A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax): Waiver of Tax Invoice Requirement (Acquisitions from or by a Beneficiary of a Bare Trust) Determination 2023

The determination revolves around a small set of interlocking statutory concepts taken from the GST Act and refined in this instrument. The central legal notions are: a bare trust; creditable acquisition; input tax credit attribution to a tax period; the tax invoice holding requirement under subsection 29‑10(3) of the Act; and documentary substitutes that meet the requirements in s 7 of this determination.

Bare trust. The instrument supplies its own definition of “bare trust” (s 4). The definition is purposive: it includes trusts where the trustee only acts at the direction of the beneficiary for dealings in the trust property and has no independent role in respect of the trust property, and it expressly notes that the presence of minor duties does not take the arrangement outside the concept of a bare trust. The definition therefore focuses on the functional absence of trustee discretion in relation to trust property dealings.

Creditable acquisition and input tax credits. The instrument operates only in relation to creditable acquisitions and the attribution of input tax credits to a tax period. It does not replace the broader statutory definitions of “creditable acquisition”, “input tax credit”, “GST return” or “ABN”, and it relies on those expressions as defined in the Act (s 4 note). The waiver is procedural: it removes the need to hold a formal tax invoice for the narrow purpose of attributing an input tax credit to a period, subject to its documentary conditions (s 6).

Two waiver pathways. Section 6 sets out two pathways reflecting different commercial flows.

• Pathway A (s 6(1)): where a recipient acquires from a beneficiary through the trustee of a bare trust, no price threshold is stated; the recipient may rely on a non‑tax‑invoice document at the time of lodging the GST return provided the document meets s 7(1).

• Pathway B (s 6(2)): where a beneficiary purchases from a third party through the trustee of a bare trust, the instrument requires the total price to meet or exceed $1,000 (or a higher threshold if set in regulations for subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii)), and the beneficiary or trustee must hold a document compliant with s 7(2) at the time of lodging the GST return.

Documentary standards. Section 7 ties the substitute document to the Act’s invoice content rules by reference to paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and 29‑70(1)(c) of the Act, but it removes specific subparagraph requirements,s 7(1) excludes subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(i), s 7(2) excludes subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii). Both alternatives require enough information in the document to clearly ascertain the identity or ABN of the trustee or the bare trust (s 7(1)(b) and s 7(2)(b)).

Authority and commencement. The instrument is made under subsection 29‑10(3) of the Act (s 3) and takes effect the day after registration (s 2). Schedule 1 repeals the earlier 2013 instrument in full.

Interaction with the Act and regulations. The instrument repeatedly delegates to and depends upon the Act: it uses the Act’s defined expressions and accepts the Act’s content requirements for substitute documents while selectively excluding particular subparagraphs. It also anticipates that regulations may vary the monetary threshold referenced in s 6(2)(a).

These concepts frame the legal mechanism: the instrument does not alter substantive eligibility to claim input tax credits, but it creates a narrowly defined procedural alternative to the formal tax invoice requirement when certain trust‑related and documentary conditions are satisfied.

This determination primarily affects four identifiable groups of market participants and a narrow class of transactions. The instrument itself sets who it applies to in its operative provisions and definitions.

1. Recipients of creditable acquisitions who acquire from a beneficiary via the trustee of a bare trust. Under s 6(1) these recipients may attribute an input tax credit to a tax period without holding a formal tax invoice, provided that at the time they give a GST return for the relevant tax period they hold a document meeting s 7(1). Those recipients must therefore revise record‑keeping practices to retain the specified document by the time the GST return is lodged.

2. Beneficiaries of bare trusts who make creditable acquisitions from third parties through the trustee. Under s 6(2) beneficiaries in this position may rely on the waiver only if the total price of the acquired good(s) meets the $1,000 threshold (or any higher threshold prescribed in regulations for subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii)), and the beneficiary or the trustee holds a document meeting s 7(2) at the time the GST return for the relevant period is given. This group therefore faces the dual constraints of a monetary threshold and a requirement for documentary evidence, and either the beneficiary or the trustee may be the custodian of the document.

