Many businesses start with one entity.
The company employs the staff, signs the customer contracts, ownsthe equipment, holds the cash and carries on the day-to-day business.
When the business is small, that simplicity can make sense.
But as one client's business grew and accumulated increasinglyvaluable assets, we asked a different question:
Should millions of dollars of valuable assets continue sitting inthe same entity carrying the day-to-day operating risk?
The operating company was doing everything
An operating business can be exposed to risk through employees,customers, suppliers, contracts, finance arrangements and its everydayactivities.
At the same time, a successful business can accumulate substantialassets.
For a transport business, that might include trucks and trailersworth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. In manufacturing orconstruction, it could be machinery, plant and other valuable equipment.
Rather than automatically allowing everything to accumulate in theoperating company, we considered whether the structure should separate:
the business that takes the operating risk from the entities thathold appropriate long-term valuable assets.
For example, a separate asset entity could potentially ownappropriate trucks, machinery or equipment and make those assets available tothe operating company under properly documented commercial arrangements.
The operating company could then focus on employing staff,contracting with customers and carrying on the day-to-day business.
That doesn't make valuable assets untouchable or eliminatecommercial risk. Financing arrangements, securities, guarantees, insolvency lawand the legal structure can materially affect the protection actually achieved.
But it starts with a more deliberate question:
What needs to be exposed to the operating business — and whatdoesn't?
The charges between entities still need to be commercial
Creating another entity doesn't give a business licence to moveprofit wherever it wants.
If one entity genuinely provides assets or services to another,there may be legitimate hire, lease or service charges between them. But thosearrangements need commercial substance.
The assets or services must be provided, the charges need a properbasis and the arrangements should be appropriately documented.
We don't simply reach 30 June; decide the operating company hasmade “too much profit” and create an arbitrary management fee to move incomeinto another entity.
The structure comes first. The transactions between the entitiesthen need to reflect what is happening commercially.
Property deserved its own decision
We applied the same thinking when considering long-term businessproperty.
If the client eventually acquired commercial premises, should theoperating company automatically own the property as well?
Not necessarily.
Commercial property can become one of the most valuable assets ina business owner's overall wealth. Holding it separately from the operatingbusiness may therefore warrant consideration, depending on the tax, legal,financing, asset-protection and succession objectives.
For some business owners, an SMSF may also be one structure worthinvestigating for qualifying business real property, subject to thesuperannuation rules, investment strategy, related-party requirements,financing and the client's broader retirement circumstances.
But there is no universal answer.
The objective isn't to create as many entities as possible.
Every entity should have a reason to exist.
Structure should evolve as the business evolves
A structure that made sense when a business had two employees and$100,000 of equipment may not remain appropriate when it has dozens ofemployees, substantial contracts, valuable equipment and commercial property.
That's why we don't look at business structures as something thatshould be established once and then ignored indefinitely.
As the business grows, we review what each entity is doing, wherevaluable assets are accumulating, where the commercial risks sit and whetherthe existing structure still supports the owner's longer-term objectives.
Sometimes the question isn't:
“Do we need another company?”
It's:
“Why is this particularasset sitting in the operating company in the first place?”
This case study has been generalised, and certaindetails have been changed to protect client and business confidentiality.General information only. Separating assets and operating activities does notguarantee asset protection. Tax, GST, CGT, duty, financing, security,insolvency and other consequences should be considered before transferringexisting assets or establishing new arrangements. Related-party hire, lease andservice arrangements must have appropriate commercial and tax support.Asset-protection and legal structuring should be considered with anappropriately qualified lawyer. SMSF ownership of business real property issubject to specific superannuation laws and should be separately assessedbefore implementation.
Stay Ahead with Business & Tax Insights
Receive practical business insights, taxation updates and strategic guidance delivered directly to your inbox. Stay informed about legislative changes, emerging opportunities and practical strategies to help you structure, grow and protect your business.
More real-world examples
Explore other situations where a closer look at the numbers, structure or timing helped uncover an opportunity or identify a potential issue.
The Hospitality Business Was Turning Over $1.5 Million — But Nobody Knew What It Was Making Each Month
The Hospitality Business WasTurning Over $1.5 Million — But Nobody Knew What It Was Making Each Month
A hospitality business was turning over approximately $1.5million a year.
Sales were strong. The business was busy. Staff were working.
But there was a fundamental problem:
The owners couldn't clearly see what the business was actuallymaking each month.
The bookkeeping was being completed, but the accounts weren'tproducing reliable monthly management information.
