Legal news
In the decision of Kirk as trustee of the Property of Smith (a Bankrupt) v Smith [2024] FCA 240 (15 March 2024) the Federal Court held, among other things, that a transfer of superannuation from the husband to his wife’s superannuation was no longer protected as an interest of the bankrupt in a regulated super fund under section 116(2)(d)(iii)(A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act).
In the decision of Stern v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCAFC 21 the Full Federal Court found against the taxpayer, who raised an argument that Division 294 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 97) should not be interpreted such that both his pension was to be commuted under a commutation authority issued by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) due to his pensions exceeding his transfer balance cap, and that he also must pay excess transfer balance tax for exceeding his transfer balance cap.
The NSW Supreme Court decision of Cihan Family Trust v Cihan Family Superannuation Fund [2023] NSWSC 1289 found that a transfer of land from a family trust to a SMSF should be reversed on the basis of unconscionable conduct of a son against his father.
The case of Corbisieri v NM Superannuation Proprietary Limited [2023] FCA 1319 involved an appeal by the mother of a deceased against the decision of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) to uphold a BDBN to benefit the de facto spouse of her late son, which was to be funded out of life insurance proceeds in AMP Superannuation.
In this Judgment of the NSW Supreme Court, a binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) signed on the date of death of the sole member of a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) was upheld. Challenges to the BDBN’s validity, by the SMSF trustee and two of the deceased’s executors, based on lack of capacity and unconscionability both failed.
Further to previous announcements, Treasury has released draft legislation for the additional 15% tax on $3M+ balances. While the measure is called the “Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions”, the tax itself is destined to be known as the (uninspiring name of) “Div 296 tax”.
In Colaciello Super Pty Ltd v Christensen [2023] VSC 568 the Supreme Court of Victoria held that a loan in breach of sections 62 and 65 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act) was unenforceable under the defence of illegality.
The second tranche of workplace relations reforms have now received Royal Assent, bringing into force the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Act 2023 (Cth) (Entitlements Act) on 1 July 2023. It is important that employers are aware of the changes and how these changes will impact the workplace.
The Full Federal Court, in the decision of JMC Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 76, has effectively found that a right to delegate (unless such right is a sham) means a person will be a contractor (and not an employee) and won’t be engaged principally for their labour.
As seen in Part 1 of our article on the case of Williams v Williams, this is the latest of a long line of cases that have found that a binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) was not binding. However, the case also is an important decision in relation to when the Court will remove an SMSF trustee.
In the case of Williams v Williams, the Supreme Court of Queensland has determined that a binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) was not binding on the basis that it was not provided to the trustees of the applicable self managed superannuation fund (SMSF).
One of the anomalies of the super guarantee system is the inability of employees to force employers to make contributions payable under the system. That could soon change, with proposed changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 which would allow employees to force employers to make contributions to avoid the liability to pay the super contribution charge under the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 (SG Act)
The Government has announced that, from 1 July 2026, employers will obligated to make super contributions at the same time they pay their employee’s their salary and wages (eg weekly, fortnightly or monthly). Currently, super must be made within 28 days of the end of each quarter.
Treasury has released an information sheet on how the new “30% tax rate” for super balances over $3 million will work.
After industry pushback against the disproportionate application of the non-arm’s length income (NALI) and non-arm’s length expenses (NALE) rules, Treasury has a released a discussion paper to modify the application of the NALI/NALE rules.
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.
In Part 1 of our Super Guarantee article series, we discussed the background to the super guarantee regime and an overview of how the regime operates. In Part 2, we looked at who will be covered by the super guarantee regime, and in Part 3 we specifically looked at when this will include certain contractors.
As discussed under Part 2 of this super guarantee article series, under the super guarantee system, super contributions must be made on behalf of “employees” as that term is defined under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).
Under the super guarantee system, super contributions are made on behalf of “employees”.
Section 12(1) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act) provides that “employees” for the purposes of the SG Act are defined under their ordinary meaning. That is, the meaning of that term at common law.
