Phone (07) 3221 1122
Hot Issues
ATO reviewing all new SMSF registrations to stop illegal early access
Compliance documents crucial for SMSFs
Investment and economic outlook, October 2024
Leaving super to an estate makes more tax sense, says expert
Be clear on TBA pension impact
Caregiving can have a retirement sting
The biggest assets growth areas for SMSFs
20 Years of Silicon Valley Trends: 2004 - 2024 Insights
Investment and economic outlook, September 2024
Economic slowdown drives mixed reporting season
ATO stats show continued growth in SMSF sector
What are the government’s intentions with negative gearing?
A new day for Federal Reserve policy
Age pension fails to meet retirement needs
ASIC extends reportable situations relief and personal advice record-keeping requirements
The Leaders Who Refused to Step Down 1939 - 2024
ATO encourages trustees to use voluntary disclosure service
Beware of terminal illness payout time frame
Capital losses can help reduce NALI
Investment and economic outlook, August 2024
What the Reserve Bank’s rates stance means for property borrowers
How investing regularly can propel your returns
Super sector in ASIC’s sights
Most Popular Operating Systems 1999 - 2022
Treasurer unveils design details for payday super
Government releases details on luxury car tax changes
Our investment and economic outlook, July 2024
Striking a balance in the new financial year
The five reasons why the $A is likely to rise further - if recession is avoided
What super fund members should know when comparing returns
Insurance inside super has tax advantages
Are you receiving Personal Services Income?
It’s never too early to start talking about aged care with clients
Taxing unrealised gains in superannuation under Division 296
Capacity doubts now more common
Articles archive
Quarter 3 July - September 2024
Quarter 2 April - June 2024
Quarter 1 January - March 2024
Quarter 4 October - December 2023
Quarter 3 July - September 2023
Quarter 2 April - June 2023
Quarter 1 January - March 2023
Quarter 4 October - December 2022
Quarter 3 July - September 2022
Quarter 2 April - June 2022
Quarter 1 January - March 2022
Quarter 4 October - December 2021
Quarter 3 July - September 2021
Quarter 2 April - June 2021
Quarter 1 January - March 2021
Quarter 4 October - December 2020
Quarter 3 July - September 2020
Quarter 2 April - June 2020
Quarter 1 January - March 2020
Quarter 4 October - December 2019
Quarter 3 July - September 2019
Quarter 2 April - June 2019
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 4 of 2015
Articles
Should we expect stormy skies or sunshine in 2016?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2015
There's no one-size-fits-all retirement income
Market Update – 30th November 2015
Diversifying and cutting costs with ETFs
Why the ATO’s new powers make SMSF compliance more important than ever
'Unretiring' retirees
The detrimental impact of poor SMSF record-keeping
Counting the cost of 'grey' divorce
Combining total-return investing with realistic investment expectations
Market Update – 31st October 2015
Another telling reminder for SMSF trustees
Death in paradise – or your SMSF
Elderly exploited for assets
Intergenerational challenges for retirement saving
Death benefits – navigating the minefield
Strategy over structure
Market Update – 3oth September 2015
SMSF and limited resource borrowing – a warning
External partnerships and the in-house asset rules
Take a closer look at SMSF age demographics
External partnerships and the in-house asset rules

Ensuring an asset obeys the in-house asset rules when investing through a trust or company structure can be confusing, so it’s vital to understand the traps.



       


The introduction of the in-house asset regime for SMSFs saw investment in related companies and trusts slowly disappear from the SMSF landscape. SMSF trustees now looking to use these structures must often jointly invest with others to ensure they comply with the in-house asset provisions set out in Part 8 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act). However, navigating the intricacies of the in-house asset rules is not for the faint of heart and requires careful planning and monitoring to ensure the structure does not run afoul of the in-house asset rules. In this article, we examine the rules governing SMSF investments in related entities and how they apply in practice.


When looking directly to the SIS Act:


Section 84 of the act provides that each trustee of a regulated superannuation fund must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the in-house asset provisions are complied with.


