The construction of a building requires the performance of a service (in this case by a related party) and the use of goods and materials to construct the premise. As part of the professional services provided by a builder, it is common practice for builders to provide the goods and materials necessary to construct the premise. It would be unusual, and in most cases impractical, for the consumer (in this case the SMSF) to purchase the goods and materials required to construct the premise directly from the supplier.
The Commissioner's view is further explained in examples 5 and 6 of SMSFR 2010/1. Example 6 refers to a member of an SMSF who buys all the necessary building materials and builds a house on land owned by the SMSF. The member does some of the building work and also pays contractors to do some of the building work. A service is performed for the SMSF and assets are acquired from the member as the building materials are not insignificant in value or function. Therefore, there has been a breach of subsection 66(1) of SISA.
In order to avoid breaching section 66 the fund, in this instance, would be required to acquire the materials directly from the supplier and only engage the related entity for the actual performance of the service to construct the premise. This would be an unusual occurrence as it is common practice (and sometimes there is a contractual obligation) for the provider of the service to also provide the necessary goods and materials to construct the premise. Also, from a practical perspective, this may increase the cost of construction for the fund as trade discounts etc would not be available to the fund.
Unless the SMSF takes the unusual step of acquiring the goods and materials directly from the supplier, the requirement for the goods and materials to be insignificant in value and function means that in almost all cases the construction of a property on land owned by a SMSF will breach subsection 66(1) of SISA.
In respect to the construction of a property on land owned by a SMSF, a common sense approach accommodates some departure from a literal application of subsection 66(1) of SISA.
Subject to the construction of the property being undertaken on an arm's length basis, one possible approach would be to collectively consider the act of constructing a permanent structure on real property owned by the fund, and the goods and material used in the construction of that structure, as the performance of a service. The acquisition of the performance of a service as defined above would not constitute a contravention of subsection 66(1) of SISA.
The construction of a permanent structure for this purpose would include the construction of the initial structure and any subsequent construction which is permanent and changes the structure or purpose of the asset.
This approach is consistent with the argument that the ownership of the property does not pass until the terms set out in the contract have been met. Under many construction agreements the builder is legally the 'owner' of the goods, labour and materials during the construction phase, or for part of it, and ownership passes to the superannuation fund in this case as the construction is completed.
This approach also distinguishes between the acquisition of an asset from a member or a related party which is not used in the construction of a permanent structure attached to land. Acquisitions of this kind would continue to be a breach of section 66 of SISA.
High - for those SMSF clients who hold vacant or underdeveloped land in their fund.
As the industry view acknowledges, the scenario listed in the question is covered in SMSFR 2010/1. The ATO view remains as set out in that ruling.
The supply of these goods and services cannot be considered as the performance of a service only. A service is performed for the SMSF and assets acquired as building materials are not insignificant in value and function. In cases where an SMSF engages a related party to construct a building on land owned by the SMSF, it must be clear that the related party is only providing building services and not any materials used if a breach of section 66 is to be avoided.
The chair talked through the ATO's response and invited the member who submitted the question to comment. The member accepted the response provided.
A member asked whether a contract could be drawn up between the builder and the trustee of the superannuation fund such that the builder acquires any materials as an agent of the trustee. This was discussed by the members and the chair suggested that a new question could be put to the ATO for the next meeting to consider if members considered it to be beneficial.
Will the ATO seek to obtain changes to SISA to ensure that auditors who do not provide an audit report to SMSF trustees prior to the due date of lodgement for the fund's annual return are not held to have committed an offence, where it was not reasonable for them to do so?
An auditor who issues an audit report to an SMSF trustee on or after the due date for lodgement of the fund's annual return is in breach of SISA.
Subsection 35C(1) of SISA requires trustees to appoint an auditor to provide a report on the operations of the SMSF within a timeframe set out in the SIS Regulations.
SIS Reg 8.02A requires the appointment to be made as soon as practicable but no later than 30 days before the auditor would be required to issue a report under subsection 35C(6).
Subsection 35C(6) of SISA requires auditors to give a report to SMSF trustees within the prescribed period after the end of the year of income.
Subsections 35C(7) and (8) of SISA state that contravention of subsection (6) is a strict liability offence for which the auditor may be penalised with imprisonment and 50 penalty units.
SIS Reg 8.03 determines the prescribed time to be the day before the SMSFs lodgement due date.
Subsection 35C(2) of SISA requires trustees to provide relevant information requested by an auditor to the auditor within 14 days of a written request
The requirements for an auditor to issue their report do not allow for the possibility of the trustee not meeting their obligations under subsection 35C(1) or subsection 35C(2) nor does it allow for the possibility of trustees failing to provide files for audit following the appointment of an auditor (and before a written request has been made). An auditor issuing an audit report for an SMSF after the prescribed time, regardless of circumstances, is in breach of SISA provisions. Therefore, an auditor cannot issue an audit report on or after the funds due date for lodgement without committing an offence that may be punishable by imprisonment.
