Social Security (Attributable Stakeholders and Attribution Percentages) Principles 2017

The instrument uses several recurring legal concepts to frame decision-making. Each is defined or deployed in the instrument and carries a specific decision role.

• Attributable stakeholder and attribution percentages. The Principles are procedural: they set decision‑making principles the Secretary must follow when making determinations under s 1207X that an individual is not an attributable stakeholder, or that an attributable stakeholder’s asset or income attribution percentage be reduced below 100 per cent (s 4; Parts 2-4). The substantive definitions of “attributable stakeholder”, “asset attribution percentage” and “income attribution percentage” are terms of the Social Security Act; the Principles supply the factors the Secretary must consider in adjusting their operation.

• Company and trust scope. The instrument applies to “company”, defined as a controlled private company, and “trust”, defined as a controlled private trust (s 3). The Principles therefore target the controlled‑private entity forms that the Act treats as vehicles for attribution rather than all companies or all trusts. The definitions of “controlled private company” and “controlled private trust” are not set out in the Principles; practitioners must read those terms in the Social Security Act or related law.

• Contribution. “Contribution” is a central evaluative concept. It is defined to include a transfer of property or services to a company or trust at any time (with a specific temporal note about 7.30 pm ACT on 9 May 2000), and any other contributions to capital or income (company) or corpus or income (trust) (s 3). The Principles require the Secretary to examine the value, relative size, timing and effect of any contribution (see ss 8, 17, 26).

• Past and future distributions. The Principles separate past benefits (distributions already received) from reasonably foreseeable future benefits (ss 9, 18, 27; ss 10, 19, 28). For future benefits, the Secretary must expressly have regard to constituent documents for companies and documents establishing the terms of the trust (ss 10(3), 19(3), 28(3)).

• Benefit from assets or income. “Benefit” is deliberately broad: the Secretary must consider any benefit derived from the assets or income of the company or trust beyond distributions, and the instrument defines benefit to include property or services and to not be limited to legal or equitable entitlements (ss 11(1)-(2); see corresponding provisions in Parts 3 and 4).

• Effective control. Across Parts 2-4 the Principles require consideration of whether the individual can reasonably be expected to exercise effective control of the company or trust, and, for the attribution percentage Parts, the extent of that control (see ss 7(2)(c), 16(2)(c), 25(2)(c)). The focus is on both the existence of control and its degree.

• Existing attribution. The Secretary must account for whether the individual already has attribution under the Social Security Act for other entities or under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 for the same or other entities, and, if so, must consider any asset and income attribution percentages already attributed (ss 12, 21, 30).

• Catchall “other circumstances”. Each Part includes a provision requiring consideration of “any other circumstance” affecting involvement with the company or trust (ss 13, 22, 31). This preserves scope for the Secretary to include fact‑specific matters not enumerated elsewhere.

These concepts combine as practical evidentiary anchors: the Secretary is required to consider structural features, transactional history, distributions history and expectations, and benefits in kind, plus existing attribution outcomes. The Principles do not specify weighting rules, probabilistic thresholds, or numerical calculation methods for attribution percentages; they set the set of matters the Secretary must address.

The Principles materially affect three groups directly and several groups indirectly.

• Individuals who would, but for a determination, be an attributable stakeholder. Part 2 (ss 5-13) applies where an individual would otherwise meet the statutory test for being an attributable stakeholder of a controlled private company or trust. The Secretary’s determination under s 1207X can result in a finding that the individual is not an attributable stakeholder (s 5).

• Individuals who are attributable stakeholders as a starting point, where the Secretary could allocate asset attribution and income attribution percentages lower than 100 per cent. Parts 3 and 4 (ss 14-22; 23-31) apply where, absent Secretary action, asset or income attribution percentages would be 100 per cent. Those individuals may have those percentages reduced by the Secretary’s determination.

• Companies and trusts described in the Principles. The instrument applies to a “company” defined as a controlled private company and a “trust” defined as a controlled private trust (s 3). These are the entities whose ownership, distributions, and internal administration will supply the factual basis for attribution decisions.

Indirectly affected parties include:

• The Department of Social Services and the Secretary. The Secretary is the decision maker required to apply the Principles in making determinations under s 1207X (s 4). The Department will bear administrative costs in collecting, assessing and documenting consideration of the enumerated factors.

