Smsfs

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The fastest growing sector in the economy today is not mining, retailing or even education. It’s superannuation, which accounts for almost 30% more than the total savings held by the banking and mutual sector.
Self-managed superannuation is the fastest growing form of investment vehicle.
This has altered the landscape of both property and share investment. In the property market there are well-established regulations and safeguards. The stock market is a different story.
The proposed takeover of David Jones by the South African-based Woolworths and the deal made by Woolworths to buy Solomon Lew’s stake in David Jones, who happens to own an equally large share of Country Road (another takeover target of Woolworths), highlights the problem.
The board of the takeover target recommends to its shareholders what to do, but there is no formal requirement for shareholder approval. It’s assumed if the shareholders sell, that’s their approval. If they don’t sell, they don’t approve.
In the case of David Jones, a wealthy, assertive investor is getting a side deal not available to other investors.
Why should this happen?
In other countries, a formal takeover requires shareholder approval, thus discouraging side deals to occur where some walk away with large profits and others get what they can.
David Jones
The David Jones takeover provided an opportunity for some to simply profiteer, to the extent they could make more money linking this deal with others, thus cornering Woolworths to pay for deals it may not have planned.
If anything, the David Jones scenario raises questions as to whether a takeover of this nature is manipulative, unfair to ordinary shareholders and a distortion of the market mechanism.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has intervened, asking questions about the side deal protecting the interests of David Jones' shareholders by intervening in Woolworths' $2.2 billion takeover bid for David Jones.
As ASIC threatens to withhold its consent to the scheme of arrangement, a core part of the $2.2 billion takeover is arguing that a collateral benefit to one shareholder is not available to the other shareholders. The board is so keen to push the takeover that they are prepared to sell the takeover on the basis that the millions made on the side by Lew should not kill the deal.
Directors should of course be supporting the interest of the company as a whole and of all the shareholders. In the past the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/dec/14/australia.theairlineindustry">Allco Finance Group takeover of Qantas</a> had the same set of facts. A takeover favouring those few in particular linked to the board is a further reason for ASIC’s intervention.
ASIC is not about increasing share prices - it’s about access to a fair price. If one shareholder gets a huge side bonus which increases the prices, should those getting the crumbs be happy? Are their shares the same of those getting the bonus?
ASIC had failed in the Federal Court to force David Jones to secure an <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/asic-steps-into-david-jones-country-road-battles-with-demand-for-independent-valuation-20140702-zstnq">independent valuation of the “collateral benefit”</a> that Woolworths was offering to one of its shareholders simply to buy his support for the David Jones scheme of arrangement. ASIC can always withhold a letter of consent for the scheme, on the grounds that all David Jones shareholders are not being treated equally.
In response, David Jones has provided shareholders with additional information to help show shareholders how this deal was done.
All this could be resolved if shareholders were given the complete, true facts in an accessible manner, and if takeover predators were forced to make the same offer to all and let shareholders decide.
Why the loophole exists
Law reform in the area of takeovers is well overdue and belongs to another age. Unlisted companies don’t require shareholder approval for takeovers on the presumption that shareholders don’t have enough information. The idea is public information and scrutiny aren’t as readily available as for listed companies.
This thought process belongs to a pre-internet era and is not very relevant today. The rule has been kept as it tends to favour larger investors who play the game of takeover and sales. Allowing other smaller shareholders more power would complicate the game, which explains why governments have kept their distance from changing these laws.
The world has moved on, and it’s only a matter of time before the predators and profiteers further manipulate the hordes of superannuation investors in the market to extract extraordinary profits.
It’s time for a closer look at shareholders' rights, together with the regulation of the market place, to discourage two-tier takeover offers - one for the well-connected and aggressive market operators and another for the other shareholders.
Michael Peters is lecturer at <a href="https://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Australian School of Business</a>.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

To protect SMSF investors the stock market needs the same safeguards property has

