Legal news
What happens if the former trustee of an SMSF is still the registered proprietor of an SMSF property and goes into administration? This issue was considered in the decision of Re Absolute Vision Technologies Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company administration) [2024] NSWSC 1010 (13 August 2024). There, the Court ordered that a contract be completed where the former trustee entered into a contract of sale of real estate (Suite 901) notwithstanding it was in administration.
At long last proposed regulations have been released for consultation that would permit the conversion of legacy pensions and reserves over a 5 year period. As a nice added bonus, the regulations will also better allow allocations from non-pension reserves.
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 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.
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). Recently, the long debated amendments to NALE provisions were passed in Parliament and received Royal Assent in June 2024.
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.
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).
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.
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’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.
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).
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.
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).