• Advisers and representatives. Solicitors, accountants, trustees, company officers and financial advisers will be engaged to assemble and explain evidence on contributions, distributions, control and benefits. The Principles list evidentiary anchors such as constituent documents and trust documents that advisers will need to obtain and interpret (ss 10(3), 19(3), 28(3)).

• Other entities where an individual already has attribution. The Secretary must consider existing attribution under the Social Security Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (ss 12(1), 21(1), 30(1)). Those prior attribution outcomes will inform the Secretary’s approach to any new determination.

Who pays and who decides. The Secretary, as decision maker, decides the outcome under s 1207X subject to these Principles (s 4). Individuals who stand to gain from a favourable determination will typically incur the cost of assembling evidence and legal advice. Administratively, the Department pays the cost of decision processing; materially affected private parties pay evidence-collection and advisory costs.

Geographic and temporal scope. The Principles commenced on 1 April 2017 (s 2). The definition of “contribution” includes transfers at any time, with a specific time reference to 7.30 pm ACT on 9 May 2000 (s 3), which means historical transfers are within the scope of the Secretary’s consideration.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act interaction. The Secretary must note any attribution that exists under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 for the same entity or other entities when making determinations (ss 12(1)(b), 21(1)(b), 30(1)(b)). This explicitly expands the set of prior decisions or statuses that the Secretary must consider.

The instrument imposes duties on the Secretary and sets expectations for the decision process; it does not, in itself, confer rights on applicants beyond the requirement that the Secretary consider the enumerated matters.

Duties on the Secretary

• Duty to apply the Principles in determinations under s 1207X. The Principles are framed as decision‑making principles “with which the Secretary must comply” when making the relevant determinations (s 4; ss 5, 14, 23). That language imposes an internal administrative obligation to address the listed considerations.

• Duty to consider specified circumstances. For each type of determination, the Secretary must consider whether the effect of one or more of the enumerated circumstances provides a sufficient basis for the outcome sought. For example, Part 2 instructs the Secretary to consider the relationship between the individual and the company or trust with regard to the reason why, but for a determination, the person would be an attributable stakeholder, and the circumstances mentioned in Part 2 (s 6). Each Part repeats a structure: apply only where, but for the Secretary’s determination, the default would be attribution or 100 per cent attribution; then consider the enumerated matters to see if they provide sufficient basis to determine otherwise (ss 6(1)-(3); 15(1)-(3); 24(1)-(3)).

• Duty to examine legal and administrative structure and effective control. In each Part the Secretary must consider circumstances arising from the legal structure and administrative arrangements of the company or trust and whether the individual can reasonably be expected to exercise effective control, and where applicable the extent of that control (see ss 7(2)(a)-(c); 16(2)(a)-(c); 25(2)(a)-(c)).

• Duty to assess contributions. Where contributions exist, the Secretary must consider the circumstances of the contribution, including value, proportion to total assets at the time, effect on the financial position, and any consideration received by the individual (ss 8, 17, 26).

• Duty to examine past and future distributions. For past distributions, the Secretary must consider whether a benefit was received, the value, and frequency (ss 9, 18, 27). For foreseeable future distributions, the Secretary must consider whether it is reasonably foreseeable the individual may receive a benefit and the likely value, and must have regard to constituent documents or trust instruments where relevant (ss 10, 19, 28).

• Duty to consider benefits from assets and income beyond distributions. The Secretary must consider benefits derived from assets or income in forms other than distributions, and these benefits are not limited to legal entitlements and include property or services (ss 11, 20, 29).

• Duty to account for existing attribution. The Secretary must consider whether the person is already an attributable stakeholder under the Act or the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and, if so, the attribution percentages already attributed (ss 12, 21, 30).

• Duty to consider other circumstances. Each Part imposes a catchall duty to consider any other circumstance that affects the individual’s involvement with the activities or administration of the entity (ss 13, 22, 31).

Rights implied by the instrument

• Procedural expectation of addressed factors. While the Principles do not create a private right of appeal or a new remedy, they create an administrative standard: determinations under s 1207X must be taken in light of the enumerated matters. That imposes an evidentiary and reasoning expectation on the Secretary which affected parties may reasonably use when seeking reasons, review or merits review under the Acts that govern administrative review. The Principles themselves do not specify a review mechanism (see “Penalties and enforcement”).