<html><body>
Three Charterhill entities owe creditors a combined $11.5 million, according to the latest presentation of accounts.
The Adelaide-based group offered a range of services including SMSF advice, mortgage broking, real estate marketing, property management along with contract negotiation.
Charterhill Group entered insolvency in January, with many clients now caught in the wreckage of chartered accountant George Nowak’s empire.
Some related Charterhill entities are among the unsecured creditors, with about 110 clients having been caught up in the collapse having paid deposits for property purchases, previous reports suggested.
The three of the Charterhill companies have collected just the $25,000 in payments, according to their six-month presentation of accounts, The Advisor said.
The companies are under the control of the receiver, Michael Basedow of Pitcher Partners or under the control of the liquidator, Andrew Heard of Heard Phillips. 
The Charterhill Group operated as a “one-stop shop”, providing advice to clients on the establishment of self-managed superannuation funds, rollover of existing super funds into an SMSF, sourcing and purchase of investment properties, property management, insurance and taxation.
It companies included, Nova Real Estate — in administration; Lending Solutions International — in liquidation; EJ Property Developments (EJPD) (formerly known as Charterhill Group and Bentley Capital) — in receivership and Financial Wellness (trading as EZ Residential) — in receivership.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Charterhill owes $11.5 million to creditors

<html><body>
Westpac has called for the introduction of additional regulatory requirements before any SMSF can be established, in its response to the Financial System Inquiry’s interim report.
The bank says "suitability" remained the most important policy consideration in light of the complexity, ongoing administration and unique risks.
Westpac propose a test requiring an adviser or accountant to be satisfied the benefits from the establishment of the SMSF clearly outweigh the risk.
Westpac suggested the current take-up of borrowing by SMSFs has been a “rational” response to the current policy and tax settings, but has encouraged the inquiry to possibly consider how appropriate caps could ensure leverage does not become a systemic risk.
It also said the current level of official data, and oversight and analysis of the systemic implications of the SMSF sector were insufficient, given the sector’s size and continuing growth rate.
“This poses important issues for the government and SMSF members, including risk of shortfalls in retirement savings due to poor management and/ or mismanagement; calls to compensate SMSF members in the event of a failure; and poor understanding of the economic and financial system implications of the sector,” Westpac stated.
</body></html>

Westpac sees SMSF borrowing as rational, but seeks to avoid systemic risk prospect

<html><body>
Self-managed super funds have significantly outperformed their APRA-regulated rivals in six out of the past eight years, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wealth/those-who-dare-to-diy-set-the-pace-on-super/story-e6frgac6-1226956597252">reports the Australian</a>.
A report from National Australia Bank shows that on average SMSFs had beaten APRA-regulated funds by 22.5% over the period, after paying all costs.
The numbers indicate a $500,000 investment in an SMSF at the start of the 2004-05 financial year would have returned $345,571 net by the end of the 2012 financial year, compared with the average APRA-regulated fund returning $190,100 net.
Recent figures from the Australian Taxation Office show SMSFs have grown by 26.5% to reach more than 1 million members.
The SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia (SPAA) chief executive Andrea Slattery said recently: “The number of trustees and members exceeding 1 million is an important milestone for the SMSF industry, clearly demonstrating that there is a growing number of people wanting to take direct responsibility for their retirement savings”.
David Gall, executive general manager of banking and wealth solutions at NAB, told the Australian the results showed SMSFs were not a one-hit wonder.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

SMSFs are a better bet than rival super funds: NAB

<html><body>
Suggestions that young and naïve investors are rushing to set up self-managed super funds have been debunked by figures from the Australian Taxation Office.
Graeme Colley, director of technical and professional standards at SMSF Professionals' Association of Australia (SPAA), told SmartCompany that despite an increase in <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/superannuation/35704-younger-generation-interest-in-smsf-on-the-rise">popularity with the younger generation</a>, the latest statistics show SMSFs are still very much the heartland of the wealthy and the mature.
“From what we see, it’s still the 50 plus category,” says Colley.
The September ATO figures show the greatest proportion of SMSFs are funds of between $200,000 and $2 million. The number of funds within this range has risen from 63.9% in 2009-10, to 65.7% in 2012-13.
In contrast, funds under $150,000 have been in a decline over this four-period from 20.5% to 17.2%.
Colley says there has been unfounded media speculation young people were rushing into setting up SMSFs.
“What the industry didn’t want to see happen was people brashly going into SMSFs without seeing if it was the right option for them. But we are not seeing that from these figures,” says Colley.
Colley says while the popularity of SMSFs is certainly on the increase, there has been a “steady as she goes” approach to SMSF investment.
“It’s more of a ‘look before you leap’ situation, we don’t want a runaway freight train,” he says.
Colley believes there has recently been a considerable focus given to the education and training of SMSF managers, in the wake of <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/politics/44700-fofa-changes-scrapped-by-senators-as-financial-planners-plead-for-certainty" target="_blank">changes to the financial planning industry.</a>
He says the ATO statistics also put to bed the myth that SMSFs with low balances have an "unhealthy" concentration of their assets in residential property.
“That doesn’t seem to be the case. Funds with property investment seem to be in the $300,000-$400,000 plus range. It is a common sense investment, rather than people with massive mortgages.”
"The notion that SMSFs are piling into residential property with their ears pinned back is simply not supported by the ATO figures,” says Colley.
The SPAA expects another 20,000 SMSF will be created in 2015.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

