income deferred
• no trading stock income recognition by the landowner
• group-wide tax benefits arising from losses.

The ATO has provided several examples of high-risk structures. One such structure is shown below.

If the ATO is successful in applying Part IVA, the structure will be disregarded from an income tax perspective. From the ATO’s perspective, the key issue is the timing of income and deduction recognition, as the overall tax cost will be the same. However, if Part IVA applies and the tax benefit is denied, a taxpayer that previously reported tax losses may instead be placed in a taxable position, with interest and penalties applying.

Implications for property developers and landowners

For property developers and landowners in development projects, the Draft PCG serves as a clear warning. The ATO’s compliance radar is trained on any arrangement where profits from property development are earned collectively but taxed selectively. The key takeaways include:

Self-assess your risk profile

Taxpayers involved in property developments should immediately benchmark their arrangements against the PCG’s green and red zone criteria.

High risk of audit and Part IVA application for red zone cases

Those identified as high risk should prepare themselves for the possibility of ATO review and potential dispute.

Existing projects are not exempt

The Draft PCG will apply to both new and existing arrangements once finalised, so property groups currently using related-party development structures must not assume they are outside the scope.

Legitimate commercial arrangements remain acceptable

The ATO is careful to clarify that not all related-party development arrangements are problematic. Standard commercial practices, such as a one-off project where a landowner partners with a developer and appropriately shares project income, or where deferred payment terms are agreed but income is still accounted for each year, are generally considered not a compliance concern.

How SW can help

We are actively assisting clients in the property and construction sector to navigate the ATO’s increased focus on property development arrangements. Our team can review existing and proposed structures against the PCG’s green and red zone criteria, identify key tax and compliance risks, and provide practical recommendations to strengthen positions and align income recognition with ATO expectations.

Please contact your SW advisor to discuss how these developments may impact your arrangements and how we can support you.

Contributors

Stephen Peries

Ned Galloway

Antony Cheung

The post PDAs in public: When your property development arrangement gets the ATO’s attention appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Effective from 1 April 2026, these measures are designed to provide immediate financial relief and improved cash flow flexibility for eligible businesses impacted by increased fuel expenses. Alongside a temporary reduction in fuel excise and adjustments to fuel tax credit rates, the ATO has launched a dedicated Fuel Response Plan to help affected taxpayers manage their tax obligations during this period of heightened cost pressure.

ATO options for impacted taxpayers

The ATO is offering streamlined access to a new temporary Fuel Response Plan in response to the impact of higher fuel prices on businesses.

Who may be eligible

Your business may qualify if you are an ABN holder and meet the following criteria:

• operating costs have increased directly due to higher fuel costs, or indirectly due to higher transport, logistics, or other supply chain costs
• you have incurred a new tax debt or are finding it difficult to meet existing payment arrangements
• you can demonstrate a reduced capacity to pay specifically as a result of increased fuel costs (separate to a general downturn in business or ordinary cash flow issues)
• all tax lodgements are up to date or will be brought up to date within three months.

Key features of the plan

The Fuel Response Plan includes a number of flexible support measures designed to assist with cash flow management, including:

• no upfront payment required
• up to 36 months to repay
• possible remission of General Interest Charges (GIC), subject to satisfying conditions
• equal monthly instalments to assist with cashflow management.

How SW can help

Navigating ATO support measures and determining eligibility can be complex, particularly where multiple financial pressures are involved. Our team can work with you to assess whether your business qualifies for the Fuel Response Plan, taking into account your specific circumstances and cash flow position.

We can also assist in preparing and lodging the applications with the ATO, including remissions of GIC, liaising on your behalf to streamline the process and improve the likelihood of a successful outcome. In addition, we can help you review your broader tax position, manage existing payment arrangements, assisting with cashflow forecasts and implement strategies to reduce business overhead costs, support cash flow and ongoing compliance during this period.

If your business is experiencing pressure from rising fuel costs, we encourage you to contact one of our experts to discuss how we can support you.

Contributors

Dee Newman

Nuwani Jayaweera

The post How the ATO’s Fuel Response Plan can support your business in 2026 appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Our experts will provide insights and actionable knowledge that will empower your organisation to navigate the evolving landscape of sustainability reporting.