• Right to have constituent and trust documents considered. The Secretary must “have regard to” constituent documents and trust instruments for assessment of future distributions (ss 10(3), 19(3), 28(3)). Practically, this creates an obligation to consider such documents if provided and to accord them weight in the foreseeability assessment.

What the instrument does not do

• The Principles do not prescribe numerical rules. They do not specify how to calculate an attribution percentage or provide mathematical formulas for apportionment. They require consideration of proportions and values (for example, the proportion of a contribution to the company’s total assets at the time, ss 8(b), 17(b), 26(b)), but do not turn those considerations into a mechanical calculation.

• The Principles do not create penalties or enforcement mechanisms, nor do they set entitlement consequences. The legal consequences of being an attributable stakeholder, or of a particular attribution percentage, remain governed by the Social Security Act and other relevant law; the Principles govern only the Secretary’s decision process when making determinations under s 1207X (s 4).

Collectively, these duties require the Secretary to take a fact‑sensitive approach grounded in entity documents, transactional history and the practical operation of the company or trust, and to document the reasoning in light of the listed considerations.

The instrument itself does not create criminal or civil penalties, nor does it prescribe an enforcement mechanism. It is an administrative instrument prescribing decision‑making principles for the Secretary when exercising powers under the Social Security Act 1991. The Principles do not state any fines, penalties, or direct sanctioning powers.

Enforcement of the Principles occurs through the Secretary’s compliance obligation and, indirectly, through the application of the Social Security Act. The instrument states that it sets out decision‑making principles “with which the Secretary must comply” when making relevant determinations under section 1207X of the Act (s 4). The Secretary’s adherence to these Principles may therefore be a matter raised in administrative review or merits proceedings under the Social Security Act or other review regimes that govern administrative decision‑making in Australia, although the Principles do not themselves prescribe review pathways.

Practical enforcement and consequences operate as follows:

• Determination effect. The Secretary’s determination under s 1207X (the statutory provision referenced in the Principles) is the operative administrative act. The Social Security Act will set out the legal consequences that follow from a person being or not being an attributable stakeholder and the consequences of particular attribution percentages. The Principles do not themselves delineate those consequences; they only specify the matters the Secretary must consider when making the determination.

• Administrative review and reasoned decision‑making. Because the Principles require the Secretary to consider enumerated factors when exercising powers under s 1207X, affected persons can expect (and should request) that the Secretary address those factors in any written reasons. Where the Secretary fails to have regard to mandatory factors, the legal challenge will be to the decision under the Social Security Act or general administrative law, not to the Principles themselves. The instrument does not set a appeals mechanism; the rights to merits review, administrative law remedies or tribunal review are governed by the Social Security Act and general administrative law.

• No sanctioning provisions for non‑compliance with the Principles contained within the instrument. The Principles do not provide a mechanism to sanction the Secretary or the Department if the Secretary fails to comply; remedies would be sought against the determinative administrative act under the statutory and general administrative law framework.

• Interaction with other statutory enforcement. The instrument requires the Secretary to consider whether the individual is an attributable stakeholder under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and to take account of any attribution percentages under that Act (ss 12, 21, 30). Enforcement mechanisms tied to those Acts remain separate.

In summary, the instrument prescribes procedural and substantive considerations for the Secretary. It does not create new offences or penalties; enforcement is indirect, through expectations of compliance in decision‑making and traditional administrative law review of the Secretary’s determinations under the Social Security Act and related statutes.

The Principles are expressly tied to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, and they operate within the pre‑existing statutory framework rather than in isolation.

Direct statutory connections

• Social Security Act 1991. The instrument is formulated under s 1209E of the Social Security Act 1991 (preamble). It prescribes how the Secretary must decide matters under s 1207X of the Social Security Act (s 4). Thus the Principles operate as internal administrative guidance for decisions whose substantive legal consequences flow from the Social Security Act. The Principles do not replace or amend statutory language; they govern how the Secretary must apply the statutory provisions relating to attributable stakeholders and attribution percentages.

• Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Principles require the Secretary to consider whether the individual is an attributable stakeholder under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 for the company or trust, or for other companies or trusts, when making determinations (see ss 12(1)(b), 21(1)(b), 30(1)(b)). This expressly requires cross‑reference to determinations or statuses under that Act.

