Adrian Cartland

Tax reform doesn’t have to be terrible. There are better, practical ways to do it that help everyday taxpayers. The Taxinator’s Manifesto sets out 16 revenue-neutral reforms to modernise SA tax administration: → 6-month decision deadlines on objections (no more endless delays) → Binding private rulings for upfront certainty → Strengthen hardship relief & flexible payments (protecting small businesses & individuals from rigid rules) → Modern payroll tax grouping (only genuinely related entities) → Appeals to SACAT & remove 50% pre-payment rule → And 11 more fairer fixes Support real tax reform in state taxes: cartlandlaw.com/tax-reform/

Shocked - but not surprised - at the number of clients who are planning on moving overseas as a consequence of the budget changes to CGT and trust taxation. I am fielding daily calls from HNW clients. And this isn't an emotional outburst: you call your tax lawyer to plan, not to vent. There is going to be a massive capital outflow from Australia.

Discussions in the past week have really ranged. I have discussed NZ, HK, Singapore, Greece, Chile, UAE, Spain, There are a LOT of options out there: many countries want to encourage migration from the right kind of people. A few years of nil or negligible taxation is a pretty good incentive.

@taxinator Where are they moving to?

CHANCELLOR CONFIRMS NEW RULES ON USES WILL END TAX AVOIDANCE THROUGH TRUSTS ONCE AND FOR ALL Issue no. 27 Date 27 May 2026 WESTMINSTER, 1290 — Robert Burnell, Chancellor to King Edward I, has announced new measures targeting the practice of “uses,” the device by which a landowner transfers legal title to a trusted associate (the feoffee) who holds the land on behalf of the true beneficiary, and confirmed that the reforms will end tax avoidance through trust arrangements once and for all.  The Chancellor, addressing the Exchequer, confirmed that uses had for several decades permitted wealthy landowners to direct the profits of their estates to family members who held no legal title and therefore owed the Crown nothing. Read The Daily Cartland here: cartlandlaw.com/chancellor-con… #cartlandlaw #thedailycartland

My dear friend ...the AFR ... isn't a source of taxation law in Australia. You see, in Australia tax laws are made by Parliament, administered by the ATO, and then interpreted by the Courts. So, a small screenshot of an article you found on the internet has no relevance or support. Nor does incoherent nonsense necessitate rebuttal - derivation of income can not be so glibly shifted. If you would like to understand the taxation of trusts further, as I suggested you might try googling Division 6 - its in the 1936 Income Tax Act, having a read, and then reconsidering your views. Until then I think that is goodbye and have a nice day. And please, don't fill in your tax return based on material you found somewhere on the internet - do it according to tax law instead. Have a pleasant day.

@taxinator @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston You’re the one contending that mr eslake’s AFR description is incorrect. So the onus is on you. I also think his description would be how most people understand the issue so you’ll be doing us a public service by explaining why we are all wrong.

Hey @TaxPawspective are you still claiming that googling ‘tax minimisation hrough a trust’ doesn’t give any examples of advisors selling trusts a a great way to pay little tax? I just googled it again and got thousand of examples just like this one…

@Michtull @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston My friend they would say res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself.

@taxinator @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston Oh come on…what would a Judge say if your whole submission was just these 2 words? The ones I know may ask you to expand or perhaps just give you a decent dressing down. I’m polite so I’ll give you a further opportunity to explain why mr eslake’s description is wrong.

@Michtull @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston Again... the answer is Division 6. Would you like me to provide you a link so you can read it? And remember, the onus is on you to prove your unorthodox views.

@taxinator @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston And as you are a tax professional I’d think you’ve got some credibility at stake…so again I invite you to explain why he is wrong.

@Michtull @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston Division 6

@taxinator @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston My very specific question was why is mr eslake wrong in his description of trust operations. Your long winded and pompous non answer suggests to me you’re trying to bluff your way out of it…so prove me wrong by giving us the detail on his errors.

My dear friend, you are making contentions about tax law that are totally incoherent and bear no resemblance to the taxation of trusts in Australia. Namely, that income derived by one taxpayer can be moved to another taxpayer by use of a trust! Even better, you are doubling down on this when challenged by tax and trust specialists. If you wish to challenge what is clearly established law, as understood by tax lawyers, the ATO, and Courts, then the onus is on you to prove your assertions. So, unless you wish to reconsider your assertions, please walk us through the tax law that purportedly supports your view. Which tax act shall you take us to first?

