Loaning Shares to a Trust/Company for Tax-Efficient Income Distribution and Asset Protection

Hey guys,

Does anyone have advice regarding loaning shares held in a personal account to a Discretionary Trust/company to benefit from tax-efficient income distribution and asset protection?

From the internet "Using a loan instead of a direct transfer allows your business (company or trust) to control and benefit from the shares while avoiding a CGT event in your personal name. Instead of selling the shares to the business (which triggers CGT), you loan the shares to the business under a formal loan agreement"

How This Works (Step-by-Step)

  1. You Set Up a Loan Agreement
    • Instead of transferring shares directly, you “loan” them to your business.
    • This is done through a legal loan agreement, which specifies:

✅ The shares remain your property but are held for the business.
✅ The business can receive dividends and vote on company decisions.
✅ The loan may have a repayment schedule (or remain interest-free if allowed).

  1. The Business Uses the Shares for Its Benefit
    • The business can earn dividends from the shares.
    • The business can sell the shares in the future if needed.
    • The shares are recorded as a loan liability in the business’s books.

  2. No CGT Event (Because You Haven’t Sold Anything)
    • Since you haven’t “disposed” of the shares, the ATO does not treat this as a CGT event.
    • You defer CGT until an actual sale happens in the future.

  3. Future Scenarios

✅ You Keep Ownership → If you want the shares back, you simply end the loan agreement, and the shares return to your name.
✅ The Business Buys the Shares Later → If you later decide to transfer ownership, the business can purchase the shares from you when CGT is lower.
✅ The Business Pays You Back Over Time → If structured as a loan with repayments, you can slowly receive payments tax-efficiently.

Key Benefits

✅ Avoids CGT Now – Since you haven’t technically sold the shares.
✅ Flexibility – You can decide later whether to sell, take them back, or let the business buy them over time.
✅ Tax Efficiency – If the business earns dividends, it may pay a lower tax rate than you personally.
✅ Asset Protection – Shares are held for the business, reducing personal liability risks.

Potential Downsides

❌ Legal Complexity – You need a proper loan agreement to ensure it’s compliant.
❌ ATO Scrutiny – If the business benefits from the shares but doesn’t actually repay you, the ATO may question the arrangement.
❌ Dividends Might Be Taxed Differently – If dividends are received by the business, they may be taxed at the corporate tax rate (25-30%) rather than your personal tax rate.

Who Should Use This Strategy?

✅ If you want business control over the shares but don’t want an immediate CGT bill.
✅ If you think your tax rate will be lower in the future (e.g., after retirement).
✅ If you want to delay the sale until a better tax strategy is available.
✅ If you are structuring a trust or family wealth transfer and need flexibility.

Does anyone have any experience with this or have any advice?

Thanks in advance.

Comments

  • +4

    Real world worked out examples of how much you can save with all this effort?

  • +7

    What did your accountant say?

    Ours costs approximately $1k p.a. including setup costs and the annual trust and multiple beneficiaries tax returns. Please invest in professional advice rather than AI and a very, popular and useful bargains website.

    • +1

      $1k PA sounds like a good deal 👍🏻
      For us nuffies with out one, if the tax savings are greater than $1k a year seems like a no brainer

      • +2

        Consider what your dividend income is, and who will be receiving the distribution.
        You would realistically need $4k in dividend income, assuming you can funnel to adults paying no tax.
        So circa $100000 in shares would be the starting point, and for the hassle involved, probably not worth it until you had a fair bit more.
        Think too, about how the people receiving the distribution will change over time too.
        An 18yro student might currently have capacity, but in 5 years it is likely they won't. An elderly relative might pass away etc. etc.

        • +1

          assuming you can funnel to adults paying no tax

          Agreed but it's not necessarily "no tax". If one, or multiple potential beneficiaries are already at the top tax bracket, then anything that could legally be distributed to those in a lower tax bracket, or with a lower taxable income, may benefit the trust overall.

          • @bmxr: Yeah, but then the benefits are less and you need much more income to make it worthwhile.

        • +1

          So circa $100000 in shares would be the starting point, and for the hassle involved, probably not worth it until you had a fair bit more.

          Paradoxically, this is suboptimal!

          If you waited until you had more, it would be exy to get those into the FT.

          A FT is a medium/long term investment, so it's okay to make a small "loss" in the short term but it makes sense to minimise setup and ongoing costs - tax returns are simple so shouldn't cost much more than individual return and if you can do your own, you can do a trust return. The OP doesn't seem to have a corporate trustee because doesn't mention ~$300ish ASIC fee. But that's it.

          Benefits - non-working spouse, young adults - anyone earning less than the top MTR. Even children's $416 distribution is handy.

          And there is the asset protection.

      • It is an excellent deal and the reason why we haven't changed accountants in 10 years!

        • Any chance you could share their details? Sorry I couldn't DM you.