3. Trustees of bare trusts. Trustees are referenced repeatedly. The document in the recipient pathway must enable the identity or ABN of the trustee, or of the bare trust, to be clearly ascertained (s 7(1)(b) and s 7(2)(b)). Trustees will therefore be implicated as named parties in transactional documents, and they may need to provide information to beneficiaries or recipients to ensure compliance. The definition of “bare trust” (s 4) clarifies the class of trust arrangements this determination covers, including where trustees have only minor duties.

4. Tax compliance professionals and record‑keepers (accountants, tax agents, company administrators). Although not direct addressees, their practices are affected because the instrument conditions the waiver on the presence of particular documentary content at the time a GST return is given to the Commissioner. They will need to check that substitute documents meet the s 7 requirements and coordinate with clients (beneficiaries, trustees and recipients) to ensure timely possession of relevant documents.

Ancillary effects and indirect stakeholders. The instrument may affect contracting parties and sellers who supply third parties to beneficiaries where the supply flows through a trustee. Sellers who typically issue tax invoices may be asked to provide alternative documentation or additional particulars (for example trustee identity or ABN), to facilitate purchaser reliance on the waiver. The instrument’s interaction with the Act’s paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and (c) means that other participants who rely on those Act provisions (for example, suppliers unfamiliar with bare trust arrangements) must be aware that the instrument replaces the usual tax invoice requirement only for attribution purposes and only in narrow circumstances.

Who does not gain relief. The instrument does not create a general exemption from issuing tax invoices or from other record‑keeping obligations in the Act. The waiver is explicitly limited to the purposes of attributing an input tax credit to a tax period (s 6). Parties outside the narrow factual configurations set out in s 6, or who cannot hold a compliant document at the relevant time, remain subject to the Act’s standard tax invoice requirement.

Geographical and temporal scope. The instrument applies from the day after registration (s 2). It repeals the 2013 instrument in full (Schedule 1), so affected parties must transition to the terms of this 2023 instrument from commencement.

The determination creates specific procedural rights (a conditional right not to be required to hold a tax invoice for attribution) and corresponding duties (to hold specified substitute documents by the time the GST return is given, and to ensure those documents contain particular information). These are set out in ss 6-7 and in the definition section (s 4).

Rights conferred

• Conditional waiver of tax invoice holding requirement: Under s 6(1) a recipient who acquires from a beneficiary through a trustee of a bare trust is not required, for the purpose of attributing an input tax credit to a tax period, to hold a tax invoice if the recipient holds a document satisfying s 7(1) at the time the GST return for that period is given. Under s 6(2) a beneficiary who acquires from a third party through the trustee of a bare trust has the same right, subject to the monetary threshold and document requirement in s 7(2).

• Delegation of document custody: The instrument allows the trustee to be the holder of the required document in the beneficiary acquisition pathway. Section 6(2)(b) permits either the beneficiary or the trustee to hold the compliant document at the relevant time. This allocates flexibility in who must retain the document for the attribution right to be available.

Duties imposed

• Duty to hold compliant documents by lodgement time: Both pathways condition the waiver on a timing requirement: the recipient, beneficiary or trustee must hold the relevant document at the time the GST return is given to the Commissioner for the tax period to which the input tax credit would otherwise be attributable (ss 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b)). The instrument therefore converts a substantive compliance question (is there an input tax credit to be claimed) into a procedural duty (have you retained the required document when lodging the GST return).

• Document content duties: The substitute document must meet the specified requirements in s 7. For the recipient pathway the document must meet the requirements in paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and 29‑70(1)(c) of the Act, other than subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(i), and must contain enough information to clearly ascertain the identity or ABN of the trustee or bare trust (s 7(1)(a)-(b). For the beneficiary pathway the document must meet the same Act paragraphs other than subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii), and must also contain sufficient information to clearly ascertain the trustee or bare trust identity or ABN (s 7(2)(a)-(b).

• Monetary threshold duty for certain beneficiaries: Beneficiaries who seek to rely on s 6(2) must ensure the total price of the acquisition is at least $1,000, or at a higher amount if regulations specify otherwise for subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii) (s 6(2)(a)). That duty requires checking the total price and monitoring any regulatory changes that alter the monetary threshold.

