The City of Sydney&rsquo;s Affordable Housing Program, endorsed by the Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes, introduces a charge for the delivery new homes that will now apply across Central Sydney and much of the City of Sydney local government area.

Minister Stokes announced last week the making of a new plan that will push up the price of new housing in the City of Sydney.

The NSW Government has signed off on a new tax of up to 3% on the production of new homes in the City of Sydney Council area.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=7317 project_image_fid=79239]

Urban Taskforce CEO Tom Forrest said, &quot;both the Minister and Clover Moore are well meaning, but you don&rsquo;t create affordable housing by adding additional charges to the production of new homes.&quot;

&quot;The NSW Productivity Commission recognised this conundrum in their review of infrastructure fees and charges. This change goes in the very opposite direction. This is a new tax on new homes to be paid by new home buyers.&nbsp;Prices will go up.&quot;

&quot;Housing affordability is one of the biggest issues facing governments at all levels. But the NSW Government has simply done what the Mayor of Sydney wants &ndash; no questions asked &ndash; no economic analysis applied.&quot;

&quot;The key to housing affordability is more supply &ndash; not extra taxes on those who are trying to solve the affordability problem by creating more homes.&quot;

&quot;It is high-time the penny dropped with the NSW Government &ndash; it is the drought of planning approvals that has caused this housing affordability crisis and urgent policy reform is needed.&quot;

&quot;Unfortunately, while well meaning, today&rsquo;s announcement is a step in the wrong direction.&quot;

&quot;Clover Moore is no-doubt popular &ndash; but we are in trouble if we take her advice on housing affordability!&quot;

The NSW Government has signed off on a new tax of up to 3% on the production of new homes in the City of Sydney Council area

jordan_55689

New production tax to push up price of new housing in City of Sydney

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION

I recently had a friend who went to auction, underprepared, and who had neglected to thoroughly review the contract prior. 

She was a little under the pump, given her partner had only seen the house 30 minutes prior to the auction commencing. Meanwhile her solicitor/friend was doing her a favour trying to review the contract copy over his iPhone, in a rushed five minute window over a family lunch.

Needless to say, the environment wasn’t exactly conducive to a trouble-free sale and a few items were overlooked in the lack of due diligence, one of them being a land tax adjustment for a whopping $7,000!

[smartcode_project:default project_id=7758]

This insidious tax that most investors overlook in their haste to rack up their property portfolio can creep up quickly, adding significantly to your costs as a land owner. This tax differs from state to state here in Australia. What some home buyers fail to realise is that you can also be up for the previous owner’s land tax costs if you aren’t careful, even if you are purchasing the home as a principal place of residence (PPOR).

On the NSW sales contract, if the 'yes' box is marked on the front page next to the checkbox that asks “Is land tax adjustable?”, be aware that you may be up for unwanted land tax costs. You will have to reimburse the vendor for land tax based on the proportion of the year you each own the property.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6798]

For more information on land tax and ramifications here visit the<a href="https://www.osr.nsw.gov.au" target="_blank"> NSW Office of State Revenue website</a> and for other states, also ensure you read the fine print on contracts.  

Otherwise, as with my friend, you may well find yourself paying the price for lack of knowledge and preparation.

Jacque Parker is director of <a href="https://www.housesearchaustralia.com.au">House Search Australia</a> and the president of the <a href="https://rebaa.com.au/" target="_blank">Real Estate Buyers Agents Association of Australia</a> (REBAA).
</body></html>