  • The business can sell the shares in the future if needed.

    Do they then loan you back the money? So the business owes you for the shares and you owe them the money in perpetuity, effectively beating CGT on the sale? Sounds too good to be true. I'm sure you'll have a fight on your hands with the ATO.

    • I bet people go to prison for stuff like that.

      • I wouldn't if I were you. People go to prison for stuff like illegal gambling.

  • +2

    This arrangement raises several questions. Would recommend using a tax accountant/lawyer.

    If you Google stock borrowing and lending, a typical stock borrowing and lending agreement involves the transfer of ownership of shares to the borrower and a retransfer back to the lender at the end of the loan term. This is despite them being referred to as "lending" and "borrowing".

    The shares remain your property but are held for the business.

    If you are holding shares on behalf of someone else, have you declared a trust and transferred the beneficial ownership in the shares to the business? This has its own legal and tax consequences.

    The loan may have a repayment schedule (or remain interest-free if allowed).

    How does the interest arise? You haven't lent money, you have lent shares. Or are you referring to a situation where the business lends you money but use shares as collateral to secure the repayment obligations under the loan?

    The Business Uses the Shares for Its Benefit
    • The business can sell the shares in the future if needed.

    If you still own the shares (ie, retain right, title and interest in the shares), what right would the business have to sell the shares? Wouldn't the business be breaching your rights by selling something you own?

    The above is not tax or legal advice.

  • +8

    Loaning Shares to a Trust/Company for Tax-Efficient Income Distribution and Asset Protection Tax Avoidance

    There, fixed that for you.

  • +4

    If you’re making financial decisions to save on tax, you are doing it all wrong

    • -1

      Not neessarily. The particular portfolio of shares etc he has now could maximise his return for his given risk tolerance. Adjusting the legal structure under which the shares are held/controlled to minimise taxes on his optimal portfolio could (if there is a viable way to do it) enhance the returns on his portfolio (more re-investable funds) and does not necessarily make his original portfolio choice sub-optimal.

      Let's consider another example. Suppose I have earned a $10k bonus this year at my job. I intend to invest that money for the long-term and not use it for personal purposes until my retirement. I have a SMSF which includes shares among other assets and have not made any concessional contributions to my superannuation this year. I will be better off to invest the $10k via my SMSF than investing personally in my name. In this scenario, the choice of shares / other assets (inside or outside the SMSF) is not affected by the decision about which legal entity to invest under. I simply have more investable funds by shifting the $10k into my SMSF and saving tax.

  • +2

    Tax minimization is legal, but tax avoidance is illegal.

  • +4

    Title should read, help me with a tax dodging scam.

    Or ( this one is for the ATO to hone into this post via their algorithms) How to avoid tax and scam the ATO in Australia in 2025, a dummies guide
    And ppl talk about waste in govt

    I wish one single political leader had the balls to end all this rich getting richer shit.
    Get rid of NG on all investment properties after number 1, for starters. Foreign investors banned from buying residential family houses,period.
    How I successfully

    • -2

      How to avoid tax and scam the ATO in Australia in 2025, a dummies guide

      Do you support funding the US war machine via paying maximal taxes?

      I wish one single political leader had the balls to end all this rich getting richer shit.
      Get rid of NG on all investment properties after number 1, for starters. Foreign investors banned from buying residential family houses,period.

      Agreed.

      Did you cut your comment short?

      How I successfully

      • Honesty I would love to pay $0 tax, but ATO is not at all supportive of this.

        • -1

          Did ya ask them nicely though? Or did ya at least ask them nicely to stop sending money, men and materiel off to fight bankers wars?

          • -1

            @tenpercent: Why would the ATO be sending money, men or material overseas to fight whatever bankers wars are?

            • -1

              @Crow K: The ATO collects the money which is then used for those purposes. If they don't collect it, it follows it cannot be used for those purposes. Use your head.

              whatever bankers wars are

              All wars are bankers' wars.

              • -1

                @tenpercent:

                gets car registration renewal in the mail
                "Oh yeah, more money for the govt to pay for injection rooms opposite schools NO THANKS"
                tears notice up to teach them a lesson

                I don't know if you genuinely don't understand how government works or this is Sov Cit "if I don't get to decide where my taxes go they are invalid" nonsense, but you're off to a bad start

                All wars are banker's wars

                YouTube comment tier philosophy at its best

                • -1

                  @Crow K: I don't know what soviet citizens have to do with minimising one's contribution to funding genocide, which is a crime under international law.

                  Also:

                  I'd rather not help my government fund genocide so I'll try to minimise my taxes

                  isn't quite the same thing as:

                  "if I don't get to decide where my taxes go they are invalid" nonsense

                  • -2

                    @tenpercent: Arguing nuance when your central position is "my taxes fund genocide, so no thanks" is basically just as bad a take, though. Equally broad strokes as your insight into wars and bankers above.

