Sladen Snippet - Jamsek – truck driver partnerships not eligible for super guarantee
The Full Federal Court has confirmed in Jamsek v ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCAFC 48 that a truck driver partnership was not eligible for super guarantee contributions. The decision is an important decision in relation the application to super guarantee in relation to contractors and, in particular, partnerships and other entities.
Treasury releases information sheet on “30% tax” on $3m+ super balances
Treasury has released an information sheet on how the new “30% tax rate” for super balances over $3 million will work.
Treasury proposes NALI tax rate of 225%
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.
Sladen Snippet – ATO warns on SMSF gift and loan back (asset protection) arrangements
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.
Super guarantee Series - Part 4: How is super guarantee and the super guarantee charge calculated?
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.
Super guarantee Series - Part 3: When do super contributions need to be made on behalf of 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).
Super guarantee Series - Part 2: Who must contributions be made for – “employees” and “deemed employees”
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.
Sladen snippet - AAT upholds super guarantee charge assessments and refuses further remission of penalties
In the recent decision of Signium Pty Limited and FCT [2022] AATA 2824, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) upheld super guarantee (SG) assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and refused to remit Part 7 penalties further.
The taxpayer operates a small pig farming business. The business is run by a general manager, and at relevant times it employed two or three people.
The ATO conducted an audit of the taxpayer’s SG obligations and issued 16 SG charge assessments for quarters ending 30 September 2013 to 31 March 2017. The Commissioner also issued a Part 7 penalty assessment of 200% of the SG charge (Part 7 penalties are automatically incurred under Part 7 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act) for failure to lodge SG charge statements within the relevant timeframe).
The taxpayer disagreed with the ATO’s calculation of the shortfall amounts on the SG charge assessments. However, the Tribunal accepted the ATO’s calculations as they were more thorough than those provided by the taxpayer. The taxpayer asked the Tribunal to remit the shortfall interest component of the SG charge, but the Tribunal declined, noting that the Commissioner has no discretion under the SG Act to remit the shortfall interest component.
The Part 7 penalties were remitted to 35% during the review process, and the Commissioner agreed that a further 25% remission was appropriate. The taxpayer argued that the penalties should be reduced further due to various factors including the general manager’s age, his health conditions, the impact of COVID-19, drought in 2018-2019, bushfires in 2019 and flood in 2021, all of which put the business under considerable pressure. However these factors all arose after the relevant quarters which were the subject of the audit, and therefore did not impact on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not persuaded to remit the Part 7 penalties further.
Key takeaways from this decision:
While a taxpayer should confirm the accuracy of the calculations making up an SG charge assessment, and cross-reference these with their own records, a taxpayer cannot argue for remission of the shortfall interest component, as the Commissioner has no discretion in this regard;
Part 7 penalties are incurred automatically under the SG Act at 200% of the SG charge for late or non-lodgement of SG charge statements. The Commissioner has discretion to remit Part 7 penalties with regard to various mitigating factors. Where the taxpayer is arguing that these factors impacted on the taxpayer’s ability to comply with its SG obligations, it is key to show a nexus between these factors and the quarters in question.
Phil Broderick
Principal
M +61 419 512 801 | T +61 3 9611 0163
E: pbroderick@sladen.com.au
Philippa Briglia
Senior Associate
T +61 3 9611 0173
E pbriglia@sladen.com.au
Jan Oh
Graduate Lawyer
T +61 3 9611 0158
E joh@sladen.com.au
Super Guarantee Series - Part 1: An Overview of the Super Guarantee System
Owies – is this the end of trustees’ unfettered discretion?
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).
Multiple Party Investment Structures – Part 2: Superannuation (SMSF) Issues
Divorce, death and super – how to exit an SMSF
Lecturer found to be employee for super guarantee purposes
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.
Sladen Snippet – new superannuation measures effective 1 July 2022
The Latest developments with NALI and NALE Podcast
Sladen Snippet – SMSF BDBNs not bound by SIS Regs – Hill v Zuda
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).
Sladen Snippet – ATO confirms NALE practical administration approach is extended to 30 June 2023
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.
