Latest Financial Planning News
Hot Issues
Recession on our mind
What it will take to close the super gap between men and women
Australia - How are we going as 2018-19 ends?
LRBAs, guarantees in need of review after property market falls
Average age for establishing SMSFs sitting at 48.9: Report
ATO updates valuation guidelines for pension reporting
ATO figures show jump in starting balances for SMSFs
Your personal financial register
Australia’s $4bn Super blackhole impacting self-employed most
The proper help can be a benefit - age pension
SMSFs on ATO’s radar in cryptocurrency review
Limited recourse borrowing arrangements - LRBAs
What a financial planner does to help.
Goodbye to ad-hoc portfolios
Wanted: More voluntary super contributions
Australia by the numbers – May Update
Federal Budget 2019 - Overview
How the 2019 Federal Budget affects you
The problem with getting to 53 years of age.
Paying for health care in retirement
Personal super contributions and the 10% test
What investors can expect as key moves affecting markets await
ATO flags PAYG obligations for SMSFs with legacy pensions
Don't just plan for retirement; Plan for your life
Consumers misunderstand types of advice
Budget Time - How's Australia going?
When super isn't compulsory
Investors brace for Brexit - deal or no deal
ATO identifies SMSF contravention red flags
Extra website resources and tools is one way we offer you and your family more.
Articles archive
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 of 2015
Articles
Avoiding tax consequences with the related-party rules
Focusing on after-tax returns
Market Update – 31st August 2015
The gender gap in retirement
Why popularity of ETFs is surging among SMSFs
Clearing up confusion about accessing super.
Good (investor) behaviour
Five reasons the RBA will likely cut rates again
Market Update – 31st July 2015
Customer-centred innovation underpins high satisfaction among financial advice customers
What the ATO is keeping an eye on
Through life and death
Why astute investors are a little like astute kayakers.
Your first SMSF portfolio
Market Update - June 2015
Money-smart ageing
A new (financial) year’s resolution for your SMSF
What’s ahead for US interest rates?
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




30th-September-2015
 

Investorplan is an Authorised Representative of GWM Adviser Services Limited trading as MLC Financial Planning | ABN 28 056 426 932 | an Australian Financial Services Licensee with its Registered Office at 105-153 Miller Street North Sydney NSW 2060
email: ownyourfuture@investorplan.com.au
General Advice Warning | Terms & Conditions | Legal Statement | Privacy Policy |Site by PlannerWeb