• Record and verification duties: Implicit in the text is a duty on affected parties to verify that the document in their possession actually allows the identity or ABN of the trustee or bare trust to be clearly ascertained. The instrument imposes no grace period; the document must exist at the time of giving the GST return (ss 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b)). The responsibility therefore rests with the taxpayer or their agent to confirm document sufficiency before lodgement.

Administrative and verification role of the Commissioner. The instrument conditions the waiver on possession of the document when a taxpayer gives a GST return to the Commissioner. It therefore places the Commissioner in an administrative verification role: the occurrence that triggers the waiver is the taxpayer’s lodgement of the return; the Commissioner will assess the claim in that return against the conditions of the instrument and the Act.

Limitations and boundaries of the rights. The instrument repeatedly frames the waiver narrowly: it is "for the purposes of attributing an input tax credit for a creditable acquisition to a tax period" (s 6 preface and subsections). It does not purport to vary other statutory obligations under the Act beyond the narrow tax invoice requirement in subsection 29‑10(3). Practitioners must therefore treat the instrument as creating a procedural right that coexists with, but does not replace, other substantive record‑keeping or issuing obligations which remain governed by the Act.

This determination itself does not create new criminal offences or civil penalties; rather, it prescribes conditions under which the statutory tax invoice requirement in subsection 29‑10(3) of the Act is waived for the purpose of attributing an input tax credit to a tax period. The instrument places administrative consequences on not meeting its conditions, which operate through the Act's existing compliance and assessment framework.

Enforcement mechanism implied by the instrument

• Condition‑based relief tied to lodgement: The waiver is conditional on the taxpayer holding a document that meets s 7(1) or s 7(2) at the time they give a GST return to the Commissioner (ss 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b)). Failure to hold such a document at that moment means the taxpayer does not benefit from the waiver and remains subject to the standard tax invoice requirement in subsection 29‑10(3). The practical effect is administrative: the Commissioner, when assessing the GST return, will determine whether the conditions for the waiver were met.

• Reliance on Act enforcement infrastructure: The instrument is made under subsection 29‑10(3) of the Act (s 3), and it references the Act’s invoice content provisions (paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and (c)). Any failure to comply,such as misattributing an input tax credit without holding a tax invoice or a compliant substitute document,will be dealt with under the Act’s existing administrative, civil and penalty regimes. The determination itself does not specify penalty amounts or procedural sanctions; those arise under the Act and related law.

Audit and review implications

• Documentary scrutiny: Because the waiver depends on documentary proof being in existence at the time of lodgement, the Commissioner (through audits or reviews) may request to see the document to verify the taxpayer’s entitlement to attribute the input tax credit without a tax invoice. The instrument requires that the document enables the identity or ABN of the trustee or bare trust to be clearly ascertained (s 7). If an audit reveals the document was not held, or did not meet the required content, the Commissioner would have cause to challenge the attribution of the input tax credit and apply the Act’s corrective or penalty measures.

• Timing disputes: The instrument’s reliance on the point in time when a GST return is given imports risks that disputes could arise about whether, at that precise moment, the taxpayer held a compliant document. Again, the instrument does not create a remedy for late production; the entitlement is contingent on possession at lodgement.

Limits on what the instrument enforces

• The instrument does not itself provide a mechanism for administrative waivers of other obligations under the Act, nor does it displace the Commissioner’s exercise of compliance powers under the Act. It is a narrow procedural instrument. It does not state any deference to taxpayer ‘good faith’ or provide any remedial period for failing to hold a document at lodgement; read literally, the waiver is binary: if the document is held at lodgement and meets the requirements the taxpayer is not required to hold a tax invoice for the limited purpose; if not, no waiver.

Interaction with regulated thresholds

• Monetary threshold and regulation changes: For a beneficiary claiming a waiver under s 6(2), the relevant acquisition must meet the monetary threshold noted in s 6(2)(a): at least $1,000 or any higher amount specified in regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. If regulations change that threshold, enforcement of s 6(2) will reflect the updated figure. Practitioners should therefore monitor regulations where enforcement and penalties might hinge on whether the acquisition met the applicable threshold.