krobb-aCrRNnPq6D

SMSFs still the heartland of the mature and wealthy 

<html><body>
The Federal Treasury's Murray Financial System Inquiry has recommended that self-managed superannuation funds be banned from borrowing to buy assets such as property and shares.
There is no indication the recommendation will be accepted, or how it may be implemented, but the spectre could see the current levels of SMSF property investors further elevated before any announcement in 2015 of changes or grandfathering of the current rules.
<div title="Page 118">
In implementing the recommendation, Murray says funds with existing borrowings should be permitted to maintain those borrowings.
Funds disposing of assets purchased via direct borrowing would be required to extinguish the associated debt at the same time.
<div title="Page 117">
<div>
<div>
Over the past five years, the amount of funds borrowed using LRBAs increased almost 18 times, from $497 million in June 2009 to $8.7 billion in June 2014.
The inquiry opted against imposing a maximum cap on fund assets that can be invested in a single asset other than cash or bonds, saying it would impose additional regulation, complexity and compliance costs on the superannuation system. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
David Murray, chairman of the Financial System Inquiry, said the panel recommended a removal of the exception to the general prohibition on direct borrowing for limited recourse borrowing arrangements by superannuation funds.
</div>
One reason for the recommendation was that it would fulfil the objective for superannuation to be a savings vehicle for retirement income, rather than a broader wealth management vehicle. 
“Restoring the original prohibition on direct borrowing by superannuation funds would preserve the strengths and benefits the superannuation system has delivered to individuals, the financial system and the economy and limit the risks to tax payers,” the report also said.
After borrowings within super funds have risen to $8.7 billion, the FSI noting the level of borrowing was relatively low, but could pose a risk to the financial system.
“Further growth in superannuation funds’ direct borrowing would, over time, increase risk in the financial system,” the report stated.
“Borrowing, even with LRBAs, magnifies the gains and losses from fluctuations in the prices of assets held in funds and increases the probability of large losses within a fund.”
The FSI recommended the government should remove section 67A of the SIS Act on a "prospective basis".
The report noted that lenders can charge higher interest rates given the higher risks associated with limited recourse lending, and often required personal guarantees from SMSF trustees.
There were 44 recommendations to the government from the inquiry, the first wide scale review of the financial system in 17 years. Treasurer Joe Hockey will respond next year.
Previous financial system inquiries, including the Campbell Report in 1981 and Wallis Report in 1997, were the catalysts for major economic reforms in Australia. The Campbell Report led to the floating of the Australian dollar and the deregulation of the financial sector.
The Wallis Inquiry led to streamlined financial services regulation, the creation of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), and the current form of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
</body></html>

SMSFs to rush further into property after borrowing ban looms following Murray Financial System Inquiry