JacqueParker-uBQkZrvXSL

How you could end up paying someone else's land tax bill

<html><body>
Compass Housing Services, a community-housing group currently managing 3,500 properties housing 5,700 tenants in NSW, as well as another 850 properties in Queensland, stated in its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership in Australia, that home ownership will soon only be available for those in the top tax bracket. 
"In the case of Sydney, where already stretched prices have increased by 33% in the last three years alone and the median house prices is fast approaching the million dollar mark, it would be fair to say we are already there. 
"The percentage of Australians aged 25-34 who own their homes (either outright or with a mortgage) has dropped by 17% over the last 25 years. The 35-44 year age bracket has also seen a big fall with just 62% now counting themselves as home owners compared with more than 75% in the early 1980s."
Another change has been the amount of debt households are taking on in order to buy a property. 
"Between 1987 and 2013, Australia’s household debt per person has increased from under $20,000 per person to almost $80,000 per person with more than three quarters of that debt tied up in the domestic property market, an increase of 50% since 1990. 
"A lack of affordability for first home buyers can place additional strain on the rental market which in turn can increase demand on social housing or homelessness services. 
"To plug the affordability gap between social housing and the private rental market, most states offer alternative, less intensive forms of housing assistance. In most states, low-income households struggling to pull together the bond for a rental property can access interest free loans from the state government. 
"It is estimated around 20% of all households in Queensland’s rental market rely one of these loans in order to secure their tenancy."
Tax Policy Impact
"The Australian Council of Social Service has reported more than half of geared investors are in the top 10% of the income scale and 30% earn more than half a million dollars a year. 
"Similarly, the Australia Institute has reported that 55% of the benefits from capital gains tax (CGT) discounts and negative gearing flow to the top 10% of income earners while households in the lower half of the income range receive only about 20 per cent of negative gearing benefits and less than 8% of capital gains benefits.
"If this data is correct, it would seem that while advantageous to certain sections of the community, the current tax treatments have played a major role in concentrating home ownership in the hands of fewer Australians."
Compass Housing Services believes that the lack of affordability is partially a consequence of "well- intentioned tax concessions" and the current tax policies favour investors over first home buyers.
"Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates less than 10 per cent of home loans to investors are used to construct new housing with the overwhelming majority simply used to purchase established dwellings. 
"Compass urges that a due and proper independent assessment of the current tax system that enables access to benefits to more younger Australians, while boosting supply of new dwellings should be conducted and the government respond accordingly. 
"Compass recommends the reintroduction of a revamped National Rental Affordability Scheme with more stringent controls on eligibility to ensure the benefits flow to those for whom they’re intended. 
"Compass recommends the committee consider legislative options to encourage greater superannuation industry investment in new residential property or affordable housing schemes. 
Compass Housing Services named three key benefits of greater outsourcing of social housing provision.
Additional human services and tenant development opportunities 
"Would allow community housing providers like Compass to help the movement of some social housing tenants into the private rental sector and home ownership, thereby releasing old social housing stock for redevelopment or sale with monies raised reinvested in the provision of greater numbers of new and more appropriate dwellings."
Stock transfer 
"Secondly, following UK experience, we know that significant stock transfer creates the opportunity for organisations to become major agents in housing supply. As capacity and confidence develops, a wider range of human and support services emerge to support tenants. 
"Additionally, favourable borrowing conditions for social housing, not-for-profit organisations encourage entry into direct building of social housing as well as the supply of local infrastructure including schools and medical facilities." 
Innovative funding arrangements for community-housing providers 
"Finally, community-housing providers are able to enter innovative funding arrangements with private sector partners, often through the creation of special purpose vehicles (SPVs). 
"SPVs can bring important capital sources to the social housing market and involve major home building agents within a framework in which the community provider manages tenancies and provides human services and tenant support systems."
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Home ownership may be limited to the top tax bracket: Compass Housing Services

<html><body>
 
<img src="/images/2015/07/08/NBtax_PO_SponsoredLogoLink-01.jpg" alt="">
SPONSORED POST
Napier &amp; Blakeley this month are proud to launch NBtax, a breakthrough online property tax depreciation service to help property investors maximise their returns.  
Louise Hegarty talks with Chris Page, Napier &amp; Blakeley’s National Manager of New Projects about the revolutionary product that just had to happen.
“Over 70% of property owners under-claim their property tax depreciation allowances and many don't even claim them at all,” says Chris.
“It's a property investor's secret weapon for better cash flow yet sadly is widely misunderstood.  So we've created a simple solution that will help maximise a property investor’s return while making the whole process easier.”
Called NBtax, the online request service uses current technology to access Napier &amp; Blakeley's specialist property tax depreciation Quantity Surveyors.
“NBtax means investment property owners can start the process quickly and easily without the need to spend too much time going to and fro.
"Once you submit the required information, our expert teams get on with tailoring your property tax depreciation schedule, setting you up for the depreciable life of your investment.”
“We, Napier &amp; Blakeley, were the first in Australia to provide specialist property tax depreciation advice in the mid 80’s, and thirty years later we’re still the market leaders.
"A professional property tax depreciation schedule can boost your cash flow potentially by tens of thousands of dollars over the life of your investment.”
Yet many property owners stumble here, says Chris.
“A simple lack of knowledge and the specialist nature of depreciation means investors under-claim and at times even avoid the process often missing out on thousands. A poorly calculated property tax depreciation schedule is mostly likely costing you money right now!”
And no property is too old or small to benefit, Chris adds.
“Commercial, residential or industrial, brand new, renovated or just old, every investment property has the potential to further increase your cash-flow.
There's money sitting there waiting to be claimed. It's just a matter of taking the first step in the right direction, and that's where NBtax comes in.”
We all know that reducing our taxable income means one thing – more money in our pockets. It’s now easier and faster than ever before – with NBtax.
To find out more about NBtax, <a href="https://www.nbtax.com.au" target="_blank">click here</a>. 
</body></html>

