In the decision of In the matter of Gainer Associates Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 1138, the Court amongst other things gave advice that the self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) corporate trustee (Gainer Associates Pty Ltd – referred to as Gainer) could be indemnified from the assets of the SMSF in relation to all issues disclosed to the Court in that application for judicial advice.

In this fifth part of our series on the decision of In the matter of Gainer Associates Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 1138, we examine Gainer’s request for the Court’s advice as to whether it would be justified to remunerate Mr Heesh for his time and efforts in acting as sole director of Gainer in its role as the corporate trustee for a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) and, if so, at which rate and whether the remuneration could be for some or all of the work completed by Mr Heesh.

In this six part series on the decision of In the matter of Gainer Associates Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 1138, we’ll examine various aspects of this case.

In the decision of In the matter of Gainer Associates Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 1138, the Court amongst other things gave advice that the self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustee would be justified in defending the removal proceedings to be brought against it by Mr Bone, the partner of the deceased member of the SMSF.

In the decision of In the matter of Gainer Associates Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 1138, the Court amongst other things gave advice to uphold the decision of the self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustee to distribute 1/3rd of the death benefits in the SMSF to a partner of the sole surviving SMSF member and 2/3rd to her estate.

In the decision of In the matter of Gainer Associates Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 1138, the Court amongst other things gave advice to uphold the decision of the self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) trustee to distribute 1/3rd of the death benefits in the SMSF to the spouse of the sole surviving SMSF member and 2/3rd to her estate.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued a draft Decision Impact Statement (DIS) on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision of Merchant and Commissioner of Taxation [2024] AATA 1102 (which was decided on 16 May 2024) (Merchant).

This Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is a series of decisions against five jockey racing clubs brought by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) regarding whether the racing clubs must pay super contributions on behalf of jockeys under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).

Following the passing of changes to non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE) rules through Parliament on 25 Jun 2024, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has finalised its Taxation Determination TD 2024/5 (previously Draft TD 2023/D1).

Where there is no surviving spouse or other dependants, there is often a strong tax incentive to withdraw a member’s benefits before their death.

After a number of years in the making, the changes to the non-arm’s length expenses (NALE) rules have now passed through Parliament. While, as previously noted, the changes did not go far enough for many of the tax industry, and accounting bodies, the changes offer some relief to taxpayers.

In the decision of S&H Investments Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2024] AATA 893, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Taxation to assess the taxpayer for the superannuation guarantee charge for failing to pay superannuation for their employee/contractor referred to as “TW”.

As noted previously, the recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision of BPFN and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2023] AATA 2330 (28 July 2023) (BPFN) had struck a blow to the ATO’s strict approach to non-arm’s length income (NALI) and taken a more general commercial approach to NALI.

Challenges to death benefits and binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs) have been regularly popping up in court decisions for last couple of decades.

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:

In the decision of Mackie v Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2024] AATA 619 (3 April 2024), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirmed the decision of the Commissioner to decline to exercise the discretion in section 291-465(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 97) to disregard or allocate to another year the taxpayer’s concessional superannuation contributions.

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.