In short, the determination transfers enforcement back into the Act’s ordinary compliance apparatus by creating a conditional entitlement that the Commissioner will verify administratively against the taxpayer’s GST return and supporting documents. The instrument itself does not prescribe penalty regimes but operates within the Act’s existing enforcement architecture.

This determination is expressly framed as operating under, and in conjunction with, the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the Act). It cross‑refers to specific Act provisions for definitions and for the content requirements of substitute documents and contemplates regulatory instruments that may change monetary thresholds. The instrument also repeals an earlier legislative instrument, so it supersedes prior administrative guidance established in that instrument.

Direct statutory cross‑references

• Authority and scope: The determination is made under subsection 29‑10(3) of the Act (s 3). It expressly states that a number of expressions used in the instrument are defined in the Act, and lists ABN, creditable acquisition, GST return and input tax credit as examples (s 4 note). This signals that the instrument functions as a procedural modification of the Act’s tax invoice requirement rather than as an independent statutory code.

• Document content and the Act’s invoice provisions: Section 7 requires substitute documents to meet paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and 29‑70(1)(c) of the Act, with specific subparagraph exclusions. The instrument therefore imports the Act’s substantive invoice‑content standards into its substitute document regime, and practitioners must consult the Act to determine the precise information required by those paragraphs. Because the instrument excludes specific subparagraphs from the Act requirement depending on the pathway (29‑70(1)(c)(i) or (ii)), there is a direct conditional interaction between the instrument and the Act’s invoice content rules.

• Monetary threshold and regulations: Section 6(2)(a) ties the waiver for beneficiaries to a monetary floor , $1,000 or any higher amount specified in regulations made for subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii). That cross‑reference requires users of this instrument to check not only the Act but also any current regulations that may alter the threshold. The decision to link to regulations gives the executive the capacity to adjust the effective threshold governing the instrument without further instruments under the Commissioner.

Relationship with prior legislative instrument

• Repeal of 2013 instrument: Schedule 1 repeals the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Waiver of Tax Invoice Requirement (Acquisitions from or Acquisitions by a Beneficiary of a Bare Trust) Legislative Instrument 2013 in its entirety. The repeal creates a direct replacement relationship: from commencement, the 2013 instrument no longer applies and the 2023 determination governs the waiver circumstances. Practitioners must therefore transition to this instrument’s terms.

Limits and boundaries relative to the Act

• Narrow procedural scope: The instrument repeatedly frames the waiver as being “for the purposes of attributing an input tax credit for a creditable acquisition to a tax period” (s 6). It does not purport to override or vary other requirements in the Act such as general obligations to keep records, issue tax invoices, or other compliance obligations. Therefore, although the instrument replaces one procedural requirement (holding a tax invoice for attribution) in specified circumstances, it does not disapply or override concurrently applicable statutory duties under other parts of the Act.

• Dependency on Act terminology and enforcement: Because the instrument depends on Act definitions and content requirements, any amendment to the cited sections of the Act, or to the relevant regulations, will alter how the instrument operates in practice. The instrument itself contains no independent definitions for ABN, creditable acquisition, GST return or input tax credit; it expects users to look to the Act.

Practical compliance interfaces with other law

• Taxpayer records and evidentiary use: The instrument’s documentary substitute will be used in the administrative context of the Commissioner assessing GST returns. However, the instrument does not alter evidentiary or document retention rules outside of the specific waiver; other statutes or record‑keeping regulations may still impose additional requirements in parallel with the Act.

• Administrative discretion: The Commissioner’s powers under the Act for assessment, audit and review remain available. The instrument does not limit those powers. Assessment decisions about whether a document clearly ascertains the trustee identity or ABN, or whether the conditions of s 6 were met at lodgement, will be resolved under the Act’s administrative and review frameworks.

In short, the determination operates as a narrow, Act‑anchored procedural instrument that must be read alongside the specified provisions of the Act and any applicable regulations. It supersedes the 2013 instrument and relies on the Act’s language and enforcement mechanisms for its practical operation.

The determination contains limited internal amendment history because it is itself a self‑contained legislative instrument that replaces an earlier instrument. The material facts from the instrument about history are these.