NBtax is here, just in time for FY2015 tax time: Napier & Blakeley

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
Investing in rental property through a self-managed superannuation fund offers tax advantages which, for many people, will be even greater than the tax benefits of investing in property directly. 
The first advantage stems from the fact that money going into superannuation is taxed at a low rate. 
Most people receive 9.5% of their employment income as contributions to superannuation. In addition to these employer contributions, individuals can voluntarily add up to $30,000 in pre-tax wages to their super fund through a salary sacrifice arrangement.
These types of contributions are taxed within the super fund at 15%, rather than the marginal tax rate that applies to income taken outside of the fund.
Say your annual salary is $120,000 plus 9.5% superannuation, which comes out at $11,400. 
In the 2014-15 financial year, the marginal tax rate on an income of $120,000 is 39.5% including the Medicare levy. You will pay tax of $33,347 on your salary.
The $11,400 contributed to superannuation is taxed at 15%, so the fund pays $1710 in tax. 
The total bill for income tax plus tax the superannuation fund pays is $35,057. 
If you were to salary sacrifice $30,000 of your pay into superannuation, leaving you with $90,000 outside of the fund, you’d pay $21,497 in income tax and the superannuation fund would pay $4500 in tax on the $30,000 salary sacrifice contribution. Add that to the $1710 on the $11,400 compulsory contribution and the total tax bill is $27,707.
That’s a tax saving of $7350 a year, giving you more to invest.
Tax in the fund
Earnings and capital gains made inside a superannuation fund, like contributions, are taxed at 15% while the fund is in its accumulation phase, where members are adding to its balance. 
Capital gains are also taxed at a discounted rate if the property has been held for more than 12 months. While a 50% discount applies to capital gains made on directly-owned property, the CGT discount for property owned through an SMSF is lower, at one-third of the gain. However, the total tax bill may end up being less as the following example demonstrates.
If an SMSF sells a property it has held for five years and makes a $150,000 capital gain, it would have to pay tax on $100,000 of the gain. At the 15% SMSF tax rate, the CGT tax bill is $15,000. 
The same property held outside superannuation would qualify for a 50% discount on the capital gain, so tax would be payable on $75,000. If the owner earned more than $80,000 in the tax year, putting their marginal tax rate at 39.5%, tax on the gain would be $29,625. That’s $14,625 more than the fund had to pay. 
Where SMSFs have the biggest advantage over holding property in your own name is when the property is sold after retirement. 
Capital gains and other earnings are tax-free when the SMSF members have retired and are drawing a pension from the fund. 
If the SMSF member whose property made the $150,000 capital gain above had sold the property after they retired, the fund would have paid no tax on the gain. 
In contrast, a retiree who sells a property held in their own name making a $150,000 capital gain would still have to pay tax on the gain, even if they had no other income. In this case, after the CGT discount, the person’s taxable income for the year would be $75,000 and their tax bill would be $16,682. 
Expenses and deductions
SMSFs can claim the same deductions for property expenses and depreciation as individuals who invest in property in their own name.
Deductible expenses included charges such as agent fees, body corporate fees, council rates and maintenance costs. Draft legislation released in January confirmed that if the property was purchased with borrowed money, the SMSF can also claim interest costs as a tax deduction.
In general, assets valued at over $300 must be depreciated. The fund can also claim depreciation costs for the building itself if it was constructed after July 17, 1985.
To claim depreciation, the SMSF needs to obtain a depreciation schedule, usually prepared by an independent valuer. 
Expenses and depreciation costs are deducted against the income the property generates, reducing the tax liability. 
Property held inside an SMSF can be positively or negatively geared. If it is negatively geared, it’s important to make sure the fund has sufficient cash flow to service the debt without help from outside. This can come from other investment income within the fund, or through member contributions as long as they don’t exceed the maximum amounts.
</body></html>

