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.
Sladen Snippet – Williams Part 2 - another SMSF trustee bites the dust
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.
Sladen Snippet – Williams Part 1 - another BDBN bites the dust
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).
Sladen Snippet – ATO warns on SMSF gift and loan back (asset protection) arrangements
In an interesting development, the ATO has released a warning in relation to SMSFs entering into gift and loan back arrangements.
Divorce, death and super – how to exit an SMSF
The Latest developments with NALI and NALE Podcast
Sladen Snippet – SMSF BDBNs not bound by SIS Regs – Hill v Zuda
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).
The NALI/NALE Whirlwind – Where Are We At?
Digital Assets – All The Rage But Maybe A House Of Pain (Part 1)
SMSFS And Property Development: Key Compliance Imperatives
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.
Tribunal upholds penalties for an SMSF’s breach of the borrowing restrictions
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).
Multiple Party Investment Structures – Part 2: Superannuation (SMSF) Issues
Sladen Snippet - Legislation released for welcome superannuation changes
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).
Managing rental properties found to be a business (and business real property?)
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.
ATO partially softens its view on non-arm’s length expenditure
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.
Sladen Snippet – SMSFs can have 6 members from 1 July 2021
The Bill which increases the maximum allowable number of members in an SMSF to six (the current maximum is four members) has passed both houses of Parliament and is now law. From 1 July 2021, SMSFs can now have anywhere between one to six members.
Death Benefits: BDBNs or Retain Trustee Discretion?
AAT confirms non-compliance of accountant’s SMSF but reverses trustee disqualification
Sladen snippet - super contribution caps and transfer balance cap to increase from 1 July 2021
Sladen snippet - ATO extends transitional compliance approach to NALE for another financial year
As previously discussed here, the definition of non-arm’s length income (NALI) under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 was amended in mid-2018 to include non-arm’s length expenses or NALE. NALE includes not just an expenditure, but also a loss or outgoing that is lower than an arm’s length amount, and also includes where there is a nil amount (ie, no expenditure).