<html><body>
The unfulfilled dream of countless small business owners is to run an active business through their self-managed super fund (SMSF).
The typical driver is to pay tax at half the corporate rate or no tax once the super fund is in the pension phase.
During his 40-plus years advising SMSFs, Martin Murden has had at least one request a year from fund trustees for advice about whether they can operate a business, such as a corner shop, through a self-managed fund.
But Murden, a director of SMSF consulting and auditing with the Partners Wealth Group, says none of these trustees to his knowledge has gone ahead and operated a business through their SMSF after listening to his warnings.
While Murden says that the law does not, in theory, prohibit SMSFs from running active businesses, various superannuation and trust laws make it highly impractical.
Here are five questions that fund trustees should ask themselves before trying to setup an active business in their SMSFs:
<ol>
<li>
Will your fund still comply with the sole-purpose test if running a business? This is the biggest stumbling block to an SMSF operating an active business. Under the sole purpose test, a super fund must be maintained for the purpose of providing retirement or death benefits to members. Indeed, Stuart Jones, author of the Australian Superannuation Handbook 2014-15, published by Thomson Reuters, writes that the Tax Office, as self-managed super regulator, “generally considers” an SMSF is breaching the sole-purpose test if conducting a business. 
</li>
<li>
Does your SMSF trust deed allow the fund to operate an active business? An SMSF may not be permitted by trust law to carry out a business unless expressly empowered under its trust deed, Jones warns. 
</li>
<li>
Can your SMSF business operate without an overdraft? Murden says the strict limits on borrowing by an SMSF will prevent the fund having an overdraft. SMSF are prohibited from borrowing except in limited circumstances. An SMSF can borrow for up to 90 days to pay a member benefit or to cover the settlement of securities such as shares and bonds. (Such loans must not exceed 10% of a fund’s assets.) 
</li>
<li>
Will your SMSF business have to pay cash for its trading stock? An SMSF is prohibited from lending to members or relatives of members, Murden stresses. 
</li>
<li>
Will your SMSF business employ members or relatives of members? While superannuation law does not prohibit a fund from employing members and relatives, their employment may encourage the Tax Office, as SMSF regulator, to take a closer look.
</li>
</ol>
Jones says the regulator may look at the “stated rationale” for employing family members and at the level of income.
In regard to salaries paid to family members, Murden points to provisions in superannuation law requiring funds to conduct their affairs on an arm’s length, commercial basis.
An inflated salary paid to a family member would also be an issue under the sole-purpose test.
As Murden says, it is common for SME owners to own their business premises through their SMSFs. Business real estate is among the few types of assets that SMSFs are permitted to acquire from their members and other related parties.
And business real estate is one of the few types of assets that funds can lease to related parties – including fund members and their businesses – without a restriction on its value.
However, running an active business through an SMSF is much harder to achieve without breaching superannuation and trust laws.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