Tax advantage in rental investment through SMSF: Forrester Cohen 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The current international tax regime was developed in the last century when the internet was not yet invented.
At that time, a foreign company would typically require a substantial physical presence in Australia before it could be in a position to earn significant amount of income from Australian customers. This is what’s known in the tax world as permanent establishment.
The concept of permanent establishment is embedded in most domestic tax laws as well as virtually all the 3,000 plus tax treaties in the world. It dictates that in general, business profits of a foreign company will be subject to tax in Australia only if the company has a permanent establishment in Australia. In other words, the ATO cannot tax a foreign company’s profits if it has no permanent establishment in Australia.
The recent hearings of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance made it clear the tax structures of Uber, Airbnb, like their older peers Google and Microsoft, are designed to ensure income from Australian customers is earned by a foreign company that does not have a permanent establishment here. The permanent establishment concept is not effective for today’s digital economy.
<h2>Uber’s business and tax structure</h2>
Take Uber, which though established in the US, has a wholly-owned subsidiary in the Netherlands, which in turn has a wholly-owned subsidiary in Australia.
The most important asset of Uber is its digital platform that supports the app linking individual drivers and their customers. It’s unlikely this app was developed in the Netherlands. Despite this, Uber-Netherlands has the right to book income generated from customers in Australia.
For example, if a customer pays $100 for a ride in Sydney booked through the Uber app, the money is in fact paid to Uber-Netherlands. Out of the $100, Uber pays the driver about $75. The gross profit of $25 is booked in the Netherlands. This is so even though the transaction happens largely in Australia, including the driver, the customer and the ride.
Uber-Australia receives a service fee from Uber-Netherlands for its marketing and support services performed in Australia. The fee is determined based on the operating costs of Uber-Australia, plus a mark-up of 8.5%. The mark-up is effectively the taxable profit of Uber in Australia under its tax structure.
<h2>Airbnb’s business and tax structure</h2>
Airbnb, another young business founded in the US, has a structure very similar to that of Uber. Airbnb’s parent company in the US has a wholly-owned subsidiary in Ireland, which in turn has a wholly owned subsidiary in Australia.
Airbnb charges fees to both hosts and guests for accommodation booking through its digital platform. Instead of Airbnb-Australia, Airbnb-Ireland books the fee income generated from accommodation bookings in Australia. This is so even if the host, the guest and the accommodation are all in Australia. For example, if a Sydneysider uses the Airbnb app to book accommodation in Melbourne, the payment is in fact paid to Airbnb-Ireland. The host of the accommodation is then paid by Airbnb-Ireland which charges a fee of 3%.
Airbnb-Australia is responsible for the marketing activities in Australia. It receives a service fee from Airbnb-Ireland for those activities, and the fee is again computed based on its operating costs plus a mark-up.
<h2>Déjà vu – Google and Microsoft</h2>
Comparing the tax structures of Uber and Airbnb with that of Google and Microsoft reveals striking similarities. It suggests that the appetite for tax planning is comparable between established and relatively “young” technology companies.
The common pattern: a parent company in the US establishes wholly owned subsidiaries in market jurisdictions (such as Australia) as well as in low-tax countries.
While the commercial reality is that all companies in a group are effectively one single enterprise, the tax law in general treats each company as a separate taxpayer.
On one hand, the Australian subsidiary typically is responsible for marketing and support services that have to be physically done in Australia, and earns a service fee on a cost plus basis. The amount of profits subject to tax in Australia is usually very small compared to the income generated from Australian customers.
On the other hand, intellectual properties – which are often the most important and valuable assets of technology companies – are located in low-tax jurisdictions such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Singapore. This structure allows those low-tax subsidiaries to book the income generated from customers in Australia, and effectively shields the income from the Australian tax net.
<h2>Policy responses</h2>
Action item 1 of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) project is “tax challenges of digital economy”.
The original intention of the OECD was to explore how the 20th century international tax regime should be reformed in response to the digital economy in the 21st century. It quickly realised it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve international consensus on the intended reform. The often conflicting and vested interests among countries present a formidable obstacle to international consensus on meaningful reform of the international tax regime.
Instead of relying on the BEPS project to resolve the issue, Australia has followed the lead of the UK and is in the process of introducing the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law – commonly known as the Google tax– to address the issue. As the new law incorporates concepts that are new and untested, it is not clear whether it will be effective.
In any case, it’s important to remember that multinational corporations are very agile. They may replace their “avoided permanent establishment” structures to circumvent any Google tax or to incorporate new tax avoidance tools.
 