An ‘in house asset’ is defined in subsection 71(1) of the SIS Act as:


“An asset of the fund that is a loan to, or an investment in, a related party of the fund, an investment in a related trust of the fund, or an asset of the fund subject to a lease or lease arrangement between a trustee of the fund and a related party of the fund.”


The term ‘related party’ is defined in subsection 10(1) of the SIS Act as any of the following:


  • A member of the fund;
  • A standard employer sponsor of the fund; or
  • A Part 8 associate of an entity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
  • Subdivision B of the SIS Act defines Part 8 associates for individuals, companies and partnerships. In the case of companies and trusts, a member of a fund and their related parties are Part 8 associates where they:
  • Hold sufficient influence over a company, i.e. more than 50 per cent of the directorship of a company;
  • Hold more than 50 per cent of the voting rights in a company;
  • Are entitled to more than 50 of the capital or income of a trust; or
  • Hold sufficient influence over a trust, i.e. more than 50 per cent of the control over the trust.  So by having the ownership and control split evenly between each entity the arrangement should not breach the in-house asset provisions.

The area where we tend to see this situation slip up is where the unrelated parties attempt to do additional business together outside of the structure.


Subdivision B of the SIS Act states that partners in a partnership are Part 8 associates of the member/s of the fund. The term ‘partnership’ is defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 as “an association of persons (other than a company or a limited partnership) carrying on business as partners or in receipt of ordinary income or statutory income jointly”.


This can be an issue since the following scenarios (however, not limited to these) are covered under the definition:


  • Opening a joint bank account which derives interest;
  • Investing in property such as a rental property that derives rent; or
  • Creating a partnership to run a business.


Where the above has occurred, the previously unrelated party is now a Part 8 associate and therefore a related party of the fund per subsection 10(1) of the SIS Act.


Additionally, an in-house asset may occur where the member and their now related party:


  • Hold more than 50 per cent of the directorship of a company;
  • Hold more than 50 per cent of the voting rights in a company;
  • Are entitled to more than 50 of the capital or income of a trust; or
  • Hold more than 50 per cent of the control over the trust.

Please note at this stage even though you may have an in-house asset of the fund, there are exceptions under subsection 71(1) of the SIS Act. These include but are not limited to where the investment is in a widely held unit trust or where the underlying asset of the company or unit trust is business real property.


Let’s run through an example based on a company with two SMSFs investing in a service-based business.


The Investing Superannuation Fund has two members, Mr Investor and Mrs Investor.
House Superannuation Fund has two members, Mr House and Mrs House.
Both funds purchased 10 shares each in ABC Pty Ltd and all four SMSF members are directors of the company.



 


Looking at this scenario, we can see that no party owns more than 50 per cent of the voting rights nor holds more than 50 per cent of the directorship of the company.


Now let’s add in the fact that the business is doing so well that Mrs Investor and Mrs House decide to purchase a unit and lease it out.


As Mrs Investor and Mrs House are now in receipt of ordinary income by renting out the property they are now in partnership.


From the point of view of Mrs Investor, Mr Investor is a related party as a fellow member of the fund. Additionally, as a partner in a partnership, Mrs House is now a Part 8 associate and therefore a related party.


As related parties, Mrs Investor, Mr Investor and Mrs House now hold 75 per cent of the voting rights and 75 per cent of the directorship of the company. Thus making ABC Pty Ltd a Part 8 associate, under subsection 70B(f) of the SIS Act, and therefore a related party.


Investing Superannuation Fund now has an in-house asset in the form of the investment in ABC Pty Ltd.


This scenario would play out the same way should we look at it from the view point of Mrs House.


Heath Griffiths, director, HG's Super Audits


 


Columnist: Heath Griffiths
Tuesday 1 September 2015
smsfadviseronline.com.au




8th-October-2015
 

Retirewell Financial Planning Pty Ltd
ABN 29 070 985 509 | AFSL No. 247062
Phone 07 3221 1122 | Fax 07 3221 3322
Level 24,
141 Queen Street (Cnr Albert Street)
BRISBANE QLD 4000
Email retirewell@retirewell.com.au