• Making date and maker. The instrument is dated 7 March 2023 and bears the signature of Ben Kelly, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (front matter). It is made under subsection 29‑10(3) of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (s 3).

• Commencement. Section 2 specifies commencement mechanics: the whole instrument commences on the day after registration. The instrument retains the standard commencement table form and notes that the table relates only to the provisions of the instrument as originally made (s 2(1) and the commencement table). The instrument also includes the standard clause that any information in column 3 of the commencement table is not part of the instrument (s 2(2)).

• Repeal of prior instrument. Schedule 1 expressly repeals the prior legislative instrument titled A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Waiver of Tax Invoice Requirement (Acquisitions from or Acquisitions by a Beneficiary of a Bare Trust) Legislative Instrument 2013, by repealing the whole of that instrument (Schedule 1, item 1). That is the sole explicit amendment or repeal provision contained within this instrument.

• No other amendments recorded. The instrument contains a Schedules clause (s 5) which states that each instrument specified in a Schedule is amended or repealed as set out. In this case Schedule 1 contains only the repeal of the 2013 instrument. There are no further amendment entries, transitional provisions, savings clauses or retrospective elements included in the text of this instrument beyond the commencement provision which deems the instrument to commence on the day after registration.

• No express transitional provisions. The instrument does not state transitional arrangements for supplies or credits claimed under the outgoing 2013 instrument. The repeal in Schedule 1 is absolute: “Repeal the instrument.” Practitioners should therefore expect a clean replacement from the date of commencement, meaning that from commencement the 2013 instrument will no longer operate and the 2023 determination will be the operative instrument.

• No amendment of the Act. The instrument does not amend the Act itself; it is made under a delegation in subsection 29‑10(3) and functions as an administrative determination. Any substantive change to the Act’s paragraphs or definitions would require legislative amendment, but this instrument relies on the Act’s existing provisions and may be affected by regulatory changes (see s 6(2)(a) referencing regulations).

Because the instrument is new and replaces the 2013 instrument in whole, the principal historical facts practitioners must note are: the date and maker (7 March 2023, Deputy Commissioner Ben Kelly), the commencement timing (day after registration) and the full repeal of the 2013 instrument. No other amendment history is contained in the instrument itself.

The determination contains no litigation history, references to judicial decisions, or administrative rulings within its text. It neither cites cases nor records any litigation arising from the earlier 2013 instrument or from the matters covered in the determination. The instrument is a standalone administrative instrument that sets out procedural waivers and documentary requirements without summarising disputes or adjudications.

Implications of the absence of litigation history in the instrument

• No authoritative judicial interpretation supplied by the instrument: Because the instrument does not reference any judicial decisions, it provides no settled judicial statements about interpretative points that may arise under its terms, such as the meaning of “clearly ascertained” in s 7 or the scope of “bare trust” as defined in s 4. Consequently, practitioners must anticipate that ambiguities may require administrative clarification, private binding rulings, or, if contested, judicial determination under the Act’s dispute resolution processes.

• Potential areas for future dispute: The instrument’s operative language contains terms that can admit factual and interpretative contest: for example “bare trust” as defined in s 4 (which admits trusts where the trustee only acts at the direction of the beneficiary even where the trustee has minor duties); the requirement that a document “contains enough information to enable the identity or ABN of the trustee of the bare trust, or of the bare trust, to be clearly ascertained” (s 7(1)(b) and s 7(2)(b)); and the timing requirement that the document be held “at the time the recipient [or beneficiary] gives a GST return to the Commissioner” (ss 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b)). These are precise statutory words that can give rise to contested factual matrices and therefore to administrative or judicial challenges.

• Administrative review and tribunal processes remain the first instance channels: Given the administrative nature of the determination, if disputes arise about whether a particular document met the s 7 requirements at lodgement, taxpayers will typically engage administrative objection processes under the Act and, thereafter, merits review or judicial review avenues as available in the Act’s dispute resolution framework. The instrument does not alter those underlying processes.

• No binding interpretations embedded: Because the instrument does not include examples, practice notes, or interpretative guidance beyond the statutory text, counsel and compliance officers will need to rely on the Act, any Commissioner guidance separate from the instrument, and, where necessary, formal clearances (private rulings) or litigation to resolve borderline factual controversies.

