I would think that this would be more in the realm of an interpretation being required from a specialist QC on tax affairs, or a special ruling requested from the ATO, and would not try and come to some simplistic solution myself. I may be an accountant as well, but know enough to be very cautious about any simple "it was just a sale of shares, even though they paid waaay tooo much. As this appears window dressing, or something more than it really is, I am sure the ATO would take an interest, and that directors would be negligent if they did not first contact the ATO for a special ruling on which they could rely, or have some basis for negotiation of treatment.
The ATO can unwind contractual details if it feels that tax avoidance is the objective, and window dressing has taken place. Just have a look at CFE and the situattion of uncertainty they now face. Remember Paul Hogan and the small debt and avoidance costs that then get blown out of the water with interest rates in double digits and penalties compounding and trilping the original avoidance amount. Throw in years and years of uncertainty, director diversion of time, and ongoing legal costs. I would not assume it WOULD be not subject to tax, not at least without the above having first taken place.
The only important things about this is the needed money and the chance to bring forward their IP into a commercial reality.
LNC Price at posting:
74.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