Antony Ting is associate professor, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/antony-ting-117958" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

How Airbnb are reducing their Australian tax bill

<html><body>
The ACT Government has recommitted to its long term plan to abolish conveyance duty paid on homes.
ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, in the submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership, highlighted taxes as one of the key issues. 
"We consider that competition in demand for housing from investors is an area for further consideration. We note the benefits of investment in terms of increasing supply, which helps overall affordability. However it can also impact on opportunities for first homebuyers to enter the market.
"The ACT Government's role is outlined in the Affordable Housing Action Plan (AHAP), which commenced in 2007. The Plan, now in Phase III, includes 94 objectives aimed at making housing more affordable for all Canberrans. It has been a key contributor in responding to housing demand and providing a welcome economic boost to the Territory.
"Data from the 2011 Census shows that in the ACT, the rate of the home ownership is 60%, with 87,700 of the 145,500 homes either owned or in the process of being purchased. Of the remaining dwellings, there are around 30,250 private rentals and 9,500 public properties."
As shown in the table, the proportion of investment housing relative to owner-occupied housing is 26%.
<a href="/images/2015/08/19/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-19%20at%203.43.22%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/08/19/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-19%20at%203.43.22%20PM.png" alt="">
"The Government has a long term plan to abolish conveyance duty paid on homes. This will make homes more affordable to more Canberrans, by significantly reducing the upfront costs for homebuyers. 
"It will also encourage greater turnover of properties, which leads to a better allocation of housing stock."
 
</body></html>

ACT Government calls for home conveyance duty to be scrapped

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Studies of European countries show that bank taxes similar to the 0.06% bank levy introduced by the government in the 2017 federal budget will be largely borne by customers, not shareholders.
The levy could also make the banking system more, rather than less risky. The fact that a bank is asked to pay the levy is a confirmation that it is “too big to fail”. This could in turn encourage riskier behaviour. The levy might also trigger a higher probability of default by reducing a bank’s after-tax profitability
But it is difficult to say whether banks will pass the levy on to customers by increasing their loan rates, fees or both.
In its response to the levy, NAB confirmed it will not just be borne by shareholders:
The levy is not just on banks, it is a tax on every Australian who benefits from, and is part of, the banking industry. This includes NAB’s 10 million customers, 570,000 direct NAB shareholders, those who own NAB shares through their superannuation, our 1,700 suppliers and NAB’s 34,000 employees. The levy cannot be absorbed; it will be borne by these people.
Aware of this problem, the government has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to undertake an inquiry into residential mortgage pricing. The ACCC can require banks to explain changes to mortgage pricing and fees.
When banks pass on these taxes
The bank levy is similar to taxes recently introduced by some G20 economies, including the UK. These had the dual purpose of raising revenues and stabilising the balance sheets of large banks in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
An analysis of bank taxes in the UK and 13 other European Union countries shows that the extent to which taxes are passed on to customers depends on how concentrated the banking industry is.
The more the industry is dominated by a small number of banks, the greater the share of the tax that is passed on to customers and the less that is borne by shareholders. In more concentrated industries customers have relatively fewer alternative options and therefore tend to be less mobile across banks. This in turn gives the large banks greater market power to increase interest rates and fees without losing customers.
Australia’s banking industry is quite concentrated. In fact, we’re around the middle of the pack of OECD countries, much higher than the US, but lower than some European countries. From this we can surmise that at least some of the cost of the bank levy here will be passed on to borrowers through higher loan rates, fees or both.
An IMF study of G20 countries suggests that a levy of 20 basis points (i.e. 0.2%, approximately three times higher than the Australian government’s bank levy), could lead to an increase in loan rates of between 5 and 10 basis points. This means that the monthly repayment on a loan (assuming an initial rate of 5.5%) would increase by approximately A$6 for every A$100,000 borrowed.
The IMF also found that the bank levy doesn’t just hit customers. A 0.2% levy would reduce banks’ asset growth rate by approximately 0.05% and permanently lower real GDP by 0.3%.
The impact on customers
If the banks pass on the levy to customers then it becomes just another indirect tax, similar to the GST. The question then is whether this is regressive - does it have a greater impact on those on lower incomes than higher incomes.
Lower income earners are likely to borrow less than higher income earners. However, lower income earners are also less able to bear an interest rate increase. They are also more likely to be excluded from borrowing when the cost of borrowing increases.
In this sense, then, if the bank levy is passed on to customers it could become a barrier to home ownership for some lower income borrowers.
More generally, if the value of bank transactions is a higher proportion of low incomes than of high incomes, then the bank levy would operate as a regressive tax and contribute to sharpening (rather than smoothing) inequalities.
Both of these would be unintended, but undesirable, consequences of the levy.
Fabrizio Carmignani is a Professor at Griffith Business School, Griffith University. 
Ross Guest is a Professor of Economics and National Senior Teaching Fellow, Griffith University.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77782/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="font-size: 12.16px; line-height: 1.3em;">
All authors are for <a href="https://theconversation.com/research-shows-the-banks-will-pass-the-bank-levy-on-to-customers-77782" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Research shows the banks will pass the bank levy on to customers

