A business structure that worked for you five or ten years ago may not be the structure your business needs today.
We regularly speak with mining and resources services business owners who are considering an acquisition, bringing key managers into ownership, attracting external investment or preparing for an eventual sale. The opportunity itself may be straightforward. The challenge is that the structure sitting behind the business was established years earlier for a very different business.
That does not necessarily mean the structure is wrong. It simply means the business may have evolved faster than the structure supporting it. The reality is that most restructuring projects are not driven by tax. They are driven by growth and what lies ahead.
Growth Changes What a Business Needs from Its Structure
What begins as an owner-operated business at the kitchen table can evolve into a sophisticated operation, managing larger equipment fleets, more complex projects and significantly greater capital requirements.
Profits once distributed to owners may now be needed to fund equipment purchases, support working capital, reduce debt or position the business for further expansion. Ownership may also have become more complex as family members, business partners or key employees become involved.
The question is not whether one structure is inherently right or wrong. It is whether the structure reflects the business you have today and supports the business you want tomorrow.
More Than a Tax Discussion
One of the most common misconceptions we encounter is that restructuring is primarily about achieving a tax benefit. Tax outcomes are important, but the ongoing tax result may be much the same. The strongest drivers are usually commercial: simplifying ownership, improving scalability, facilitating acquisitions and creating a clearer pathway for growth.
Instead of asking, “How much tax will this save?”, the more useful question is often, “Will this structure support the business I am trying to build over the next five or ten years?” The value may come from making the business easier to operate, easier to explain and better positioned to take advantage of opportunities.
Investor Ready, Sale Ready and Future Ownership
One of the clearest signs that a structure may need attention is when owners begin thinking about who might participate in the business. That may be an external investor, a larger organisation exploring an acquisition or key managers who have become instrumental to its success.
Over time, separate entities may have been added for services, plant, employment or asset protection. Each decision may have made sense, but scattered ownership can make investing in the group unnecessarily complicated.
Investors, lenders and buyers want to understand what is being acquired, where key assets are held and how the ownership framework operates.
For example, a holding company above trading entities may provide a coherent ownership point for investors or managers to participate in the group. Trading entities run the operations; an asset-owning entity may hold equipment or other assets under suitable arrangements.
Similar questions arise when owners discuss shares, options or employee share schemes. Which entity should issue ownership interests? How will future employees participate? Those questions are easier to address before expectations have already been created.
Ownership opportunities can help retain and reward talented people, particularly where attracting and keeping high-quality staff remains a competitive challenge. However, they work best when the ownership framework has been carefully considered beforehand. A clear framework also helps owners align management participation with their broader succession objectives, rather than treating each decision in isolation.
Timing Matters More Than Most Owners Realise
Restructuring is not always complex, expensive and disruptive. Sometimes it can be, but complexity often reflects how long the issue has remained unaddressed. Some projects take a month; others take six months or more than a year.
Clear objectives with accountants and lawyers working together make a difference. Time is your friend.
Tax concessions also need careful assessment. Eligibility, commercial purpose and timing all matter, while GST and stamp duty must be considered separately. Planning for ongoing growth can also be different from restructuring to facilitate a disposal. Investor or employee participation is not automatically disqualifying, but the full circumstances must be considered in the xontext of the proposed structure.
What was possible three years ago may not be available on the same terms today. The earlier these conversations occur, the greater the opportunity to assess options and implement changes in a considered manner. Waiting until a buyer is at the table can turn a manageable planning exercise into another moving part in an already demanding negotiation.
A Real-World Example
One mining services and civil construction business had experienced rapid growth over three years and was considering management ownership and selling a stake to a larger group. Advisers had recommended restructuring several years earlier, recognising that the business had evolved beyond its original arrangements. Like many owners, the directors were focused on day-to-day operations and deferred the work.
An unexpected acquisition opportunity then emerged. The prospective buyer required a holding company above the trading businesses, bringing the deferred restructure into the transaction conversation. Under that pressure, purpose, timing and access to appropriate rollover relief became critical. Restructuring under those circumstances could trigger unnecessary tax liabilities and assumed risk.
The transaction ultimately did not proceed for reasons unrelated to the structure. Restructuring advice is now progressing. The lesson is that a strategic issue which could have been addressed gradually and proactively was suddenly considered under the pressure of a commercial opportunity.
Why Review Legacy Arrangements Now?
Alongside growth, proposed taxation changes have prompted owners to revisit legacy arrangements. The proposed minimum tax on discretionary trusts is not yet law. It is another reason to review the position, not a reason to assume every trust should be replaced. Commercial objectives and the business’s particular circumstances should lead the discussion.
We are increasingly seeing company structures considered as operating vehicles where retaining earnings, raising capital and introducing shareholders are priorities. That does not make an existing trust structure obsolete. It reinforces the importance of looking at how the entities work together, rather than reviewing each one separately.
Looking Ahead
The structure that helped launch your business deserves credit. Whether it remains right for the next phase of growth is a different question. If you are investing in equipment, considering external capital or exploring ownership opportunities, review your options before negotiations or ownership changes narrow them.
To discuss whether your business structure is supporting your future growth plans, contact Nick Farr at Resources Unearthed on +61 (0)7 3007 2000 or email contact@resourcesunearthed.com.au.
Learn more about Nick Farr | Resources Unearthed.
Learn more about RSM here
This article provides general information only and should not be relied upon as taxation, legal or business advice. Professional advice should be sought before making structural or tax-related decisions.