mlaurence-vhAHaLZT8y

Five questions you should ask before trying to run a business through an SMSF

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Self-managed super funds are, and have been, flavour of the month for some time now.
The opportunities SMSFs provide for people to control their retirement incomes can be attractive. Of course, running such a fund has its own costs and the person in control (the trustee) has the onus to ensure the fund performs at an acceptable level.
But there are many rules and regulations that govern SMSFs and they can be a trap for the unwary. A recent Federal Court decision shows what can go wrong.
In the case, the Federal Court imposed civil penalties of $13,000 (plus $5000 in costs) for each of three directors of the corporate trustee of an SMSF in relation to breaches of the superannuation laws involving short-term loans to a related business.
The first respondent, Early Sunshine, was the corporate trustee of the SMSF known as the George MacDonald &amp; Sons Superannuation Scheme No 2. The other three respondents are the directors of Early Sunshine Pty Ltd.
Over a four-year period from 2007 to 2011, the three directors caused the SMSF to make 71 loans to the freight trucking business George MacDonald &amp; Sons of which the respondents were employees, directors and shareholders. The freight trucking business lost its principal customer in 2001 and began to experience significant financial stress in 2007-08 amid the global financial crisis.
Typically, the loans were outstanding for only a few weeks at a time and used to cover the working capital of the business (primarily to pay salaries and wages). A total of $553,568 in loans was made by the SMSF to George MacDonald &amp; Sons.
Each of the 71 separate loans was less than $20,000 (with an average of $7,768). The loans were unsecured and did not bear interest but each loan was ultimately repaid in full. The SMSF also made a $2000 loan to a company controlled by one of the respondents. This loan was unsecured but was repaid on demand with 8.5% interest.
In August 2009, the SMSF's auditor lodged the first of several auditor contravention reports for the relevant years noting breaches of the superannuation law in relation to the loans. The reports recorded breaches of the sole purpose test, the in-house asset rules and the arm's length dealing requirement.
In October 2011, the Tax Office issued the SMSF with a notice of non-compliance. As a result, the SMSF lost its concessional tax treatment and was issued with an assessment of $63,254 for the 2008 year (which it paid in January 2012). In August 2011, the trustee resolved to wind up the SMSF and roll over the members' benefits to an industry fund.
The applicant, as Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Superannuation), applied to the Federal Court to impose civil penalties. A statement of agreed facts indicated there was no dispute among the parties as to any aspect of the case.
While a maximum civil penalty of $220,000 could apply for each contravention under the relevant superannuation laws, the court imposed a penalty of $13,000 for each director of the trustee of the SMSF, together with $5000 (each) for the Commissioner's costs. The court agreed that the contraventions were "serious" from a regulatory perspective as they involved deliberate, repetitive breaches over a four-year period and put at risk the assets of the fund.
However, the court said it must be remembered that, in the end, the fund did not suffer any loss of capital. The foregone interest income was not significant. In addition, all of the respondents admitted all of the contraventions which were ultimately pressed by the Tax Commissioner and co-operated fully with the Commissioner both at the investigation stage and in the proceeding. Also, the fund has now been wound up and the members’ balances have now been transferred to a public fund which the court noted should ensure they are satisfactorily protected.
The court was also cognizant of the fact that each of the individual respondents had taken full responsibility for their involvement in the contraventions and had expressed remorse and contrition for their conduct.
In the case of multiple contraventions, the court said the pecuniary penalty should reflect the totality of the conduct. Although Early Sunshine was the primary contravener of the superannuation law, the court accepted there was no point imposing a civil penalty on the corporate trustee (which was now dormant). Instead, the court held that the three directors were each liable for a pecuniary penalty of $13,000.
The court initially considered that the penalties proposed by the parties were insufficient. However, after taking into account all of the circumstances, the court ultimately agreed that a penalty of $13,000 (plus $5,000 in costs) for each director was appropriate.
The court reached this conclusion after having regard to the relevant factors and applying the general principles for imposing civil penalties under the superannuation law, as set out in the established cases.
The case is a salutary reminder of the penalties that can apply when SMSFs contravene the laws that govern them. The penalties in this case were significantly lower than the statutory maximum and SMSF trustees can take a lesson from the reasons why the court considered that appropriate.
Terry Hayes is the editor-in-chief of tax news reporting at <a href="https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/">Thomson Reuters</a>, a leading Australian provider of tax, accounting and legal information solutions.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

