<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Money magazine Comments - ATO cracks down on the hidden loophoole around family trusts</title>
	<description>Haven't heard of Section 100A of the tax code? If you have a family trust, changes from the ATO mean you could be facing a substantial tax bill.</description>
	<link>https://www.moneymag.com.au/feed/latest?story=179809436</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:50:56 +1000</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:50:56 +1000</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Money magazine</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Tim Gill ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p><p>Hi Mark, do you really think this will happen? Wouldn&#39;t lots of Federal politicians, and their friends, have family trusts that could be in the gun? How do they prove that the child is not receiving the benefit of the distribution? I realise just putting a roof over their head is not enough, but family holidays, shacks, etc, could be argued that the child receives benefits from the income of the trust. The first Court Case will be interesting. Just hope it isn&#39;t a client in mine. 🤣🤣</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Tim Gill ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:50:56 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>