Some key topics include:

• Scope 3 Emissions
• Climate scenario analysis
• Lessons learnt from the first reporting cycle

Webinar details

Session 1 – Scope 3 Emissions

Session 2 – Climate scenario analysis

Date

Thursday 25 June 2026

Location

Online nationally – via Zoom webinar

Time

12pm – 1pm (AEST)

10am – 11am (Perth)

12pm – 1pm (Brisbane)

Register

Session 3 – Lessons learnt from the first reporting cycle

Date

Thursday 22 October 2026

Location

Online nationally – via Zoom webinar

Time

12pm – 1pm (AEDT)

9am – 10am (Perth)

11am – 12pm (Brisbane)

Register

Expert speakers

Tom Mullarkey
Partner
SW

René Muller 
Partner
SW

Jimmy Cao
Associate Director
SW

The post Sustainability Reporting webinar series 2026 appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

The case emphasises that outcomes depend on how benefits are structured and documented, directly influencing remuneration design, governance practices, and a business’s overall tax risk. The court delivered its decision on 27 March 2026 in SEPL Pty Ltd as trustee of the SFT Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 36, allowing SEPL’s appeal. The ruling is also relevant for trustees, directors, and advisers providing non‑cash benefits to working family members.

Key questions on FBT

SEPL Pty Ltd as trustee of the SFT Trust v Commissioner of Taxation is one of the most instructive FBT cases in recent years, tracing a path from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), through to a single judge of the Federal Court, and finally to the Full Federal Court.

The litigation pivots on two deceptively simple questions:

• When are working owners of a family trust business ‘employees’ for FBT purposes?
• When is the provision of luxury motor vehicles a ‘fringe benefit’ rather than a benefit conferred by reason of ownership or beneficial entitlement?

The answers, it turns out, are far from straightforward.

The background: A large family business

SEPL Pty Ltd was the corporate trustee of the SFT Trust, a commercially substantial family business. The trust was established in 1987 and following the father’s death in 2009 and the mother’s retirement as director in 2014, control passed to three brothers who became the sole directors and shareholders of SEPL.

The brothers worked long hours in executive roles. Despite this, they received no salary. Instead, they benefited in two ways:

• profits were distributed to each brother’s family trust
• each brother had exclusive personal use of luxury motor vehicles owned by SEPL.

Over 40 such vehicles were held during the relevant FBT years (2016–2020).

Vehicle expenses were debited to their mother’s beneficiary loan account and subsequently cleared through grossed-up trust distributions to cover her resulting income tax liability. There were no board resolutions authorising the vehicles as distributions to the brothers individually, and no amounts were recorded as distributions to their personal beneficiary accounts.

The Commissioner issued amended FBT assessments on the basis that the brothers were employees and the vehicles constituted fringe benefits. SEPL objected, and on disallowance, applied to the AAT for review.

The AAT confirms the brothers were owners, not employees

The AAT set aside the Commissioner’s assessments. Applying what it described as a holistic analysis — informed in part by common law employment principles — the Tribunal concluded the brothers were not employees of SEPL for FBT purposes.

The Tribunal emphasised the absence of written employment contracts, formal remuneration, and board resolutions establishing employment. It also noted that the brothers operated at the apex of the business rather than within a conventional hierarchy. These factors pointed away from a contract of service and towards proprietorial control.

On the second issue — whether the vehicles were provided ‘in respect of’ any employment — the Tribunal also found in favour of SEPL. Drawing on the Full Federal Court’s reasoning in J & G Knowles and Associates Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 196, the Tribunal held that the test requires a sufficient or material connection between the benefit and the employment, not merely a causal link. It concluded that the brothers accessed the vehicles as beneficiaries and proprietors of the family trust, reflecting their status as ultimate controllers of the business, rather than as remuneration for services rendered.

Federal Court affirms the FBT assessments

The Commissioner appealed, and Justice O’Sullivan allowed the appeal, setting aside the AAT’s decision and affirming the FBT assessments.

On the employment question, the primary judge held that the Tribunal had erred by importing common law concepts of employment into a statutory framework that provided its own complete definitions. The fringe benefits tax assessment act (FBTAA) was to be read on its own terms. The key provision was section 137, which the Court treated as a deeming mechanism: if a non-cash benefit, had it been paid in cash, would have constituted ‘salary or wages’, then the recipient is to be treated as an employee. Applying this test, the Court found the condition satisfied, noting that a cash payment of equivalent value would have engaged the withholding obligations, and therefore held that the brothers were employees.

On the ‘in respect of’ question, the Court rejected the Tribunal’s focus on the brothers’ subjective belief that they were entitled to the vehicles as beneficiaries. The correct inquiry was objective: was there a sufficient or material connection between the benefit and the employment? Given the brothers’ executive roles, their operational immersion in the business, and the absence of any resolution treating the vehicles as trust distributions, the Court found the connection clear. The appeal was allowed, and the assessments were reinstated.

Full Federal Court restores the AAT outcome

SEPL appealed. A Full Court allowed the appeal and restored the AAT’s outcome.

