Suite 8 / 260 Auburn Road, Hawthorn 3122
Phone: 03 9214 4100
Fax: 03 9818 6008
enquiries@trumpetfinancial.com.au
 
 
eWombat Search
  LATEST FINANCIAL NEWS
 
Hot Issues
How is your super going, ready for retirement?
Our 'hardest' SMSF tasks
Lack of literacy promotes unrealistic goals
Young investors: Time is on your side
Is your SMSF retirement-ready?
Key Economic Indicators, 2017 - updated
Investors acting their age
ATO locks in details, addresses panic on real-time reporting
Government ‘undermines’ tax system in new moves on property expenses
Multiple super accounts in a 'gig' society
Why Australian retirees aren't happy and what we can do about it
Doing a budget is a good idea but ....
Technical expert flags estate planning strategies for 2017-18
Government to shut down salary sacrifice loophole
Items that heat up your depreciation deductions
‘Tens of thousands’ of SMSFs at risk with ECPI
Do’s and don’ts of estate planning
LISTO to help boost women’s super
Smart ways to stretch retirement money
Low economic growth likely for years
Recorded Crime - Offenders, 2015-16
Adequacy of savings still a concern among Australians
‘Bank-like heists’ make way for new wave of cyber crime
Give your children a saving and investing edge - for life
Articles archive
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
Trumpet Financial Pty Ltd ABN 11 443 516 384 Corporate Authorised Representative (No 327756) of Aon Hewitt Financial Advice Limited AFSL 239183 ABN 13 091 225 642
Registered Address: Level 33  201 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000 | Sitemap | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | About Aon Hewitt Positioning