Circumstances in which an auditor may need to breach the current provisions include:
- failure of the trustee to appoint the auditor with the prescribed time
- failure of the trustee to provide unaudited accounts to the auditor either prior to due date of lodgement or within a reasonable time frame for the auditor to undertake the audit
- failure of the trustee to provide additional requested documents within the required time
- time delays as a result of the need to obtain further information from third party providers
- delays by third parties to provide requested information.
Industry view / suggested treatment
Despite efforts by the ATO to increase the level of compliance of SMSF trustees lodging their annual return on time, late lodgement is not uncommon. Obviously, late lodgement does not preclude the need for an audit to be undertaken.
The fear is that regardless of ATO guidance on the practicalities of this issue, a breach of the law will occur in circumstances in which there is a clear need for the auditor to provide their services to the trustees. Without an audit, an SMSF is unable to lodge an annual return. Therefore, there is a public interest in amending the legislation to protect auditors who are requested to conduct audits where the audit certificate cannot be issued prior to the due date of lodgement.
An anomaly exists in the legislation where auditors who are issuing audit reports to SMSF trustees after the prescribed time are in effect held to have committed an offence, which could result in imprisonment. In circumstances where accounts are not provided to an auditor within a reasonable time period to enable them to complete the audit and issue their report as per the SIS Regulations, they should not be held to have committed an offence.
The legislation should be amended such that an auditor be required to issue the audit report within a reasonable time following satisfaction of trustee obligations and from the receipt of complete information from the trustee.
- Subsection 35C(1) SISA
- Subsection 35C(6) SISA
- Subsection 35C(7) SISA
- Subsection 35C(8) SISA
- Regulation 8.02A SIS Regulations
- Regulation 8.03 SIS Regulations
Impact on clients
Impact could be on auditors being subjected to fear of offence for issuing an audit certificate after the prescribed time.
Trustees who failed to meet their lodgement deadlines will be unable to obtain an audit certificate, as auditors will not risk imprisonment.
Trustees will be unable to lodge annual returns after their due date of lodgement.
Priority of issue where ATO view is required
ATO initial response
The ATO acknowledges that, regardless of the reasons for not being able to do so, the requirements of subsection 35C(6) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SISA) will be contravened where an appointed approved auditor does not provide the necessary report to the SMSF trustees within the prescribed period.
Such a contravention does lead to the possibility of offences being committed by the auditor under subsections 35C(7) and 35C(8) of the SISA.
To our knowledge there has been no referral for prosecution action under these provisions. However, the concern of industry is noted. It is recognised that some auditors may be inadvertently caught by the subsections through situations beyond their control, for example, their appointment as the auditor occurs after the prescribed date for completion of the audit report. It is appreciated that approved auditors work towards ensuring the SMSF system operates as intended and similarly they expect to be able to comply fully with all of the law that relates to their role
This can be raised with Treasury as an issue on the Tax Issues Entry System (TIES) for further consideration by Treasury. The ATO is willing to register this issue on TIES on behalf of the member. Alternatively, the member is able to register the issue on TIES on her own behalf.
The ATO notes that the raising of the question for consideration here follows on from the member raising the underlying issue at the Superannuation Consultative Committee Approved Auditor's Working Group meeting of 19 October 2010.
[We note that for some offences (for example, subsection 8C(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 which is an absolute liability offence provision) the law also provides that the offence provision does not apply to the extent that the person is not capable of complying with it (for example, subsection 8C(1B) in relation to an offence under subsection 8C(1) although the defendant bears the evidential burden in relation to matters in subsection 8C(1B)). This might be one avenue for further consideration.]
The chair talked the members through the question and the ATO's initial response and invited the member who submitted the question to provide comments.
A member expressed concern with the ATO initial response because it referred to ATO practice rather than the law. The ATO accepted that the current law could cause genuine concern amongst auditors. The ATO agreed to adjust the wording to more adequately reflect the concern of auditors that they could commit an offence in circumstances which may be beyond their control.
The ATO agreed to input the issue onto TIES and to highlight the genuine concerns of auditors.
This issue - implications for auditors where audit certificate cannot be issued by the day before the due date of lodgement of SMSF annual return - is to be referred to TIES.
The ATO will refer this issue to TIES.
Does an SMSF lose the pension asset exemption on assets used to support the payment of a transition-to-retirement pension where the member draws down more than 10% (that is, the maximum amount) of the relevant account balance during the income year?
