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.

The superannuation guarantee (Super Guarantee) system is the Federal Government system under which employers make superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees, certain contractors and other persons.

The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Owies v JJE Nominees Pty Ltd [2022] VSCA 142 (Owies) will surprise many trustees of discretionary trusts and their advisors. Effectively, the Court found that the decision of the corporate trustee (controlled by the parents of the family) of a discretionary trust not to properly consider two of their children (who were estranged from them), when making annual distributions from the trust, was voidable (and potentially void).

This workshop will use case studies to explore some of the unique SMSF issues that may arise through investing via unit trusts including:

The structure of a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) is often based on a family unit. A very common SMSF structure is, for example, two spouses as the members and trustees/directors of the corporate trustee.

In the recent decision of JMC Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] FCA 750, the Federal Court found that an ‘independent contractor’ was an employee for super guarantee purposes.

A quick reminder of the new superannuation measures which are effective as of 1 July 2022:

Phil Broderick provides the latest developments with NALI and NALE in The SMSF Advisor Show.

In the much anticipated decision of Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd, the High Court has determined that regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (SIS Regs) does not apply to binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs) prepared for self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).

The ATO has confirmed that its current administrative approach to the non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE), as set out in Practical Compliance Guide PCG 2020/5, will be extended to 30 June 2023.

Non-arm’s length income (NALI) has been a hot topic of discussion and debate in the SMSF industry in recent years, in particular since the ATO first released their draft ruling on non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE) in 2018 (and its subsequent iterations).

Issues covered in this paper:

1. SMSFs acquiring digital assets

2. Ownership of digital assets

SMSFs (self managed superannuation funds) have been carrying on property development activities ever since SMSFs 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.

As discussed here, one of the key superannuation announcements in the May 2021 budget was the removal of the minimum $450 threshold for super guarantee purposes.

ake super guarantee contributions on time is not a breach of the super laws, but it will trigger tax for the employer, and potentially penalties.

In the recent Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) decision of Trustee for Virdis Family Trust t/a Rickard Heating Pty Ltd v FC of T [2022] AATA 3, the AAT relied on the decision in Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v Moffet [2020] FCAFC 118 (Moffet) to find that a plumber who was engaged as a contractor was an employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).

In the recent decision of FYYB v FC of T 2021 ATC 10-592; [2021] AATA 3567, 5 October 2021, the Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) decision to disallow an objection by the taxpayer to an administrative penalty of $7,500 imposed on a self managed superannuation fund (Fund) under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (SIS Act).