Implied interactions and definitional dependencies

• Definitions of controlled private company and controlled private trust. The Principles use the terms “controlled private company” and “controlled private trust” but do not define the substantive legal criteria for those categories in the instrument itself (s 3). Practitioners must consult the Social Security Act or other applicable legislation for the statutory tests that define those controlled entity types. The instrument therefore imports definitional material from the parent legislation and possibly other statutes.

• Constituent and trust documents. For assessing foreseeable future distributions, the Secretary must have regard to constituent documents of companies and documents establishing the terms of trusts (ss 10(3), 19(3), 28(3)). These documents are often governed by corporate law (for example, the Corporations Act for company constitutions and corporate governance) and trust law principles for deeds. The Secretary’s review will therefore intersect with corporate and trust law documentation and their legal effects.

• Administrative law. The Principles impose mandatory considerations on the Secretary and create an expectation that determinations will reflect those considerations. If the Secretary fails to apply these Principles when making a s 1207X determination, the affected person’s remedies will arise under the Social Security Act, tribunal review (for example, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where applicable), and judicial review grounds under general administrative law. The instrument itself does not prescribe review channels, but its mandatory language engages established administrative law processes.

• Evidentiary standards and financial reporting. The Secretary is required to consider quantifiable matters such as the value of contributions, proportion to total assets at the time of contribution, and the value and frequency of past distributions (see ss 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, 27). Those matters may require financial statements, valuations, company minutes or trustee records that are also relevant under taxation, corporations and trust law. Collection and interpretation of this material entails interaction with those regimes.

Temporal interaction

• Historical transfers. The instrument’s definition of “contribution” explicitly includes transfers of property or services “at any time, whether before or after 7.30 pm, by standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 9 May 2000” (s 3). This temporal clause means that historical transfers, including those before the stated date, fall within the scope of the Secretary’s consideration. That temporal marker may interact with documentary availability and evidentiary challenges for older transfers.

Practical implication

The Principles sit as an administrative layering on top of the Social Security Act’s attribution provisions. Compliance, enforcement, and remedies will therefore require practitioners to navigate not only the Principles but also the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act where relevant, corporate and trust law instruments that create and evidence contributions and distribution rights, and general administrative law review routes.

The instrument provides only its date of formulation and commencement, and does not include any amendment entries in the text provided.

• Formulation and signing. The instrument was formulated by Finn Pratt, Secretary of the Department of Social Services, and is dated 8 March 2017 (preamble).

• Commencement. The Principles commenced operation on 1 April 2017 (s 2).

• No amendments recorded in the instrument. The text supplied contains no schedules indicating subsequent amendments, no notes of legislative history or alteration, and no revocation or replacement language. The instrument therefore appears in the provided text as a stand‑alone legislative instrument beginning on the stated commencement date.

Recommended practitioner step. Because no amendment history is contained in the instrument itself, practitioners should check the consolidated or online legislative register for any subsequent amending instruments, repeals, or replacements. The Principles reference the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986; amendments to those Acts after 1 April 2017 could affect how the Secretary applies the Principles in making s 1207X determinations. The instrument itself, however, contains no internal amendment log or later dates.

The text of the Principles as provided contains no references to litigation, cases, or legal decisions. It does not name any judicial or tribunal decisions nor indicate any contested applications or court reviews of the instrument.

What the instrument shows and what it does not

• No cases cited. The instrument is a decision‑making framework; it does not cite case law, administrative determinations, or previous litigation.

• No internal dispute resolution or appeals references. The Principles do not set out appeal or review mechanisms for decisions made under s 1207X. Consequently, any litigation or tribunal challenge to a Secretary’s determination will proceed under the Social Security Act, the procedural review frameworks that govern administrative decisions nationally, and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act where relevant. The instrument itself does not record or describe litigation pathways.

Recommended practitioner action. To establish litigation history relevant to these Principles, a practitioner must search tribunal and court databases for cases that involve s 1207X determinations, or decisions referencing the Principles in the Secretary’s reasons. The Principles themselves provide the factors that should be present in the Secretary’s reasoning; absence of those considerations could form the basis of administrative review grounds, but the Principles do not, on their face, document any example litigation outcomes.

