{"id":5591,"date":"2015-03-31T14:38:53","date_gmt":"2015-03-31T03:38:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/?p=5591"},"modified":"2015-04-02T09:54:54","modified_gmt":"2015-04-01T22:54:54","slug":"how-to-benchmark-related-party-lrbas-when-a-bank-wont-lend-including-where-buying-a-reg-13-22c-unit-trust","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements\/how-to-benchmark-related-party-lrbas-when-a-bank-wont-lend-including-where-buying-a-reg-13-22c-unit-trust\/","title":{"rendered":"How to benchmark related party LRBAs when a bank won’t lend \u2026 including where buying a reg 13.22C unit trust!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"HowRelated parties can lend to SMSFs. However, it is critical to watch out for non-arm\u2019s length income. The solution is to benchmark. But how do you benchmark in situations where banks won\u2019t lend? This is particularly an issue where the asset being acquired is units in a reg 13.22C unit trust.<\/p>\n

I have a solution! (Naturally, this solution is subject to an important disclaimer: see below.)<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

Late last year, the ATO released two interpretive decisions of what not<\/em> to do: ATO ID 2014\/39 and ATO ID 2014\/40. The SMSFs in both of these ATO IDs ended up with non-arm\u2019s length income.<\/p>\n

The ATO then clarified on their website:<\/p>\n

To be able to demonstrate that NALI does not arise, a fund trustee entering into an LRBA with a related-party borrower should obtain and keep documentation that enables them to establish that the terms of the loan, taken together, and the ongoing operation of the loan are consistent with what an arm\u2019s length lender dealing at arm\u2019s length would accept in relation to the particular borrowing by the fund trustee.<\/p>\n

In short, the ATO seem to want benchmarking. Naturally, this makes sense.<\/p>\n

The gold standard no doubt is to go to a bank \u2014 or even a number of banks \u2014 and get a written quote for the interest rates, loan-to-value ratio and other terms that the bank would use when lending. Then, ideally one should replicate those terms in the related party loan.<\/p>\n

However, there are certain instances where banks simply won\u2019t lend to an SMSF. This is not because it is prohibited for SMSFs to borrow in such circumstances. Rather, it seems to be more to do with banks\u2019 conservative policies.<\/p>\n

Two common situations are as follows:<\/p>\n