In short, the text contains no litigation history. The likely practical consequence is that interpretative questions about the instrument’s factual applications must be resolved through the Act’s ordinary administrative and dispute resolution channels, and any authoritative legal development will arise only if and when such disputes are litigated.

This instrument contains several points where the textual detail materially affects entitlement to the waiver, timing, and practical compliance. The following are specific operational and legal “gotchas” drawn from the text that practitioners and compliance staff should watch for.

1. The waiver is strictly conditional on possession at the time the GST return is given (ss 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b)). If the taxpayer acquires or obtains the substitute document immediately after lodging the GST return, the waiver does not apply to that tax period under the instrument’s terms. The timing trigger is a strict dispositive event.

2. Different pathways have different excluded subparagraphs. Section 7(1) requires the document to meet paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and 29‑70(1)(c) of the Act other than subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(i). Section 7(2) requires the same paragraphs other than subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii). Because the instrument does not reproduce paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and (c), or the excluded subparagraphs, practitioners must consult the Act to determine exactly which invoice content items are waived and which continue to be required. Assuming which invoice element corresponds to the excluded subparagraph without checking the Act is a common operational pitfall.

3. The monetary threshold only applies in one pathway. Section 6(2)(a) imposes a $1,000 floor (or a higher amount prescribed in regulations for subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii)) where a beneficiary acquires from a third party through the trustee. Section 6(1) contains no equivalent threshold for recipients acquiring from beneficiaries through trustees. Failure to recognise that the threshold is asymmetrical may lead to incorrect claims.

4. The document must allow the trustee or the bare trust’s identity or ABN to be "clearly ascertained" (ss 7(1)(b), 7(2)(b)). Documents that reference parties implicitly, or that use trading names disconnected from registered entities, may fall short of the “clearly ascertained” standard. Relying on internal knowledge without clear, legible documentary identification can produce disputes in review or audit.

5. The instrument’s “bare trust” definition is functional and potentially broader than some practitioners expect (s 4). It covers trusts where the trustee only acts at the beneficiary’s direction with respect to dealings in trust property and explicitly allows for the trustee to retain minor duties. Parties should not assume that the trust must be a textbook “bare trust” with zero trustee duties.

6. Repeal of the 2013 instrument is immediate upon commencement (Schedule 1). If procedures were based on the 2013 instrument’s language, firms must update templates and internal instructions to reflect any textual differences in the 2023 instrument. There are no transitional provisions in the instrument itself.

7. The instrument is limited in scope: it waives only the requirement to hold a tax invoice for attributing an input tax credit to a tax period (s 6 preface). It does not provide relief from issuing tax invoices, other record‑keeping obligations, or other GST compliance duties under the Act. Treating it as a general relaxation of invoicing or record keeping is a misreading.

8. Regulatory change can shift the monetary floor. Section 6(2)(a) expressly contemplates a higher amount specified in regulations for subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii). Regulatory changes can therefore alter the applicability of s 6(2) without amendment to the determination itself. Failing to monitor relevant regulations is a compliance risk.

9. No soft landing for borderline documents. The instrument uses the binary phrase “contains enough information to enable the identity or ABN … to be clearly ascertained” (ss 7(1)(b), 7(2)(b)). The instrument contains no administrative safe harbour or remedial period for curative supplementation of documents before the end of a review period. Practitioners should therefore treat document sufficiency conservatively at lodgement.

10. The instrument does not override the Commissioner’s assessment powers. The Commissioner retains the normal powers under the Act to satisfy themselves as to entitlement to input tax credits; the waiver is a factual entitlement, not a shield against verification.

Each of these points flows directly from the instrument’s text. Missing any one of them can convert a claimed entitlement into an unsuccessful GST attribution on audit or objection.

To rely on this determination, taxpayers, trustees and their advisers should adopt specific procedural steps and documentary practices that track the instrument’s textual conditions. Below are concrete compliance actions grounded in the instrument’s language (ss 4, 6-7 and Schedule 1).