The Principles contain many technical features that can catch practitioners and applicants if not addressed precisely.

• Narrow application trigger. Each Part applies only in the specified factual circumstances. Part 2 applies only “if, but for a determination by the Secretary, the individual would be an attributable stakeholder” (s 6(1)). Parts 3 and 4 apply only “if, but for a determination by the Secretary, the asset attribution percentage” or “income attribution percentage” respectively would be 100 per cent (ss 15(1), 24(1)). If a matter does not meet these triggers, the relevant Part’s mandatory considerations are not engaged.

• “Contribution” is broad and temporal. The statutory definition of “contribution” covers transfers of property or services “at any time, whether before or after 7.30 pm, by standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 9 May 2000” (s 3). That unusual temporal clause means transfers from remote historical periods fall within scope. Additionally, contributions include services, not only money or property, so informal or unpaid work that enhanced a company or trust can be relevant.

• “Benefit” is not limited to legal title. The Principles clarify that benefit from assets or income is not limited to a legal or equitable entitlement and includes property or services (ss 11(2), 20(2), 29(2)). This means non‑legal forms of benefit, such as use of property, family labour, or provision of services, can be treated as benefits for attribution purposes.

• Constituent and trust documents are required for future distributions. For assessment of foreseeable future benefit from distributions, the Secretary must have regard to constituent documents and trust documents where relevant (ss 10(3), 19(3), 28(3)). Failure to provide or explain those documents may weaken an applicant’s position on foreseeability.

• Existing attribution under Veterans’ law. The Secretary must consider whether the individual is an attributable stakeholder under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 for the same or other entities (ss 12(1)(b), 21(1)(b), 30(1)(b)). Practitioners cannot rely solely on Social Security Act determinations; cross‑statute attribution outcomes must be identified and addressed.

• Reasonable expectation of effective control is a fact test. The Principles instruct the Secretary to consider whether the individual “can reasonably be expected to exercise effective control” and, for attribution percentages, the extent of that control (ss 7(2)(c), 16(2)(c), 25(2)(c)). Practitioners must address control in practical terms , powers, decision processes, voting rights, appointment and removal rights, and customary administrative arrangements , not only formal titles.

• No formula for percentages. The Principles require consideration of value and proportions (for example the proportion that a contribution’s value has to total assets at time of contribution, ss 8(b), 17(b), 26(b)) but do not provide a mathematical method for converting those inputs into an attribution percentage. Applicants should not expect a mechanistic computation prescribed by the Principles.

• Catchall “other circumstances” is open‑ended. Sections 13, 22 and 31 require consideration of “any other circumstance” affecting involvement with activities or administration of the entity. This preserves flexibility for the Secretary and makes comprehensive disclosure and explanation of unusual facts necessary.

• Evidence burden and historical documentation. Given the Principles’ emphasis on value, proportion, frequency, and foreseeability, evidence such as bank records, minutes, deeds, valuations, and records of services will be central. Historical transfers (including those before 9 May 2000) may lack contemporary documentary support, posing evidentiary challenges.

• No procedural timelines in the Principles. The instrument does not set time limits for the Secretary to make determinations, nor does it prescribe procedural steps for applicants. Practitioners must look to the Social Security Act and administrative practice for procedural timelines and review routes.

These items are concrete points arising from the text. Practitioners should map each element of the client’s factual matrix to the corresponding section or sections cited above to ensure no material consideration is overlooked.

This section gives a practical compliance checklist mapped to the Principles’ requirements. The Secretary is bound to consider these factors; applicants should therefore assemble a file that addresses each listed consideration with documentary and explanatory material.

1. Establish whether the instrument applies

   • Confirm that the subject company is a “controlled private company” or that the entity is a “controlled private trust,” as these are the entities the instrument covers (s 3). Check definitions in the Social Security Act or related legislation.
   • Confirm whether, absent Secretary intervention, the individual would be an attributable stakeholder, or would have a 100 per cent asset or income attribution percentage (ss 6(1), 15(1), 24(1)). If not, the Parts’ mandatory considerations do not apply.

2. Prepare entity governance and administrative records

   • Provide the company’s constituent documents, constitution, shareholders agreements, minutes recording decisions, dividend resolutions and any documentation showing distribution history and intention (ss 10(3), 19(3), 28(3) for future distributions).
   • For trusts, provide the trust deed, any variations, minutes of trustee meetings, distribution resolutions, letters of wishes and beneficiary communications, and records of trustee actions.

