A plaintiff claiming damages for negligent tax advice must prove actual, not merely theoretical, loss from the forfeiture of franking credits. Where all dividends declared after forfeiture were fully franked and there is no evidence of diminution in share value, the plaintiff has not established loss. The benefit of a restructure that delays tax payments is a timing difference, not a permanent saving, and must be valued accordingly. Pre-judgment interest at court rates applies to actual payments from the plaintiff's own funds, while a lower rate (the company's earnings rate) applies to the theoretical benefit of delayed tax payments, as these are of entirely different character.
The full text is available to signed-in members.