This article is the second in a three-part series setting out practical solutions to common issues in super, tax and estate planning, with a particular focus on the tax impact of payments to beneficiaries.

This article is the first in a three-part series setting out practical solutions to common issues in super, tax and estate planning, with a particular focus on the tax impact of payments to beneficiaries.

Part 1 of our series looks at how withdrawing super benefits before death can form part of a member’s overall estate planning.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has made it clear: when a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) receives services or assets on non-commercial terms - or fails to incur necessary expenses - the result can be harsh. Non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE) can trigger nonarm’s length income (NALI), exposing the fund to significant tax consequences.

Our recent article on the proposed Division 296 tax has sparked some discussions, particularly as to whether benefits should be taken out and, if so, when they should be taken out.

With the recent Labor election victory, and a potentially friendlier Senate, it is likely that the proposed Division 296 tax of an additional 15% on members with a $3 million or more total super balance (not indexed) will be enacted. See here for our previous commentary on the measure.

The Board of  Taxation (BOT) has recently released its report on the taxation of digital taxes – Review of the tax treatment of digital assets and transactions in Australia. This includes a section, from page 155, on whether crypto assets should receive the “trading stock” exemption.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement (like a UPE).

In this part 3 of the series we examine how this may play out in the in-house asset rules contained in Part 8 of the SIS Act.

As noted in part 1 of our articles on the application of the Bendel decision to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), in our view, it is likely that the Courts will apply the Bendel decision to the SIS Act, such that the expanded definition of loan in the SIS Act will apply to arrangements that involve the advancement of principal with an obligation to repay and that it will not apply to a mere creditor and debtor arrangement (like a UPE).

As discussed here, the recent decision of the Full Federal Court (Court) in FCT v Bendel [2025] FCAFC 15 (Bendel) has been a significant one in the private tax world.

Given this is a superannuation conference, most of the presentations will be dealing with the uses of, and issues with, superannuation and self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).

Members and trustees of self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) will sometimes become estranged because of disputes involving their family or business relationships.