Latest News

Hot Issues
spacer
Aged care report goes to the heart of Australia’s tax debate
spacer
Removed super no longer protected from creditors: court
spacer
ATO investigating 16.5k SMSFs over valuation compliance
spacer
The 2025 Financial Year Tax & Super Changes You Need to Know!
spacer
Investment and economic outlook, March 2024
spacer
The compounding benefits from reinvesting dividends
spacer
Three things to consider when switching your super
spacer
Oldest Buildings in the World.
spacer
Illegal access nets $637 million
spacer
Trustee decisions are at their own discretion: expert
spacer
Regular reviews and safekeeping of documents vital: expert
spacer
Latest stats back up research into SMSF longevity and returns: educator
spacer
Investment and economic outlook, February 2024
spacer
Planning financially for a career break
spacer
Could your SMSF do with more diversification?
spacer
Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
spacer
Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
spacer
Quarterly reporting regime means communication now paramount: expert
spacer
Plan now to take advantage of 5-year carry forward rule: expert
spacer
Why investors are firmly focused on interest rates
spacer
Super literacy low for cash-strapped
spacer
Four timeless principles for investing success
spacer
Investment and economic outlook, January 2024
spacer
Wheat Production by Country
spacer
Time to start planning for stage 3 tax cuts: technical manager
spacer
Millions of Australians lose by leaving savings in default MySuper funds
spacer
Vanguard economic and market outlook for 2024: A return to sound money
spacer
An investment year of ups and downs
spacer
How to tame the market's skewness
spacer
The Countries that Export the Most Wine in the World
spacer
Tips for preparing for the best tax outcomes
Article archive
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2023
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2023
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2023
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2023
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2022
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2022
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2022
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2022
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2021
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2021
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2021
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2021
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2020
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2020
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2020
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2020
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2019
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2019
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2019
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 of, 2015 archive
spacer
Avoiding tax consequences with the related-party rules
spacer
Focusing on after-tax returns
spacer
Market Update – 31st August 2015
spacer
The gender gap in retirement
spacer
Why popularity of ETFs is surging among SMSFs
spacer
Clearing up confusion about accessing super.
spacer
Good (investor) behaviour
spacer
Five reasons the RBA will likely cut rates again
spacer
Market Update – 31st July 2015
spacer
Customer-centred innovation underpins high satisfaction among financial advice customers
spacer
What the ATO is keeping an eye on
spacer
Through life and death
spacer
Why astute investors are a little like astute kayakers.
spacer
Your first SMSF portfolio
spacer
Market Update - June 2015
spacer
Money-smart ageing
spacer
A new (financial) year’s resolution for your SMSF
spacer
What’s ahead for US interest rates?
spacer
Super: Looking to June 30 and beyond
Avoiding tax consequences with the related-party rules

The impact of provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act on transactions where there is an acquisition of shares in a company that will carry on a business is critical, but is often overlooked.

       

One issue that is commonly raised for advice by SMSF trustees and advisers is whether a proposed transaction will result in a compliance issue. Often the transaction will involve business real property and there will usually be options as to how to hold the asset (eg directly in the fund, or if a minority interest as tenants in common or via an un-geared trust or company or if there is a need to borrow, use an LRBA arrangement with a holding trust). Simple is usually best, so commonly the asset will be held by the trustee. Treat it as a commercial transaction, including paying an arm’s-length price and entering into a lease on commercial terms, and there will be few issues (at least while the business is going well). Take great care however if there is any residential component as it is surprising how many commercial premises have a small unit attached, sometimes with a separate tenant but not on a separate title. In that case the property may not meet the definition of business real property and cannot be acquired from a related party or leased to one without becoming an in house asset.

However, the issue can become much more complicated where the transaction involves the fund acquiring shares in a company which will carry on a business. In this case, the answer is always going to depend on the facts, but an important criteria is that the company that operates the business must not be a related party of the fund. Another critical, but often overlooked aspect, is the impact of the non-arm’s length income provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act.

In two recent scenarios presented to us, we gave different answers on what were very similar structures. However, there were some important differences to be aware of.

In the first case, the proposal was as follows:

  • A private company was to be established with a view to acquiring an existing business from a third party.
  • Our client’s SMSF was to acquire a minority interest in this private company (ie not more than 50 per cent).
  • The other two shareholders of the company were family trusts but the controllers of these trusts were unrelated to our client with no common business interests or joint income (ie they were not Part 8 associates).
  • There were to be three directors of the company – one director to represent each shareholder, and they would each be paid directors’ fees. One of the directors, not our client, would be the managing director and responsible for running the business.

Great care had been taken in the planning to ensure the SMSF would be unable to control the private company via its shareholding or directorship, and the client was clearly aware of the pitfalls so had ensured there were no joint bank accounts or business connections between the shareholders. We highlighted the need to continually monitor compliance with the control restrictions, particularly as circumstances changed, and recommended shareholder agreements also took account of the control restrictions. Out of caution, we also recommended that no employer contributions were paid to the SMSF by the private company. We also advocated documenting in the fund’s investment strategy the thinking on this new investment. This would assist the approved auditor and provide a useful record should there be disputes within the fund or with the ATO in the future.

In essence, we could see no reason why this proposed transaction could not proceed.

However, in the second case, our answer was different in what was essentially a very similar structure. The issue in the second situation arose from the fact that this was not an existing business being acquired at an arm’s length price. Instead, the proposal was for the private company to create a new business based on the intellectual property of the principals and their perceived ability to obtain service contracts from a large public entity. It was believed that the public company would contract with the new company because of its existing relationship with the principals and the fact the principals were already doing similar work in their personal capacity.

In our view, the structure could potentially work from the perspective of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act provided there was no financial assistance to the principals. Similar issues would have arisen as with the first scenario with the need for ongoing monitoring of the in-house asset rules and the 50 per cent limit, and the desirability of recording the transaction within the investment strategy.

However our concern in the second case was with the non-arm’s length provisions of the Tax Act. In our view, the existence of contracts already in place between the public company and the principals made it likely that the ATO would have concerns. Ultimately, we expressed our doubts and, if the transaction was to proceed, we recommended our client made an application for a private binding ruling from the ATO. We recommended this course fully aware that the process would be an additional expense, may be slow and may not produce a positive answer. However, it would be very expensive to reverse these arrangements if the Commissioner formed the view, after the business commenced, that any dividends were non-arm’s length income.

Making sense of the related party rules is one of the more difficult aspects of advising in the area of SMSF compliance and should be approached with great care.


Stuart Forsyth, McPherson Super Consulting director

 

Columnist: Stuart Forsyth
Friday 4 September 2015
smsfadviseronline.com.au

Site by Plannerweb