On the first issue, the Full Court identified four errors in the primary judge’s approach.

• First, the primary judge had focused on the definition of ‘employment’ in section 136(1) rather than the operative concept of ‘employee’. The Full Court explained that ‘employment’ is descriptive of what a person has once they are an employee — it does not expand or lead the inquiry into whether a person qualifies as one.

• Second, section 137 was misconstrued. The Full Court emphasised that section 137 is a confined hypothetical exercise, not a free-standing deeming mechanism. Before section 137 can operate to treat a benefit as ‘salary or wages’, the third condition in section 137(1)(c)(i) must be met: the hypothetical cash payment must constitute salary or wages paid to the person, which, via the definition of ‘salary or wages’ and the reference to section 12-35 of Schedule 1 to the TAA, requires that the cash would have been paid to the person ‘as an employee’. This inquiry necessarily invokes the ordinary, common law, meaning of ‘employee’. The Tribunal was therefore correct to consider common law principles in this context.

• Third, the primary judge treated section 137 as automatically converting every non-cash benefit received by a person performing work into salary or wages. That was an error. The provision does not deem an employment relationship into existence, it merely operates on the concept of salary or wages where all three statutory conditions are independently satisfied.

• Fourth, the primary judge had also relied on section 12-40 of Schedule 1 (relating to payments to company directors), even though the Commissioner had expressly disavowed reliance on that provision before the Tribunal and the primary judge, and it was not part of the questions of law that enlivened the Court’s section 44 jurisdiction. That reliance was not permissible.

Applying the proper statutory framework, the Full Court held that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that any hypothetical cash payment would have been made to the brothers in their capacities as proprietors and beneficiaries, not as employees, and that the condition in section 137(1)(c)(i) was therefore not satisfied. The Tribunal’s conclusion that the brothers were not employees was not only available but also well-supported by the facts.

On the second issue, the Full Court confirmed the Tribunal’s approach. The ‘in respect of’ test requires a sufficient or material connection between the benefit and the employment; causation alone is insufficient. In this case, the brothers’ access to the vehicles was tied to their proprietorial and beneficial capacities: the mechanism of debiting vehicle costs to the matriarch’s beneficiary account and clearing those debits through grossed-up trust distributions was fundamentally inconsistent with a remuneration arrangement. The Full Court rejected the primary judge’s approach of treating operational involvement in the business as determinative without separately considering the materiality of the employment connection against the competing proprietorial explanation.

The Full Court confirmed that a benefit may be causally referable to multiple sources. The presence of an employment relationship does not compel a finding that the benefit is provided ‘in respect of’ that employment if a sufficiently material explanation lies elsewhere, in this case, in the brothers’ ownership and beneficiary status.

Key takeaways

Common law still matters under the FBTAA. To apply section 137, you must ask whether a hypothetical cash payment would have been made to the person as an employee. That question calls for the ordinary common law meaning of the term. The statute does not fully define it away.

Section 137 has a limited and targeted role and is not a mechanism that converts all non-cash benefits into remuneration. Each of the three conditions in section 137(1) must be independently satisfied, including, critically, that the hypothetical cash equivalent would have been paid to the person as an employee rather than as a proprietor or beneficiary.

The ‘in respect of employment’ test requires substantive connection, not mere proximity. Benefits that arise from ownership, family relationship, or beneficial entitlement may properly sit outside the FBT regime, even where the recipient also performs executive functions in the business.

Documentation matters enormously in family business contexts. The absence of resolutions recording vehicle access as a trust distribution — while ultimately supporting SEPL’s case — created the ambiguity that drove three rounds of litigation. Clear and consistent documentation of the basis on which benefits are provided will always reduce exposure.

Where business is conducted through a company rather than a trust, Division 7A may also be relevant. If a private company provides a non-cash benefit to a shareholder-director, it is necessary to consider whether that benefit constitutes a deemed dividend under section 109CA of the ITAA 1936, noting that Division 7A operates to the exclusion of FBT in relation to loans and forgiven amounts (section 109ZB, ITAA 1936).

How SW can help

The SEPL decision provides welcome clarity on the limits of FBT in family trust structures, but it also highlights how finely balanced these issues can be. Outcomes will continue to turn on facts, characterisation, and documentation. Engaging our experts early will help you navigate complex FBT rules with confidence, protect family business arrangements, minimise FBT exposure, and reduce the risk of prolonged disputes.

Please contact your SW advisor for tailored support from our team.

Contributors

Rahul Sanghani

Natalie Wang

The post SEPL case update: Ownership vs employment implications for fringe benefits tax appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.