Legal news
For super purposes, turning 55 has traditionally been the year in which you start to access your benefits (for example under a transition to retirement income stream (TRIS)). However, with the auto-rise of the preservation age coming into effect, as of 1 July 2015, persons turning 55 in the 2015/16 year will have to wait until they turn 56 (ie in the 2016/17 year).
Newly introduced UK regulations impose additional conditions on SMSFs that are registered, or will be registered as Qualifying Overseas Pension Scheme (QROPS). The new regulations broadly require that in order to be treated as, or continue to be treated as, a QROPS, the relevant SMSF’s deed must now contain provisions that prevents members from accessing benefits prior to age 55, unless they retire as a result of ill health under the UK laws.
The Federal Court, in the decision of Elecnet (Aust) Pty Ltd v FCOT, has ruled that a trust established to pay out redundancy benefits for employees of the electricity industry was a unit trust for the purposes of the public trading trust rules. This was held notwithstanding that the employees’ interest in the trust is not unitised but rather operates in a way that is akin to a superannuation fund. In coming to this conclusion, the Court found, for the purposes of the public trading trust rules, that the employees have a beneficial interest in the property of the trust.
The Commissioner of Taxation has concluded, in ATO ID 2015/10, that using a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) to hold a life insurance policy for the purpose of a buy sell agreement breaches the sole purpose test and the prohibition against providing a member (or a relative) financial assistance.
So does this mean that superannuation funds cannot be used to hold insurance in buy-sell arrangements? Not necessarily. The position of the Commissioner would appear not to apply to insurance held in public offer superannuation funds and potentially does not apply to SMSFs that don’t have any formal buy sell arrangements.
In January 2015, the first part of a two-part article, written by Sladen Legal's Phil Broderick, was published in the Tax Institute’s Journal, Taxation in Australia. This article considered the tax and regulatory issues of SMSFs undertaking property development either directly or through structures such as trusts.
The second part of this article was published in Taxation in Australia in February 2015, examining various structures under which an SMSF can undertake property development, or invest in an entity which undertakes property development activities.
In January 2015, the first part of a two-part article, written by Sladen Legal's Phil Broderick, was published in the Tax Institute’s Journal, Taxation in Australia. This article considers the tax and regulatory issues of SMSFs undertaking property development either directly or through structures such as trusts.
In the decision of Australian Annuities v Rowley Super, the Victorian Court of Appeal has held that over $1.6 million of super contributions made by a discretionary trust and members to a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) could be clawed back to a liquidator on the basis that the director of the corporate trustee breached his fiduciary duties to the corporate trustee.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has set out its view in ATO Interpretative Decisions, ATO ID 2015/2 and ATO ID 2015/3 that the superannuation laws and tax laws prohibit superannuation death benefits from being paid by mere journal entries.
In the ATO IDs, the taxpayer/beneficiary and self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustee wished to effect the death benefit to the beneficiary by the transfer of money from the deceased member's account, to the beneficiary's own account in the SMSF by way of journal entry (to save on transactions costs). The ATO noted that set offs can occur in a superannuation context, but that there needs to be “mutual liabilities between the taxpayer and the SMSF and there is an agreement between those parties to set-off the liabilities”. Here, the ATO found there was “not a mutual liability in this case as the taxpayer does not have a liability to the SMSF”.
Self-managed superannuation funds1 (SMSFs) have been carrying on property development activities ever since they came into existence. Such activities are either done directly by the SMSF or more commonly through a structure (typically, a trust). Yet, despite this, there is still a common concern that such activities will cause the SMSF to become non-complying, or subject to penalties, on the basis that such activities, and in particular undertaking a property development business, are prohibited
Sladen Legal has conducted a major review of our self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) documents including the SMSF deed, the SMSF deed update and the SMSF pension agreements. We are pleased to announce our new SMSF corporate trustee stakeholders agreement.
Treasury has released a draft bill to enact a “look through” approach to apply to limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) for income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) purposes, with effect from 1 July 2007. Under a LRBA the asset must be held by the trustee of a separate trust (referred to below as a bare trustee). This has raised a number of issues in relation to how the tax laws interact with the holding of the asset, the super fund and the bare trustee.
Two Federal Court decisions from 2014, DCT v Lyons and DCT v Graham Family Superannuation Pty Ltd have demonstrated the Court’s relatively lenient approach to applying penalties under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act) for cases involving multiple numbers of very serious breaches.
Further to the recent Australian Taxation Office (ATO) release of two ATO Interpretative Decisions, ATO ID 2014/39 and ATO ID 2014/40, as outlined in a recent Sladen Snippet, the ATO has released further information on what factors will be considered when applying the non-arm’s length income (NALI) rules to non-commercial limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs).
The ATO has released two ATO Interpretative Decisions (ATO IDs), being ATO ID 2014/39 and ATO ID 2014/40 on the application of the non-arm’s length income rules (NALI) to non-commercial limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs).
Sladen Legal had two recent successful applications to disregard or reallocate excess non-concessional contributions, with the result that significant excess contributions assessments were extinguished or reduced to a nominal amount.
In the first case the client inadvertently triggered the bring forward rule by paying what she thought was an insurance premium, but was in fact a contribution to a retail superannuation fund (that in turn funded an insurance policy held by the fund). The client also made a $150K non-concessional contribution in that year followed by a $450K in the following year (causing excess non-concessional contributions of over $150K). The Commissioner of Taxation agreed that special circumstances existed and agreed to reallocate the “insurance” contribution to the second year reducing the excess contributions tax from over $70K to approximately $1,500.
Based on the principle of the separation of legal entities, it would not be expected that the actions of the trustee of a unit trust (or other trust) would be imputed on its unit holders. But does that hold true under the superannuation system? For instance, can the actions of a unit trust trustee cause its unit holding superannuation fund trustee to breach the superannuation laws? Or, to put it more succinctly, does the “look-through approach” exist?
This paper was presented by Phil Broderick on SMSFs Engaging in Property Developments, at the Ninth Annual SMSF Conference of the Television Education Network, on 4-5 September, 2014.
Self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) have been carrying on property development activities ever since they came into existence. Yet despite that, there is still a common concern that such activities will cause the SMSF to become non-compliant, or subject to penalties, on the basis that such activities, and in particular undertaking a property development business, are prohibited.
When superannuation funds consider structuring through, or investing in, another private entity, the choice is generally between a company and a unit trust. When the decision is made to invest in a unit trust, it is primarily made in order to take advantage of a unit trust’s “flow-through” nature under the current tax laws. However, this flow through nature will be lost if the unit trust is deemed to be a public trading trust.
This paper was presented by Phil Broderick at the Legalwise Seminar on Will Drafting and Estate Planning, held on 12 August, 2014.
Superannuation benefits do not automatically form part of a member’s estate upon the death of the member. As such, a member’s will cannot deal with their super benefits, unless the benefits are paid to the estate of the member.
Consequently, a person’s super benefits must be dealt with separately in the estate planning process. Rather than dealing with super in a person’s will the tools for dealing with super death benefits are binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs), reversionary pensions, and the control of the decision making process through the control of the super fund trustee.
