Shams, reimbursement agreements ... and the return of economic equivalence?
Member Price: $15.00
Non Member Price: $20.00
Abstract: The Raftland Trust “washed” $4 million of trust distributions through a loss trust whilst the benefit of nearly all sums distributed was retained. “Sham” characterisation was confirmed by the High Court for this otherwise legally enforceable transaction. The taxpayer’s financial and fiscal objectives had impermissibly differed. This article examines the reasoning of members of the Court and outlines some disturbing implications.
Author
profile:
John
GLOVER
John is a Barrister practising in Melbourne and part-time Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at Monash University. John practised as a Barrister in the 1980s, before becoming an academic and writing Commercial Equity: Fiduciary Relationships (1995), Equity, Restitution & Fraud (2004) and over 40 book chapters and refereed journal articles. He re-signed the roll in 2005 and works in the areas of taxation, trusts and equity law.
Current at 28 August 2008
