Legal news
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)
The Government has announced that, from 1 July 2026, employers will obligated to make super contributions at the same time they pay their employee’s their salary and wages (eg weekly, fortnightly or monthly). Currently, super must be made within 28 days of the end of each quarter.
The Full Federal Court has confirmed in Jamsek v ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCAFC 48 that a truck driver partnership was not eligible for super guarantee contributions. The decision is an important decision in relation the application to super guarantee in relation to contractors and, in particular, partnerships and other entities.
Treasury has released an information sheet on how the new “30% tax rate” for super balances over $3 million will work.
After industry pushback against the disproportionate application of the non-arm’s length income (NALI) and non-arm’s length expenses (NALE) rules, Treasury has a released a discussion paper to modify the application of the NALI/NALE rules.
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.
In Part 1 of our Super Guarantee article series, we discussed the background to the super guarantee regime and an overview of how the regime operates. In Part 2, we looked at who will be covered by the super guarantee regime, and in Part 3 we specifically looked at when this will include certain contractors.
As discussed under Part 2 of this super guarantee article series, under the super guarantee system, super contributions must be made on behalf of “employees” as that term is defined under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SG Act).