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Hard-pressed ratepayers in New South Wales and Queensland need no reminding of the perils of municipal amalgamation. 
NSW experienced a sharp dose of forced mergers in 2004. Queenslanders underwent draconian council consolidation under the Beattie government in 2008.
NSW is now on the cusp of a further round of mergers being inflicted on unwilling councils.
In all three cases, the architects of compulsory amalgamation have been under the sway of the dogma that “bigger is better” in local government. Ratepayers are told amalgamation will herald a new dawn of lower rates, cheaper services, improved service quality, enhanced financial viability and superior administration and planning.
In NSW, the Baird government has especially emphasised the financial advantages of municipal amalgamation. These claims are typically presented as the outcome of careful research and deliberation.
Mergers tested in a real-world experiment
Are these claims consistent with the empirical evidence? My colleagues Brian Bell and Joseph Drew and I investigated this question for NSW’s 2004 forced amalgamations.
We took advantage of being able to use 2014 data to compare the performance of merged councils with their unmerged counterparts over ten years.
We compared amalgamated “general purpose” councils with their un-amalgamated peer councils in the same local government classification. We thus had the benefit of a “natural experiment”, being able to compare the two groups of “like” councils against a common set of performance indicators.
Our peer-reviewed research paper will be published shortl<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://esa.snapdev.com.au/news/15991">y</a>.
The criteria we used for this comparison included four the Baird government is using under its “Fit for the Future” program – operating performance, own-source revenue, building and infrastructure renewal, and asset maintenance ratios – as well as council employees per capita.
We found no statistically significant differences in the performance of the two groups of councils against these criteria. This falsifies past claims by the Carr Labor government that its forced amalgamations would substantially improve NSW local government financial performance. It also undermines the Baird Coalition government’s claims for its proposed mergers.
Evidence mounts against ‘bigger is better’
Other research provides additional damning evidence. For example, Joseph Drew, Mike Kortt and I examined the outcomes of forced amalgamations in Queensland in 2008. These reduced the number of councils from 157 to just 73.
Our research demonstrated that this resulted in a greater proportion of councils exhibiting diseconomies of scale. That is, mergers created entities that were simply too large to be run efficiently.
Furthermore, of the 31 new councils the mergers created, 58% exhibit decreasing returns to scale. Comparing their efficiency through time, we found merged councils performed worse than unmerged councils.
Finally, Elizabeth Sinnewe, Mike Kortt and I recently tested the claim that “bigger is better” by examining the financial performance of Australia’s largest council by population, Brisbane City. In our recently published analysis, we compared Brisbane City Council to Sydney City Council, the average of six southeast Queensland councils and the average of ten metropolitan NSW councils.
We did so using four measures of financial performance – financial flexibility, liquidity, debt service capacity and asset management. Between 2008 and 2011, the three comparator groups outperformed Brisbane Council in financial flexibility, liquidity and debt-servicing ability.
Taken together, these three papers cast doubt over the continuing dogma that “bigger is better”. They also add to the empirical literature on municipal mergers by demonstrating that “biggest is not best” either.
In particular, the financial performance of local authorities does not improve as advocates of amalgamation contend. On the contrary, amalgamated municipalities often perform worse than their unmerged counterparts.
Amid the controversy over the Baird government’s compulsory council consolidation program, our findings underline the foolishness of making public policy in an “evidence-free” manner.
If forced amalgamations proceed, we may well see hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer and ratepayer funds squandered simply because policymakers preferred dogma to empirical evidence.
Brian Dollery is professor of economics and director of the Centre for Local Government, University of New England and author for The Conversation. He can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-dollery-162945" target="_blank">contacted here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Do mergers make for better councils? The evidence is against ‘bigger is better’ for local government

