The High Court has recently handed down an important decision that will impact many private business groups using discretionary trusts and corporate beneficiaries.

In Commissioner of Taxation v Bendel [2026] HCA 18 (10 June 2026), the Court rejected the ATO’s long-standing view that an unpaid distribution (also known as an unpaid present entitlement or UPE) owed by a trust to a corporate beneficiary will automatically constitute a loan for the purpose of the integrity rules in Division 7A.

The rules in Division 7A are aimed at situations where private companies provide benefits to shareholders or their associates in the form of payments, loans or forgiven debts. When these rules are triggered the tax rules apply as if the company had paid an unfranked dividend to the recipient of the benefit.

Why this matters

Many private business groups use discretionary trusts as part of their structure. It is common for a trust to distribute at least some income to a corporate beneficiary so that this income can be taxed at the corporate tax rate (currently 25% or 30%), while the cash remains within the trust to fund working capital, future investment or business growth.

Until now, the ATO’s view was that these unpaid distributions would typically be treated as loans under Division 7A. This often meant businesses needed to put complying loan agreements in place, charge benchmark rates of interest and make annual repayments to avoid the risk of deemed unfranked dividends being recognised for tax purposes. For many groups, this created an additional administration burden, reduced cash flow flexibility and increased compliance costs.

The High Court has now clarified that an unpaid distribution will not necessarily amount to a Division 7A loan simply because the corporate beneficiary has not demanded payment.

While every arrangement will depend on its particular facts, the decision is likely to provide greater certainty for many business groups that have historically retained funds within their trusts.

What happens with existing loan arrangements?

The ATO has since released a Decision Impact Statement (26 June 2026), confirming that it will generally administer the law in accordance with the Court’s decision, while also highlighting that other integrity provisions may still need to be considered.

One of the key things that the ATO has clarified is that where formal written loan agreements have been put in place in response to the ATO’s previous views in this area, these can’t simply be unwound just because of the High Court decision.

That is, the trust still needs to make minimum loan repayments each year until the loan period ends or the loan is completely repaid to prevent a deemed unfranked dividend from being recognised under the tax rules.

Other tax rules still matter

Although the decision represents a significant development, it should not be viewed as removing all Division 7A or tax related concerns.

The ATO has made it clear that other provisions within Division 7A can still apply in certain situations. For example, if a trustee appoints income to a corporate beneficiary and this is left unpaid, but the trustee subsequently lends money to a shareholder of the company (or an associate of a shareholder), then this can potentially still trigger a deemed unfranked dividend for tax purposes unless appropriate steps are taken.

Other integrity rules also need to be considered when trust distributions are left unpaid. For example, the rules in section 100A can potentially trigger adverse tax outcomes in situations where a trustee appoints income to a beneficiary but the real benefit of the funds is enjoyed by another party.

These provisions remain highly fact-dependent, making it important to review arrangements carefully rather than assuming the Bendel decision resolves every issue.

Looking ahead

The decision provides a timely opportunity for private groups to review their trust structures, distribution resolutions and patterns, accounting records and the way unpaid entitlements have been managed over time.

However, we also need to keep an eye on the Government’s proposed trust tax reforms. The Government announced in the recent Federal Budget that it will be introducing a 30% minimum tax rate for discretionary trusts from 1 July 2028. The Government has also indicated that income distributed by discretionary trusts to corporate beneficiaries will generally be subject to double taxation because companies won’t receive a credit for the tax that is paid at the trust level on its income. This is likely to significantly reshape tax planning strategies over the coming years.

A recent consultation paper released by Treasury in connection with the proposed 30% minimum tax rate also suggests that the Government might modify the tax rules to ensure that Division 7A can apply to unpaid distributions. This isn’t law yet, so we will need to monitor developments because this could mean that tax planning strategies need to be revisited before we reach 1 July 2028.

Please let us know if you would like to discuss how the Bendel decision and proposed 30% minimum tax on discretionary trust income will impact on your group.