                    • -1

                      @Crow K:

                      just as bad a take

                      Is it though? Would you have said that to a German in 1939? Would you have dismissed them and encouraged them to 'do the right' (again confusing the concepts of right and legal) by paying up to the tax mensch?

                      • -1

                        @tenpercent: This is all just armchair philosophy, though, you're not actually choosing not to pay your taxes and proudly announcing to the court when they start proceedings that you're taking a great Moral stance.

                        You've "identified" something the government pays for (citation needed) and speciously making a big show of how obviously this means therefore all taxes are funding that thing and so on or that it justifies not paying taxes at all. Either is a bad faith overrreach and an unworthy argument.

                        Performative garbage. It's also incredibly cooked (as you must know yourself if you're resorting to "but what if this money was literally paying Hitler in 1939???". Tell you what, we can have that discussion when you finish your time machine and transport our society back there).

                        Put your money where your mouth is and start refusing to pay your taxes, or clutch your pearls at someone else.

                        • @Crow K:

                          that it justifies not paying taxes at all

                          Now you're just making sh#t up.

                          clutch your pearls at someone else.

                          P#ss off. You interjected yourself into this conversation. Nobody was talking to you. Yet here you are crowing again.

                          • -1

                            @tenpercent:

                            You interjected yourself into this conversation. Nobody was talking to you. Yet here you are crowing again.

                            Oh no, have I committed a faux pas by not chatting to my designated conversationalist? Any other arbitrary rules of how this comment section works you want to invent on the spot and then try to enforce? (If so, stick to small words so you don't make embarrassing (profanity) like fumbling a big boy verb like "interject" like you just did)

                            It's cute the angry almost-sweary act comes out right after I call out and dismiss your keyboard warrior "actually I'm an anti-tax activitist because of genocide man" display. Like I said before, performative garbage.

      • +2

        Did you cut your comment short

        Thank god for small mercies 🤔

  • +3

    Same query over on reddit
    https://www.reddit.com/r/fiaustralia/comments/1j6epcy/loanin…

    Answer should be that if you're wealthy enough for this to be a possibly tax 'minimisation' strategy then you're definitely wealthy enough to have an accountant that specialises in such uncommon tax 'rules'
    I wouldn't be trusting chatgpt for my tax information

    • +1

      Never underestimate how cheap people can be. He would rather post on a bargain forum about tax avoidance schemes than pay a registered financial accountant.

      He knows it's illegal but wants someone to tell him go ahead and do it.

      It's probably the same guy who keeps posting this crap which appears weekly under different usernames.

      There should be a disclaimer that OZB is not a replacement for a financial adviser, qualified psychiatrist, career advisor or life coach.

  • +1

    Yes, can lend - e.g. short selling.

    interest-free

    No can do. Arms length market rate, else tax avoidance - go directly to jail.


    Why don't you structure it so the trust buys the shares (all income must be distributed)?

    Why don't you keep the shares in your own name and sell it when you want to?

    A company pays tax at 30% (25% for small businesses) but doesn't have to distribute the after-tax profits, but doesn't get to use the 50% CGT discount..

    • There is no requirement at all that a loan to a company has to charge interest. There is a requirement (Div 7A) that a loan from a company has to charge interest (or will be deemed to be at a particular rate).

      However I suspect that if this particular arrangement did not involve charging a fee to the company it would probably squarely fall under the general anti-avoidance regime (GAAR), since it’s clearly an arrangement for no purpose other than tax avoidance.

      • You went a really roundabout way to agree with the post above. It's an arms-length issue and one that requires collateral and arm's length income (i.e. an interest-bearing loan). Div7A has nothing to do with it at all.

        • The first comment was right for the wrong reason. My comment was right for the right reason. There is absolutely no requirement for a person lending something to a company to insist on it having collateral or being at arms length. That’s entirely up to the person. Many many people fund the start up of their business through interest free loans and that’s completely fine.

          As I said, Div 7A is when a company lends to an individual. There is no Div 7A when a person lends to a company

          • @dtc:

            Arms length market rate, else tax avoidance

            Where does that say Div 7A? And how is it different to

            it would probably squarely fall under the general anti-avoidance regime (GAAR), since it’s clearly an arrangement for no purpose other than tax avoidance

            Yeah, it could be a fee structure in place of interest, but in terms of OPs post it's going to be similar. They're looking to avoid tax either way.

    1. The business can sell the shares in the future if needed.

    But will need to return the shares to you later and so will need to buy it back from the market (check out short selling).

  • Not sure if there is any real benefit.. if there is a loan involved, then so is interest. If the loan is at arms length then the interest rate will be at or close to the dividend rate of return, less the benefit of franking credits.

  • +1

    This may breach value shifting rules, you may have a CGT K8 gain if the ATO audits you.

Login or Join to leave a comment