Legal news
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).
SMSFs (self managed superannuation funds) have been carrying on property development activities ever since SMSFs came into existence. Yet despite that there is still a common concern that such activities will cause the SMSF to become non-compliant, or subject to penalties, on the basis that such activities, and in particular undertaking a property development business, are prohibited.
In the recent decision of FYYB v FC of T 2021 ATC 10-592; [2021] AATA 3567, 5 October 2021, the Australian Administrative Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) decision to disallow an objection by the taxpayer to an administrative penalty of $7,500 imposed on a self managed superannuation fund (Fund) under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (SIS Act).
As previously discussed here, the May 2021 budget announcements included a number of changes aimed at increasing flexibility in the superannuation system. Some of these key changes have now been introduced to Parliament as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Superannuation Outcomes For Australians and Helping Australian Businesses Invest) Bill 2021 (Bill).
In the recent decision of Allen and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2021] AATA 2768 (6 August 2021), the Australian Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) overturned a private ruling of the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) and found that an individual taxpayer was personally carrying on a business of managing rental properties.
After seeking advice from an independent advice panel, the ATO has released its finalised Law Companion Ruling setting out the ATO view on the non-arm’s length expenditure (NALE) amendments to section 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA97), LCR 2021/2. In addition, the ATO has amended its contribution tax ruling TR 2010/1. The final LCR and amendments to TR 2010/1 partially soften the ATO views on the application of NALE.