1. Identify whether the transaction falls within a covered pathway. Determine whether you are:

• a recipient making a creditable acquisition from a beneficiary through a trustee of a bare trust (s 6(1)); or

• a beneficiary making a creditable acquisition from a third party through a trustee of a bare trust (s 6(2)).

Confirm the trust arrangement fits the instrument’s definition of “bare trust” in s 4 (the trustee acts only at the direction of the beneficiary in dealings in the trust property, and minor trustee duties do not exclude the trust).

2. For beneficiary acquisitions, check the monetary threshold. If you are a beneficiary relying on s 6(2), confirm the total price of the acquisition is at least $1,000 or any higher amount that regulations have specified for subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii) (s 6(2)(a)). Monitor relevant regulations in case the threshold is revised.

3. Ensure the correct person holds the document at lodgement. For recipient waivers under s 6(1), the recipient must hold the document when giving the GST return. For beneficiary waivers under s 6(2), either the beneficiary or the trustee may hold the document (s 6(2)(b)). Ensure internal processes identify where the document will be stored and who is responsible for verifying it is compliant before the GST return is lodged.

4. Prepare substitute documents that meet s 7 requirements. For documents to substitute for a tax invoice, ensure they:

• meet paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and 29‑70(1)(c) of the Act, except the specific excluded subparagraphs (s 7(1)(a)-(2)(a)); and

• contain enough information to enable the identity or ABN of the trustee of the bare trust, or of the bare trust, to be clearly ascertained from the document (s 7(1)(b)-7(2)(b)).

Because the instrument references the Act’s paragraphs, confirm the precise invoice content required by consulting paragraphs 29‑70(1)(a) and 29‑70(1)(c) of the Act and the subparagraphs excluded by s 7. Do not assume which particulars are optional without checking the Act itself.

5. Verify trustee identification and ABN details. Documents should clearly state, in a manner that an independent reviewer can easily identify, either the trustee’s legal name and ABN or the bare trust’s name and ABN. Avoid internal shorthand, trading names without registration linkage, or obscure identifications that could fail the “clearly ascertained” test.

6. Document retention and audit trail. Keep the substitute document in a secure, timestamped record store that can be produced if the Commissioner requests verification during an audit. Ensure records include evidence of the date the document was in the taxpayer’s possession relative to the date the GST return was given to the Commissioner.

7. Update commercial paperwork. If you are a supplier dealing with bare trust structures, consider including trustee identification and ABN fields in your standard invoicing or delivery documents to facilitate downstream reliance by recipients or beneficiaries.

8. Coordinate between trustees, beneficiaries and recipients. Given that trustees may be the custodian of the required document under s 6(2), implement communication protocols so trustees promptly provide or confirm the existence of compliant documentation before a beneficiary lodges a GST return.

9. Revise internal checklists and tax agent comfort letters. Tax agents and in‑house tax teams should add a step to their GST return lodgement checklists to confirm substitute documents exist and meet the s 7 content standards at the time of lodgement. If relying on the waiver, record the basis of the reliance in internal working papers.

10. Monitor for regulatory change and instrument applicability. Because s 6(2)(a) references a regulatory threshold, ensure compliance teams monitor changes to regulations that could increase the monetary floor or otherwise affect the operation of subparagraph 29‑70(1)(c)(ii). Also note that the 2013 instrument is repealed (Schedule 1) and that the 2023 determination is the operative instrument from commencement.

11. Treat the waiver narrowly. Remember that the waiver applies only for the purpose of attributing an input tax credit to a tax period. It does not dispense with other GST obligations to issue tax invoices or retain other records under the Act. Maintain those records in any event.

12. Seek Commissioner guidance or private rulings where facts are borderline. If there is uncertainty about the factual fit of a transaction to the instrument (for example, whether a trust is a “bare trust” under s 4, or whether a document allows trustee identity to be “clearly ascertained”), consider seeking a private binding ruling or other Commissioner guidance, or document contemporaneous advice for audit defence.

Following these steps aligns practice to the instrument’s strict textual conditions. Because the entitlement to avoid holding a tax invoice turns on precise documentary and timing facts, conservative implementation,where substitute documents meet or exceed the likely Act standards and are held before the relevant GST return is lodged,will reduce audit risk.