thayes-XhNcNKLNWa

Making loans from SMSFs – court imposes $40,000 in penalties: Terry Hayes

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
People who buy property through a self-managed superannuation fund need to consider what to do with the asset after they have retired and how to pass it on after they have passed away. 
SMSFs allow for assets to be handed from one generation to another as an inheritance, but there are regulatory constraints and taxes to take into account. 
Reserves after retirement
At retirement, an SMSF member may start a pension from their fund, in which case the balance will reduce over time. The fund may have sufficient cash flow to support pension payments but as the person ages the proportion of the fund’s balance that must be paid out as a pension increases so it becomes more likely that the property will have to be sold to support the pension. 
If the family has other sources of income, and doesn’t need to draw a pension from the SMSF, it is possible to leave the assets untouched by keeping the fund indefinitely in what’s known as the accumulation phase. 
SMSFs in accumulation phase do not issue a pension but the income and capital gains made within the fund are taxed at 15%, while they would be tax free if the SMSF was paying a pension. For some retirees, the 15% tax is still less than they would pay if they held the property in their own name so there can be advantages to holding it in the SMSF to pass on as an inheritance.
Inheritance
When an SMSF member dies, the assets held in their fund do not automatically form part of their estate. The estate can access the assets and distribute them according to the person’s will but conditions in the SMSF’s trust deed and superannuation laws must also be satisfied.
There have been cases in which surviving SMSF trustees have been able to go against the wishes of the deceased fund member. SMSF members should seek legal advice on how to avoid that risk.
SMSF members may provide their fund with a binding death benefit nomination, which gives direct instructions on who should receive the deceased member’s share of the fund’s assets but there are restrictions on who can be named as the recipient. Whether such a nomination is appropriate will depend on the fund member’s personal circumstances. 
Relationships matter
The way in which beneficiaries receive their inheritance depends on their relationship with the deceased SMSF member.
People who are in what’s classified under superannuation law as a dependent relationship with the fund member can receive their inheritance payment as a lump sum or a pension from the fund. People who are not in a dependent relationship must be paid a lump sum. 
Dependants can include a spouse, de facto or ex-spouse, as well as children who rely on the person for necessary financial support or are aged under 18 years. Other people may qualify as being dependants of the deceased but adult children typically do not.
The amount of tax each beneficiary pays on the inheritance also depends, in part, on whether or not they are a dependant of the deceased. Other factors also influence the amount of tax due, including the tax structure of the fund itself.  
In some cases, a property held through an SMSF can be passed from a deceased fund member to their beneficiaries without leaving the fund. The way the SMSF is structured affects how easy and how costly it is to do this. 
SMSFs can have up to four members. They can be established with individual trustees, where each member is also a trustee, or with a corporate trustee where each member is also a director of the trustee company. 
If the fund was established with individual trustees, the titles on the SMSF’s assets and the individual trustees must be updated when a fund member dies. State governments and any administration systems the SMSF uses may charge fees for these changes.
Funds with a corporate trustee can change their members by updating the corporate trustee’s directors. The fund must notify the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office of these changes but there is no change to the title of the SMSF’s assets.
Are other vehicles better?
Holding property through an SMSF is just one way to pass the asset on through the generations. Other options include owning the property directly, or through another tax structure such as a company or family trust. Each has its advantages and drawbacks. 
SMSFs can be tax effective in some situations but there may be simpler and less costly alternatives. Each family is different and what’s best will vary depending on individual circumstances. Seek professional advice. 
 
