Sladen Snippet – Non-commercial LRBA loans must be rectified by 30 June 2016

Sladen Snippet – Non-commercial LRBA loans must be rectified by 30 June 2016

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has confirmed that it will not take active steps to review non-commercial limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) loans prior to 30 June 2016.

Self Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) trustees are being encouraged to rectify their non-commercial LRBA loans by putting them on arm’s length terms by 30 June 2016. If that occurs then the ATO has confirmed that it will not actively review such non-commercial LRBA loans in prior years. Although not expressly stated on the ATO’s website, the ATO has indicated that such rectification does not need to be retrospective.

SMSFs and Asset Protection

SMSFs and Asset Protection

When people think of self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) they mostly think of a vehicle to provide retirement benefits and their concessional tax treatment. In contrast, the asset protection benefit provided by SMSFs is often not considered.

This topic was addressed by Sladen Legal’s Phil Broderick, who delivered a presentation on SMSFs and Asset Protection, as part of the Television Education Network’s 3rd Annual Asset Protection Conference, on 15 October 2015.

SMSFs and Real Estate Upon the Death of a Survivor

SMSFs and Real Estate Upon the Death of a Survivor

A typical Self Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF), being the classic “mum and dad” SMSF, generally transitions pretty smoothly through the lifecycle of its members. This includes the accumulation of assets in the growth/accumulation stage and managing benefit payments through the pension stage. It also usually transitions smoothly on the death of the first with the ability to pay a death pension to the survivor.

However, there is one event that can create significant transition issues for SMSFs, being the death of the surviving spouse, particularly in instances where the fund holds lumpy assets such as real estate.

Sladen Snippet – SMSFs, unit trusts and the public trading trust rules – the end is nigh?

Sladen Snippet – SMSFs, unit trusts and the public trading trust rules – the end is nigh?

The draft legislation of the Government’s proposed new tax system for managed investment trusts proposes that super funds (and other exempt entities that are entitled to a refund of excess imputation credits) be excluded from the 20% tracing rule for the public trading trust rules.

Sladen Snippet - Another SMSF civil penalty case

Sladen Snippet - Another SMSF civil penalty case

The Federal Court has handed down another civil penalty decision for breaches by self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustees of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act).

In the case of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Superannuation) v Ryan [2015] FCA 1037 the Federal Court fined the two trustees of an SMSF $20,000 each for breaching the sole purpose test, the prohibition against providing members with financial assistance, the in-house asset rules and the requirement to make investments on an arm’s length basis. This was as a result of the SMSF lending to the members over $200,000. Most of these loans were never paid back to the SMSF ultimately leaving the SMSF with about $6,000 in assets. In addition, the members were disqualified as trustees.

Sladen Snippet - “Look through” LRBAs now law – ATO extends administrative approach to pre 24 September 2007 LRBAs

Sladen Snippet - “Look through” LRBAs now law – ATO extends administrative approach to pre 24 September 2007 LRBAs

The income tax look-through treatment for limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) is now law with the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No 2) Act 2015 receiving royal assent on 16 September 2015. This means that, effective from 1 July 2007, a super fund under a LRBA will generally be treated as the owner of an asset bought under the arrangement for income tax purposes (including for capital gains tax purposes). This includes that the bare trust under an LRBA does not need a tax file number and does not need to lodge a tax return.

Transferring Real Estate In and Out of SMSFs

Transferring Real Estate In and Out of SMSFs

On 20 August 2015, Sladen Legal’s Phil Broderick delivered a presentation on Transferring Real Estate In and Out of SMSFs, as part of The Tax Institute’s National Superannuation Conference.

Phil’s presentation considered a number of issues in relation to the holding of real estate in SMSFs and the transfer of real estate in and out of SMSFs.

Seamlessly Integrating Superannuation into Effective Estate Planning

Seamlessly Integrating Superannuation into Effective Estate Planning

On 1 September 2015, Sladen Legal’s Phil Broderick delivered a presentation on Seamlessly Integrating Superannuation into Effective Estate Planning, as part the Legalwise seminar topic of Estate Planning: Maximising Asset Protection.

Transferring Real Estate In and Out of SMSFs

Transferring Real Estate In and Out of SMSFs

Real property is a popular investment for SMSFs (self managed superannuation funds). However, there are a number of unique issues that come with SMSFs receiving, holding and disposing of real estate. In this paper I have examined a number of those issues in great detail.

Sladen Snippet – “Look through” Bill released for limited recourse borrowing arrangements

Sladen Snippet – “Look through” Bill released for limited recourse borrowing arrangements

The Government has released the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 2) Bill 2015 which, if passed in its current form, will provide for “look through” tax treatment for trusts set up for limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBA).

In effect, this means that, from a tax law perspective (except for certain limited exceptions), the asset of the LRBA trust will be deemed to be held by the super fund and the actions of the trustee of the LRBA trust in relation to the asset will be deemed to be the actions of the trustee of the super fund. This will reduce adverse tax consequences (eg capital gains tax on collapsing the trust, losses being trapped in the trust and difficulties of passing franking credits) and result in a reduction to tax administration (eg the trust will not require a TFN or be required to prepare a tax return). It also means that, from a tax law perspective, super funds no longer need a bare trust for a LRBA in order to achieve a look through approach.

Director’s breach of fiduciary duties results in a clawback of super contributions

Director’s breach of fiduciary duties results in a clawback of super contributions

In April 2015, an article written by Sladen Legal's Phil Broderick and Melissa Brazzale, was published in the Tax Institute’s Journal, Taxation in Australia.

This article addresses the need for directors of corporate trustees to beware, as breaches of their fiduciary duties can result in amounts taken out of the trust, including super contributions, being clawed back.

Sladen snippet - Turning 55 in 2015/16? You can’t access your super until you turn 56

Sladen snippet - Turning 55 in 2015/16? You can’t access your super until you turn 56

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).

Sladen Snippet - SMSF trust deeds must be QROPS compliant to receive UK pension transfers

Sladen Snippet - SMSF trust deeds must be QROPS compliant to receive UK pension transfers

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.

Sladen Snippet – what is a unit trust for the public trading trust rules?

Sladen Snippet – what is a unit trust for the public trading trust rules?

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.

Sladen Snippet – insurance held in SMSFs for a buy-sell arrangement breaches the sole purpose test

Sladen Snippet – insurance held in SMSFs for a buy-sell arrangement breaches the sole purpose test

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.

SMSFs, trusts and property development: Part 2

SMSFs, trusts and property development: Part 2

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.

SMSFs, trusts and property development: Part 1

SMSFs, trusts and property development: Part 1

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.

Read the published article.

Sladen Snippet – Super contributions clawed back from an SMSF because of breach of fiduciary duties

Sladen Snippet – Super contributions clawed back from an SMSF because of breach of fiduciary duties

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.

Sladen Snippet - Death benefits cannot be paid by journal entries

Sladen Snippet - Death benefits cannot be paid by journal entries

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”.