Before we could talk about improving profitability, we firstneeded numbers we could trust.
First, we fixed the numbers
We reviewed the bookkeeping and month-end processes and identifiedseveral issues affecting the accuracy of the monthly results.
Among other things, we:
· moved equipment purchasesthat had incorrectly been expensed through the profit and loss statement to thebalance sheet where appropriate;
· cleaned up the chart ofaccounts so revenue, cost of goods sold and operating expenses could beproperly analysed;
· introduced trackingcategories to provide better visibility over the business;
· developed proper month-endprocedures;
· brought cash sales andundeposited cash into the accounts;
· reconciled uncleared salesamounts from Epos Now; and
· accrued wages into thecorrect reporting periods.
None of these changes, by themselves, were the objective.
The objective was to produce financial information that actuallyshowed what was happening in the business each month.
Once the accounts were reliable, we could start asking betterquestions.
Then we benchmarked the business
We didn't just compare this month with last month.
We compared the business against external industry information,including specialist industry benchmarkingreports, ATO small business benchmarks and IBISWorld industry research,where relevant.
We considered measures such as cost of goods sold, gross margins,labour costs, overheads, net profit margins and sales patterns.
Benchmarking wasn't the answer by itself.
It helped us identify where the business was performingdifferently and where we needed to investigate further.
We could then work through the underlying drivers of profitability— including purchasing and cost of goods sold, labour efficiency, pricing,operating hours, overheads and other areas affecting margins.
For example, one area we investigated was labour.
Rather than simply looking at the total annual wage bill, weasked:
Were all of the hours the business was open actually profitable?
By comparing sales patterns across different operating hours withthe staffing required during those periods, we could identify times when thebusiness was generating revenue but potentially very little profit after labourand other operating costs.
That gave the owners a better basis for making decisions aboutstaffing levels and operating hours.
We also looked at cost of goods sold and gross margins.
One of the areas reviewed was the cost of providing free meals tostaff. The business moved from providing free staff meals to a discountedarrangement, among other changes designed to improve the amount of gross profitretained from each dollar of sales.
These were only some of the areas addressed.
The broader objective was to understand what was drivingprofitability and identify practical changes that could improve the bottomline.
Revenue wasn't the problem
A business turning over $1.5 million can still underperform.
The objective wasn't simply to increase sales.
It was to improve the amount of profit being retained from thesales the business was already generating.
Reliable monthly reporting gave us the starting point.Benchmarking helped identify where to look. More detailed analysis helpedidentify what could actually be changed.
Following the changes to the financial reporting and theoperational decisions that came from the analysis, withina few months, net profit had increased by approximately 7%.
The improved profitability and reporting also gave us a muchclearer basis for considering remuneration for the working directors, ratherthan making those decisions without reliable information about the underlyingperformance and cash requirements of the business.
Bookkeeping should tell yousomething
Accurate bookkeeping is essential.
But for a growing business, getting the transactions into theaccounting system is only the starting point.
Good monthly reporting should help answer questions such as:
What is actually driving our profit?
How do our margins compare with similar businesses?
Where are we losing margin?
Are our wages appropriate for the sales we're generating?
Are all of our operating hours commercially worthwhile?
What can we change to improve the bottom line?
Because the goal isn't simply to have higher revenue.
The goal is to build a more profitable business.
This case study has been generalised and certain details have beenchanged to protect client and business confidentiality. Benchmarkinginformation should be considered in the context of the particular business andshould not be treated as a substitute for analysis of its actual circumstances.
The Tax Planning Worked — Until the Division 7A Repayments Reached $120,000 a Year
For several years, a business owner had been managing theirpersonal taxable income while regularly redrawing money from their privatecompany.
The strategy worked when viewed one year at a time.
Their salary was being managed so that their personal taxableincome remained around the 30% marginal tax bracket,while additional amounts drawn from the company accumulated as Division 7Aloans.
The loans had been put on complying terms.
But the balances weren't disappearing.
As the loans accumulated over several years, so did the minimumyearly repayment obligations.
Eventually, the client's combined minimum yearly repayments hadreached approximately $120,000 a year.
Where those repayments were being dealt with through dividendsfrom the company, the dividends, together with the client's existing salary,were now pushing part of their taxable income into the 45%marginal tax bracket.
The tax planning had worked in the earlier years.
But eventually, it started to catch up.
The tax had been deferred — noteliminated
A complying Division 7A loan can prevent an amount from beingtreated as a deemed dividend at the time the loan is made, provided therelevant requirements are satisfied.