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Through ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28 the ATO seem to have cemented their position in relation to the application of s 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) to related party limited recourse borrowing arrangements (‘LRBAs’). 
Importantly, the ATO has since <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/Non-arm-s-length-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">confirmed</a> that their approach to this issue in future private rulings and litigation will be consistent with their view in ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28.
In December 2014, DBA Lawyers director Daniel Butler noted that: 
SMSFs that are not benchmarked should consider doing so before any ATO audit activity occurs. Hopefully, the ATO may provide an amnesty to encourage SMSFs to benchmark to arm’s length. The big question here is whether the ATO will require retrospective adjustment.
Well it appears that the hoped-for amnesty has arrived. At a meeting of the Superannuation Industry Relationship Network on 10 November 2015 the ATO confirmed that SMSF trustees should review their LRBAs to determine whether they were established and maintained on terms that are consistent with an arm’s length dealing. While not certain, it also appears that the ATO <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/Non-arm-s-length-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements/" target="_blank">will not require retrospective adjustment</a>, stating that
We will not be selecting an SMSF for review for the 2014-15 year or earlier years purely because the fund has entered into an LRBA.
The ATO is to be commended for this pragmatic and fair approach. Allowing SMSF trustees to review and amend their loan terms seems fair and reasonable, particularly given various uncertainties that existed up until recently regarding related party LRBAs.
The amnesty is not open ended however, with SMSF trustees being encouraged to take the actions suggested before 30 June 2016. From that time:
The Commissioner may allocate compliance resources to review an LRBA of an SMSF for the 2015-16 year or later years.
Further, while the ATO is not dedicating compliance resources to review an LRBA of an SMSF until 1 July 2016, if the ATO come across an SMSF with a non-commercial LRBA via their usual activity in the meantime, the income of the SMSF might be taxed at the non-arm’s length income tax rate of 47% in accordance with s 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). It is clear then that it is in the best interests of SMSF trustees to get their house in order sooner rather than later. 
So what does this mean for SMSF trustees with an LRBA related party loan?
We understand that with a diminishing number of banks willing to lend to SMSFs, related party loans may seem like an appealing option. However SMSF trustees need to be careful to ensure that related party loans are strictly on an arm’s length basis to prevent SMSF income being NALI.
For those looking to enter into a new LRBA with a related party lender, proper benchmarking is crucial. In practical terms this means approaching a number of bank/unrelated lenders and obtaining quotes for the kind of loan terms they would offer to the SMSF in their particular circumstances, and then ensuring that the related party loan mirrors the terms offered by the unrelated lenders. For those who have already entered into an LRBA with a related party lender, now is the time to closely review your LRBA to ensure that it will stand up to ATO scrutiny. 
Favourable loan terms which may suggest that a related party loan is not on an arm’s length basis include:
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201528%2F00001%22" target="_blank">loans with 0%</a> or low non-commercial interest;
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201528%2F00001%22" target="_blank">high loan to value ratios</a>; and
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201527%2F00001%22" target="_blank">single lump sum repayment</a> at the end of the loan term rather than regular periodic repayments.
Further Training and Assistance
Advisers can brush up on the key considerations by signing up for <a href="https://www.dbanetwork.com.au/dbalawyers/seminars3/2712/3722/SMSF-Core-Course" target="_blank">Unit 10: LRBAs in the DBA Lawyers Core Course</a>. DBA Lawyers also offers a <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-borrowing-alter-terms/" target="_blank">service of altering the terms of an existing LRBA borrowing</a> and also <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-borrowing-loan-refinance/" target="_blank">prepares documents to refinance an existing LRBA borrowing</a>.
Those who are concerned that the favourable terms of their related party loan may give rise to NALI should seriously consider changing the terms of their loan to ensure that the parties are in the same position they would have been in had they dealt at arm’s length. While the ATO are yet to define a ‘safe harbour’ it is certainly prudent to mitigate the risks by having well-documented ‘benchmark’ evidence to indicate arm’s length terms and conditions.
Philippa Briglia is lawyer and Bryce Figot is director, DBA Lawyers and can be contacted <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

tax

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

tax