SMSF Newsfeed

Managing tax losses in an SMSF – impact of Payne’s decision

By Daniel Butler on 20/04/2015 in SMSF cases & decisions, SMSF deeds, SMSF strategy, Succession planning, Trustee education

A recent decision Re Trustee for the Payne Superannuation Fund and FCT [2015] AATA 58 examines how the ATO are examining whether SMSFs are appropriately carrying forward tax losses and apportioning expenses when they are partly in pension mode. Prior to analysing the implications of this decision, we will first examine a general overview of [read more]

Does rolling an asset over to another SMSF trigger a CGT event?

By Bryce Figot on 19/04/2015 in SMSF compliance, Taxation

Imagine I am the only member of SMSF 1 and I roll assets over to SMSF 2, where I am also the only member: does this trigger a CGT event? Some answer this with a no. The no is derived on the purported basis that since I am the only member of each fund, I [read more]

Good news for SMSFs and bankruptcy comes with a caution

By Daniel Butler on 14/04/2015 in Contributions, SMSF strategy, Succession planning

A 2015 Supreme Court decision is both good news and a caution for contributions to super in the context of business failure A recent court decision demonstrates what can happen when a business borrows from a bank to make large super contributions to an SMSF, and then the business folds. The Court of Appeal division [read more]

Must a prorated minimum still be paid if the pension is commuted on 1 July?

By Bryce Figot on 12/04/2015 in Pensions, Taxation

There are rules regarding the ability to commute. One rule that applies to most SMSF pensions these days is that before commuting a pro-rated pension minimum must be paid, calculated as: [minimum annual amount] x [days in payment period] ÷ [Days in financial year] But what happens if the pension is commuted on 1 July? [read more]

If rolling a pension from one fund to another, must the pension first be commuted?

By Bryce Figot on 05/04/2015 in Pensions, Taxation

Common sense has a very simple answer: no, where rolling a pension from one fund to another, the pension does not need to be commuted. But does common sense prevail? Consider Bob. Bob is in receipt of an account-based pension from SMSF 1. He simply wants to move that pension from SMSF 1 to SMSF [read more]

How to benchmark related party LRBAs when a bank won’t lend … including where buying a reg 13.22C unit trust!

By Bryce Figot on 31/03/2015 in Limited recourse borrowing arrangements, Taxation

Related parties can lend to SMSFs. However, it is critical to watch out for non-arm’s length income. The solution is to benchmark. But how do you benchmark in situations where banks won’t lend? This is particularly an issue where the asset being acquired is units in a reg 13.22C unit trust. I have a solution! [read more]

Another BDBN fails due to poor SMSF documents

By Daniel Butler on 28/03/2015 in SMSF cases & decisions, SMSF deeds, SMSF strategy, Succession planning, Trustee education

Munro v Munro [2015] QSC 61 is the latest case involving a binding death benefit nomination (‘BDBN’) that was held not to be binding. This case is a very important decision as it confirms that BDBNs for self managed superannuation funds (‘SMSF’) can last indefinitely. The facts Mr Barrie Munro practised as a solicitor during [read more]

Can a super fund reject excess contributions?

By Daniel Butler on 27/03/2015 in ATO, Contributions, SMSF deeds, SMSF strategy, Taxation

An SMSF trustee is required to reject contributions in certain circumstances. This rejection rule can prove very helpful for overcoming an excess non-concessional contribution (‘NCC’). Advisers must be aware of how this rule works if they seek to rely on it. Fund-capped contributions can be rejected Regulation 7.04(3) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 [read more]

Should an SMSF be a family super fund?

By Bryce Figot on 26/03/2015 in SMSF compliance, SMSF strategy, Succession planning, Trustee education

Sometimes SMSFs are referred to as family superannuation funds due to the ability to have mum, dad and two children as members in the fund. However, is this actually a good idea? What happens if there is a fight in the SMSF between parents and children? This article considers the hidden implications of having children [read more]

WA Court of Appeal hands down appeal decision for Ioppolo v Conti: the implications are critical!

By Bryce Figot on 12/03/2015 in SMSF cases & decisions, SMSF deeds, Succession planning

In late 2013, the WA Supreme Court handed the decision of Ioppolo v Conti [2013] WASC 389. It contained many important implications for SMSF advisers. The decision was appealed and on Tuesday the WA Court of Appeal handed down the outcome of the appeal in Ioppolo v Conti [2015] WASCA 45. This article discusses some [read more]

← Previous 1 … 46 47 48 … 67 Next →

Top Navigation

Navigation