@taxinator @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston So your contention is mr eslake’s description is incorrect . I can’t see how he is mistaken. If you insist he is then please spell out why. Also…your pomposity dial seems to be turned up a long way.

You see, a screenshot from the AFR isn't actually tax law - in any way. Just like scientists have peer reviewed research to support their theories, in law the thing we use is ... well.. the law. So what you are going to need to support your claimed research into how tax law works is some actual legal references, to, well, law. So which tax act will you be taking us to?

@taxinator @TaxPawspective @tax_oz @tobyeggleston I though Saul Eslakes explanation of how a trust works in practice quite good…not overly technical, & clear and concise. I recommend it to you…

Michael I am so glad that you have been doing your own research on the taxation of trust income. Could you please explain which sections of which tax act enable the distribution of income derived by a taxpayer on a higher income tax bracket to a taxpayer on a lower income tax using a trust?

@TaxPawspective @taxinator @tax_oz @tobyeggleston Your problem is actually that I do understand how the use of a trust allows some to pay less tax by distributing income from those in a high tax bracket to others in a lower bracket. It’s a lurk not available to most workers, & results in an unfair tax system, & needs to change

You know, if SMSF trustees don't understand the basics of their tax obligations and fiduciary duties they can be disqualified. I wonder if the same applies to the trustees of industry funds. I wonder if I could find someone who understood tax law enough to research such an issue...

@taxinator @tax_oz @Michtull Perhaps, Adrian, you will have more success explaining this to Michael than I have. Tax Guy and @tobyeggleston have pointed out that Michael has a role with an APRA fund trustee, so we might expect he should understand some trust basics.

This is the important point that is being totally missed: income of a trust is that which is derived by that trust. It isn't someone else's income. Someone else isn't splitting, or diverting, or using some tax-free threshold. The trust derives assessable income, and then Div 6 taxes where it is paid or applied (or if not, then the trustee).

@Michtull @TaxPawspective That’s not a moral issue that’s an ignorance issue. Trust income isn’t income of an individual. I mean companies allow trust users to access multiple tax free thresholds also. You know that right? So do partnerships, so do unit trusts. You know that right?

This budget massively distorts incentives and rewards the already wealthy. For example, the increased CGT and 30% trust minimum are easily sidestepped by active share traders and property developers. Both are on revenue account: - a share trader's gains are ordinary income, shares are trading stock, CGT is disregarded; - a property developer carrying on an enterprise is on the same footing - the land is trading stock and the gain is ordinary income. A developer can be as small as one property split into two. Run either through a base rate company and you sit at 25% - five points under the new CGT floor, and five points under the new minimum on discretionary trust distributions. Losses are on revenue account, deductible against other income. The new regime is largely bypassed. The passive direct investor cops it the other way. Indexation only relieves inflation on the winners. The real losers - shares that grew slower than CPI but did not fall in nominal terms - cannot be offset. So the portfolio is taxed on its nominal winners while its real losers are invisible. So anyone with a reasonable share portfolio has a real reason to also be an active trader. And anyone with reasonable real estate holdings has a real reason to also be a developer. The threshold is meetable but not free: - Share traders: profit purpose, regular and systematic trade, business-like manner, plan, records (Case X86). - Property developers: change of purpose, coherent plan for subdivision, business organisation, borrowed funds, development beyond council requirements (MT 2006/1, drawn from Statham and Casimaty). And don't wait until the losses appear (TA 2009/12). This is a budget that punishes the aspirational investor. Those with existing wealth will simply structure out of it. #Budget2026

LAW FIRM’S “CHARISMATIC HEAD OF IT” REVEALED TO BE TECHNICIAN LEAST AFRAID OF HUMAN INTERACTION 19 May 2026 Issue No. 26 Continue Reading.....lnkd.in/gWW2B4z8 #thedailycartland #cartlandlaw

AI Is Not a Thing  (Or: Why Calling Everything “AI” Is Like Calling Every Fight “UFC”) There is a certain kind of person who sees a boxing match, a judo throw, and a spinning back kick and says, with great confidence, “That’s UFC.” Continue Reading: lnkd.in/gHn6QjyS

@TaxPawspective Eddie Murphy doing tax reform commentary is how we make tax cool again

Someone please, please, please tell me there is a sequel to this that involves Eddie talking about Mr T.

The CGT Discount was HALF. They removed the CGT discount on HALF. Now when they tax me they are going to take HALF.