But putting a loan on complying terms doesn't make the debtdisappear.
Interest accrues and minimum yearly repayments generally need tobe made over the term of the loan.
For several years, the strategy had allowed the client to accessadditional company funds while managing their immediate personal taxableincome.
The problem became apparent when we looked at the position overmultiple years rather than one financial year at a time.
Each additional loan created another future obligation.
Eventually, the accumulated minimum yearly repayments had reachedapproximately $120,000 a year. Wherethose repayments were being dealt with through dividends from the company, thetaxable income required to service the loans, together with the client'ssalary, was now pushing part of their income into the 45%marginal tax bracket.
What had appeared to be tax minimisation in the earlier years was,to a significant extent, tax deferral.
The problem wasn't the Division 7Aloan agreement
The loans had been put on complying terms.
So simply preparing another loan agreement or calculating anotherminimum yearly repayment wasn't the answer.
The bigger issue was that the strategy had been repeated withoutsufficient consideration of where the accumulated loans would eventually lead.
The client was also continuing to redraw money from the company.
That created the possibility of repaying old Division 7A loans whilesimultaneously creating new ones.
So we needed to look beyond the annual compliance requirements andconsider the client's broader strategy for extracting money from the company.
That meant considering the existing loan balances, future personalcash requirements, salary, available franking credits, company cash flow andhow the loans could progressively be reduced without simply allowing the samecycle to continue.
Tax planning shouldn't stop at 30June
A strategy that reduces taxable income today can still createobligations that need to be dealt with tomorrow.
In this case, the issue wasn't that Division 7A had been ignored.
The issue was that the strategy had been repeated withoutsufficient consideration of where the accumulated loans would eventually lead.
Good tax planning therefore asks more than:
“What does this save this year?”
It should also ask:
“Where does this leave the client five or seven years from now?”
Because sometimes the tax hasn't disappeared.
It's simply been deferred to another year.
This case study has been generalised and certain details have beenchanged to protect client and business confidentiality. General informationonly. Division 7A outcomes depend on the particular payments, loans,agreements, repayments, timing and other circumstances involved.
The Salon Was Making Money — So Where Was the Rent?
Sometimes the numbers that are missing from a set of accounts canbe just as important as the numbers that are there.
We were reviewing the tax position of a sole trader operating asalon business. The business was generating revenue and had the usual expensesassociated with providing its services.
But one thing stood out.
There was no rent or other premises expense.
A salon has to operate somewhere.
So before simply preparing the tax return from the figuresprovided, we asked:
“Where are you actually operating the salon from?”
The business was operating from a dedicated room at home
The client explained that they were renting their home and had aseparate room set aside for operating the salon.
That changed the tax analysis.
For a sole trader operating a business from home, there is animportant distinction between simply doing some administrative work from homeand having part of the home that genuinely has the character of a placeof business.
In this case, the separate room was being used for the salonbusiness.
That meant we needed to consider whether an appropriate proportionof the client's rent could be claimed as an occupancy expense, together withrelevant running expenses associated with operating the business from theproperty.
The deduction wasn't automatically the entire rent. The businessand private use of the property needed to be appropriately separated, and theclaim supported by the client's circumstances and records.
Rent wasn't the only expense worth reviewing
Once we understood where the business was actually operating, theconversation went beyond rent.
We also considered whether an appropriatebusiness portion of other costs associated with operating the salon from therented home had been captured, such as electricity, cleaning and other relevanthousehold running expenses.
The objective wasn't to find expenses to claimsimply because the client worked from home.
It was to establish whatit genuinely cost to operate the salon from the property and make sure the deductible portionof those costs was properly considered.
Sometimes the missing number is the clue
If we had simply taken the bookkeeping at face value, the taxreturn could have been prepared using the expenses already recorded.
But the profit and loss statement told us something didn't quitemake commercial sense.
The business was operating a salon.
Where was the cost of the premises?
That simple question led us to understand how the businessactually operated and identify expenses that warranted further investigation.
Good tax review isn't only about checking whether the numbersprovided are correct.
Sometimes it's about recognising which number should logically be there —but isn't.
This case study has been generalised and certain details have beenchanged to protect client and business confidentiality. General informationonly. Home-based business deductions depend on the taxpayer's circumstances andthe nature and use of the relevant area. Occupancy expenses such as rent aregenerally only available where the relevant part of the home has the characterof a place of business. Business and private expenses must be appropriatelyapportioned and substantiated. Different considerations can apply where thebusiness is operated through a company or trust rather than by a sole trader.