</body></html>

admin-TPy8csjoDs

Set up future generations through estate planning: Forrester Cohen

<html><body>
Guest Observer
 
One of the most disturbing aspects of the $500,000 lifetime non-concessional contribution (NCC) cap announcement in the 3 May 2016 Federal Budget is that the new lifetime NCC cap catches prior NCC’s made since 1 July 2007.
We consider the implementation of this announcement would effectively give rise to retrospective legislation for almost 9 years (ie, 1 July 2007 to 7.30pm (AEST) on 3 May 2016 is around 3,230 days or just over 8.8 years). Thus, people who have previously relied on the law during this 9 year period in making contributions to their super funds may now have no or little lifetime NCC cap left remaining.
We acknowledge that if your NCCs made during the prior 9 year period did not exceed $500,000, then there may be some remaining cap. For example, if someone had only made $10,000 of NCCs, they will have a $490,000 remaining cap.
However, if someone makes an NCC after the Budget announcement at 7.30pm on 3 May 2016, including any NCCs made in the prior 9 year period that exceeds $500,000, then their super fund must either reject any excess amount or the excess will be taxed at 49% if the member leaves the excess in their super account if possible. (There is doubt as to whether the announcement will allow the excess to remain in the superannuation fund given the little detail on this announced change).
If we trace back recent history, recent limits on making NCCs can be summarised as follows:
•        NCCs prior to 7.30 pm 9 May 2006 — unlimited;
•        NCCs from 9 May 2006 to 30 June 2007 — $1 million;
•        NCC from 1 July 2007 to 7.30 pm 3 May 2016 — $180,000 (indexed figure) per financial year or $540,000 averaged over three consecutive financial years where the member was under age 65 and was eligible to apply the bring forward rule in s 295-85(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (‘ITAA 1997’); and
·                NCCs from 1 July 2007 to 7.30pm 3 May 2016 — $500,000 as reduced by any NCCs made from 1 July 2007.
As you can see, given the far more generous contribution caps applying before 4 May 2016, the $500,000 lifetime cap is a retrospective and an unfair change of law made by way of Budget announcement especially as it may not survive the political and legal process that lies ahead.
Before anyone who has made NCCs in the past 9 years makes any further contributions to superannuation, they would be well advised to request ATO confirmation of their NCCs to check whether they will exceed the new cap. The Budget Paper confirms that:
To ensure maximum effectiveness the lifetime cap will take into account all non-concessional contributions made on or after 1 July 2007, from which time the Australian Taxation Office has reliable contributions records …
<h2>Other points on retrospective law</h2>
The Treasurer, Mr Scott Morrison, may argue that the new cap is not retrospective as it does not require NCCs that already exceed $500,000 on 3 May 2016 to be rejected and therefore prior contributions are not adversely impacted.
However, this is an argument equivalent to an argument about ‘splitting hairs’. The prior law permitted NCCs of $180,000 per financial year or $540,000 over three consecutive financial years (if the bring forward rule applied). Moreover, let’s assume that someone had contributed $540,000 of NCCs during the prior 9 years and now wishes to contribute more, they now have a nil lifetime cap. When did the current Government warn the public that the ‘rug may be pulled from underneath them?’
Indeed, the Government has repeatedly promised (particularly leading up to the 2013 election) that there would be no adverse changes in its next term of office without appropriate consultation. In particular, in January 2013, the Coalition released its pre-election policy document Real Solutions, which pledged to "deliver greater stability and certainty" around superannuation laws. "We won't move the goalposts... We will ensure that no more negative unexpected changes occur to the superannuation system," the document said.
However, following Mr Malcolm Turnbull’s appointment as Prime Minister in September 2015, he confirmed that under a Turnbull Government prior policies could be changed. “We've got to be agile all the time" Mr Turnbull told AM's Michael Brissenden on 21 September 2015.
This is despite the repeated requests for stability in respect of our superannuation law due to the ‘long-term’ nature of being locked into a regulatory environment where someone cannot withdraw their money if there is an adverse change in law.
The usual process of retrospective legislation
The Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’) report on retrospective law recognises that retrospective tax laws may be introduced, typically for tax avoidance or integrity type measures. Moreover, when retrospective tax laws are introduced, they usually only apply for a relatively short-time frame.
Also, these type of retroactive tax changes to address tax avoidance and integrity announcements should be contrasted with superannuation measures where people are ‘locked into’ a regulatory system without being able to easily withdraw their savings. Indeed, most people cannot access their superannuation until they attain age 65 (subject to strict exceptions under strict preservation rules).
The Senate has processes intended to minimise periods of retrospectivity. Standing Order 44 provides that where tax legislation has been announced by press release more than six months before the introduction of the relevant legislation into Parliament (or publication of a draft bill), that legislation will be amended to provide for a commencement date after the date of introduction (or publication).
Further, Ms Michelle Gordon, a High Court judge, commented that retrospective tax law is not only hurting taxpayers but may be making foreign investment less attractive. This comment was made during her presentation to tax experts at the University of Melbourne law school in late August 2012 when she was then a Federal Court judge.
Given that all Federal legislative processes are now in ‘care taker’ mode until after the election on 2 July 2016, there is going to be considerable uncertainty as to whether this lifetime cap announcement will become law and if it does, in what form. The Labor Government has ruled out any retrospectivity to this reform should it win the election.
More detail on the $500,000 lifetime cap
This article has put forward numerous reasons why retrospective law stretching back nearly 9 years should not be tolerated by the Australian community.