3. Document contributions precisely

   • For each alleged contribution, compile transfer documents, valuations, receipts, contracts, invoices and evidence of services rendered (s 3; ss 8, 17, 26).
   • For each contribution, quantify: value at time of contribution, proportion of total assets at that time, effect on the financial position of the company or trust, and any consideration received by the contributor (ss 8(a)-(d); 17(a)-(d); 26(a)-(d)).

4. Evidence past benefits and distributions

   • Produce bank records, dividend statements, trust distribution records, correspondence and any in‑kind benefits (e.g. use of property, free services) that demonstrate benefit (ss 9, 18, 27).
   • For each benefit, quantify value and show frequency where more than one occasion (ss 9(2), 18(2), 27(2)).

5. Evidence foreseeable future benefits

   • Demonstrate foreseeability or lack thereof with constituent documents, trust terms, minutes, plans or contemporaneous agreements (ss 10(1)-(3), 19(1)-(3), 28(1)-(3)).
   • Provide projections or trustee/company statements if future distributions are planned, together with supporting documentation that shows their likely value.

6. Demonstrate benefits from assets or income beyond distributions

   • Identify non‑distribution benefits the individual receives, including property occupation, services, management fees, or indirect economic benefits (ss 11(1), 20(1), 29(1)).
   • Provide invoices, company/private expense allocations, or other records showing transfers of property or services.

7. Address control

   • Assemble evidence on effective control: voting percentages, share classes, appointment and removal rights for directors or trustees, signatory powers for bank accounts, and customary administrative arrangements (ss 7(2)(c), 16(2)(c), 25(2)(c)).
   • If the contention is that the individual cannot reasonably be expected to exercise effective control, provide third‑party attestations, evidence of delegation, or governance processes that limit control.

8. Account for existing attribution

   • Identify any determination under the Social Security Act or the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 that attributes stake or percentages to the individual for the same or other entities (ss 12, 21, 30).
   • Provide copies of prior determinations, and be prepared to explain differences in factual circumstances.

9. Address “other circumstances”

   • Disclose any other facts that affect involvement with the entity: family arrangements, commercial relationships, historical conduct, insolvency events, or agreements concerning distributions or asset use (ss 13, 22, 31).
   • Explain how these circumstances bear on the reasonableness of attributing stake or 100 per cent percentages.

10. Prepare a structured submission to the Secretary

• Map factual points to the individual sections of the relevant Part (Part 2, 3 or 4) and clearly indicate which considerations weigh in favour of a non‑attribution or a reduced percentage (refer to ss 6(2), 15(2), 24(2) requiring the Secretary to consider the relationship having regard to the listed circumstances).
• Where possible, provide quantified measures (value, proportion, frequency) as the Principles require attention to value and proportion (ss 8(b), 17(b), 26(b); ss 9(2), 18(2), 27(2)).

11. Expect and seek reasoned decision‑making

• The Secretary must comply with these Principles when making decisions under s 1207X (s 4). If the Secretary’s written decision fails to address mandatory factors, the decision may be vulnerable to review under the Social Security Act or administrative law channels. Request written reasons that explicitly address the considerations in the Principles.

12. Consider remedies and timing

• The Principles do not set internal timelines or appeal mechanisms. Check the Social Security Act, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and general administrative review options (tribunal, merits review, judicial review) applicable to the decision for procedural steps and limitation periods.

13. Record retention

• Given the instrument’s coverage of contributions at any time and benefits not limited to legal titles, practitioners should preserve long‑running records: historical transfer documents, valuations, tax and accounting records, minutes and correspondence.

14. Practical quantification approach

• While the Principles do not provide a calculation method for attribution percentages, present a transparent, document‑backed approach to any proposed percentage: show how an asserted percentage reflects the relative value of contributions, benefits received, and control, and explain why it is consistent with the enumerated factors.

By addressing each listed factor in the relevant Part with documentary evidence and clear explanation, applicants and advisers give the Secretary the material the Principles identify as mandatory for consideration. The Secretary’s compliance obligation creates an administrative expectation that these materials will be examined and addressed in the decision.