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 Tratter v Aware Super [2024] FCAFC 36 the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal by the deceased super fund member’s mother against the super fund trustee’s apportionment of 30% to the mother and 70% to the deceased’s de facto spouse.
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.
This paper has been built on a previous paper on the superannuation guarantee (SG) regime, titled Super Guarantee – no longer the toothless tiger. That paper was designed to take a holistic examination of the SG regime. In this paper, we have built on that approach and added a number of developments, including:
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 ATO has taken an aggressive approach on non-arm’s length income (NALI) for a number of years now, both in its public documents and via its audit teams. This has culminated in an approach that puts a high expectation on SMSF’s in relation to proving arrangements are on an arm’s length basis – in particular, in relation to benchmarking such arrangements.
In the recent decision of Geelong Turf Company Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2023] AATA 1718, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) upheld super guarantee charge (SGC) assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and refused to remit the 100% SGC Part 7 penalties.
The recent interest rate rises will result in significant increases in the LRBA safe harbour interest rates, and the Division 7A interest rate, for the 2023/24 year. The interest rates will be:
LRBA real estate safe harbour interest rate – 8.85% (was 5.35%)
LRBA listed share safe harbour interest rate – 10.85% (was 7.35%)
Division 7A interest rate – 8.27% (was 4.77%)
Treasury has release proposed legislative changes to the non-arm’s length expences (NALE) rules. While they are not as bad as the initial proposal to take NALE at a rate of 225%, they are still not ideal.
The ATO’s attacks on SMSFs conducting property development continues! The ATO has released Taxpayer Alert TA 2023/2 (the Alert) confirming that the ATO will review arrangements where related entities of a SMSF are conducting a property development (or including where property development is undertaken on SMSF owned assets) and where a special purpose vehicle (SPV) is used. The SPV being a company or trust which will be a related party to the SMSF through which generally a member of the SMSF may provide property development services to the SMSF for a commercial arm’s length fee and acquire and manage building materials used for the development.
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)