Assuming, despite these reasons, that the Government persists to introduce a $500,000 lifetime NCC cap, we note that such a cap is surprisingly low given the summary provided above where some 10 years ago, the amount of personal NCCs (then known as ‘undeducted contributions’) were unlimited in amount.
The NCC cap was then, following a brief transitional period, reduced to $150,000 (as indexed on 1 July 2014 to $180,000) per FY subject to then a $450,000 (as indexed on 1 July 2014 to $540,000) three year bring forward rule until 3 May 2016. This 10 year slide has been a major restriction on what people could previously have contributed to their super savings.
Certainly, there were numerous submissions to Government by different industry bodies and members of the community to restrict the tax concessions in relation to superannuation for those people who had attained a certain monetary threshold within the super system. However, the Government’s response overlooks the fact that these people had contributed on the basis of the law as then applying (which was unlimited prior to the budget announcement in May 2006) and as a result, the Government should not overly restrict the ability for everyone else to accumulate a reasonable amount in superannuation to provide a satisfactory lifestyle in their retirement.
Assuming the Government sees the light of day and drops the retrospective nature of the $500,000 lifetime cap, we also consider the Government has overreacted with a $500,000 lifetime cap. Such a cap does not allow any flexibility for the numerous investment timing and life cycle risks that may arise which we examine in further detail below.
What if a member suffers an investment loss?
Many who have previously contributed more than $500,000 have lost considerable value — many losing far more than 50% on their investments — as a result of the global financial crisis (‘GFC’).
A $500,000 lifetime cap provides no scope or flexibility for these people who may suffer another GFC or another market correction (as in the October 1987 share market crash), where a substantial value of their lifetime savings may be lost in volatile trading over a short-time frame.
Indeed, there are many who were hoping to retire but got GFC’d and are still in the workforce at age 65 and 70, who expected to retire much earlier.
Moreover there have been many thousands of people who have suffered from one of the many fraudulent investment schemes and who will have no chance to accumulate any further super savings as they will generally have burnt up their lifetime NCC cap but unfortunately, and through no fault of their own, have zero or next to no dollars remaining in superannuation.
SMSFs that have entered into contracts pre-budget
SMSFs that have entered into contracts and transactions to buy investments, incurring limited recourse borrowing arrangements to gear up an investment property and other investment contacts that span 7.30pm 3 May 2016, may now be in default of such contracts and stand to lose deposits and suffer considerable loss and damages as a result of the threatened retrospective impact of the new lifetime NCC cap.
So with a mere Budget announcement without any forewarning or transitioning rule, many peoples’ superannuation planning may now be in ruins by the announced change in law.
In contrast, when changes were made to restrict SMSFs investing related unit trusts on 11 August 1999, a special 10 year transitional rule was introduced to allow an SMSF that invested in a related unit trust with borrowings to invest in further units up to 30 June 2009 to enable the unit trust to reduce its debt. Without the introduction of s 71E of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (‘SISA’), SMSFs would have similarly been caught by an announced change but were granted a 10 year transitioning period.
The timing of the $500,000 lifetime NCC cap is particularly adverse for many SMSFs with related party LRBAs that need considerable cash flow before 30 June 2016 to place their LRBAs on arm’s length terms to comply with recent ATO guidelines. For these SMSFs to comply with the ATO’s recently released Practice Compliance Guideline PCG 2016/5, relevant SMSFs need to make the entire outstanding 2016 FY payments of principal and interest on non-arm’s length loans before 30 June 2016.
Impact on small business
The new cap is particularly unfortunate for business owners who generally are not in a financial position to contribute super throughout their lives and fall outside the CGT small business concessions in div 152 of the ITAA 1997. Many small business owners treat their business as a ‘de facto’ superannuation savings vehicle as they generally do not have enough cash to contribute to superannuation as they are building their business.
Small business owners will also have limited capacity to utilise their SMSFs from now on to acquire their business premises. The proposed lifetime NCC cap will adversely affect many small businesses, farmers and others that wish to invest in real estate, with many properties now in capital cities (and farm land on the city fringes) valued far in excess of $1 million.
Transfers from overseas to Australian superannuation funds
Those seeking to make transfers funds from foreign superannuation funds will also now be limited on what they can transfer to Australian superannuation funds.
Without the ability to transfer savings from foreign superannuation funds, many will leave their moneys in these overseas funds as the upfront tax cost on repatriation may be unviable compared to drawing a steady pension.
Australia should encourage foreign savings to be invested here, but the new lifetime cap imposes severe limits on these savings being available to produce any benefit to the Australian economy.
Conclusions
If there is to be announced legislation by budget or press release, then it should prospective. Being prospective, if the limit is $500,000 then most people will hopefully adjust and learn to live with this new limit. However, to then seek to impose a retrospective 9 year inclusion period on prior contributions when people have gone about their affairs in an ordinary and lawful manner is unreasonable and should not be tolerated by our community. Indeed, the current Government has misrepresented that there will be no adverse super changes. A change of Prime Minister in September 2015 is no excuse for such poor law making.
 
This was written by DBA Lawyers Director Daniel Butler and Special Counsel Rebecca James, who can be contacted below
Daniel Butler, Director (<a href="mailto:dbutler@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">dbutler@dbalawyers.com.au</a>) 
Rebecca James, Special Counsel (<a href="mailto:rjames@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">rjames@dbalawyers.com.au</a>)
 
</body></html>

Smsfs

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Smsfs

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News