It has come to our attention that some SMSFs are inadvertently making pension payments to members of the fund which exceed the maximum pension draw down amount of 10% (as required in the case of a transition to retirement pension). In these circumstances, it is acknowledged that some SMSF trustees will have breached the pension and payment standards where this occurs and this will be reported in an Auditor/Actuary Contravention Report.
However, the broader issue that needs to be resolved is whether the assets of the fund which are supporting the payment of the transition-to-retirement pension retain their income tax and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption.
That is, does the SMSF lose the pension asset exemption (whether segregated or unsegregated) where the trustees of the fund make payments which exceed the 10% maximum pension draw down amount?
Industry view / suggested treatment
From a technical perspective, the main references in this regard relate to the pension asset exemption provisions (being section 295-385 and section 295-390) and there does not appear to be much guidance in catering for this issue in these provisions.
Furthermore, the National Tax and Accountants Association (NTAA) were unable to identify any ATO IDs, rulings or other public determinations which provided guidance on this issue.
In fact, the only reference to a similar issue related to the ATO's view on an SMSF claiming the pension exemption in circumstances where the trustees of the fund failed to make the minimum pension payment for an income year. In this regard, the ATO concluded that the pension standards are very specific rules and if a fund fails to comply with these rules then the pension asset exemption is lost. In other words, a fund which fails to make minimum pension payments during an income year loses the pension asset exemption for assets 'notionally' supporting the payment of the pension. Reference should be made to the NTLG Superannuation sub-committee minutes of meeting dated 8 September 2009.
Section 295-385, section 295-390 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) and Superannuation NTLG sub-committee dated 8 September 2009
Impact on clients
Unknown at this stage
Priority of issue where ATO view is required
ATO initial response
Yes. The query simply provides another example of a circumstance in which the relevant Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulation 1994 (SISR) pension standards may not be met in an income year. In this regard the general principle that the current pension income exemption is available only where the relevant SISR pension standards have been met in both form and effect, set out in the ATO's response at agenda item 6.1 of the 8 September 2009 meeting of the NTLG Superannuation Technical Sub-group, applies equally to this query.
There is no specific scope within the definition of 'transition to retirement income stream' in regulation 6.01, or in subregulations 1.06(1) and 1.06(9A) of the SISR for the definition of pension to be met where the relevant payment requirements have been breached.
There may be some administrative scope for the Commissioner to consider that the pension definition has been met where the relevant breach arises from circumstances that are completely outside of the trustee's control. However, this could only be considered on a case by case basis in the light of the specific facts and circumstances of each particular case.
The chair summarised the question and the ATO's initial response and invited the member who submitted the question to comment.
Members accepted that the ATO's initial response was legally correct but expressed the view that it may potentially have harsh practical implications.
A member asked if this issue was to be considered in the draft tax ruling on superannuation income streams. The ATO confirmed that the relevant legislative provisions would be considered in the ruling but, because of the nature of a tax ruling, any administrative arrangements which might be formulated in respect of minor errors made by the trustee would not be considered. It would be more appropriate to deal with administrative aspects in a practice statement.
In the course of some general discussion on the policy behind the current rules and the practical administrative problems they present members, funds and advisors, it was considered whether the issue could be referred to Treasury for legislative change using TIES. It was agreed that this was not a suitable issue to go on TIES. (TIES may be used for care and maintenance of the tax and superannuation systems via an online form. It is focussed is on correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies, and addressing unintended outcomes.) The chair noted, however, that Treasury, as a standing member of the NTLG, would be made aware of external members' concerns on the issue through the meeting minutes. It was also suggested that external members could consider raising this with Treasury directly.
Is the trustee of an SMSF required to completely recalculate the tax-free and taxable portions of a member's superannuation interest where the pension member has 'rolled back' their pension into accumulation phase (for a short period of time) and then subsequently decided to recommence a pension using the same superannuation entitlements?
It has become increasingly common for members of SMSFs to reconsider the benefits of receiving a pension from their superannuation fund in light of falling investment returns and a volatile share market.
In many cases, members who were in pension phase have decided to undertake an 'internal rollover' whereby they convert their superannuation pension back into accumulation phase. This decision is being made so that the members can avoid 'drawing down' any more of the superannuation entitlements and allow the fund to avoid realising any large losses. Naturally, this decision means that the superannuation fund loses the pension asset exemption on those assets which were originally being used to support the payment of the pension to the member of the fund.
Invariably, members who have confronted the above situation have then decided to recommence receiving a new pension from their fund given the recent recovery of equity and property markets.
In most cases, members who then commence a new pension (that is, second pension) have not made additional contributions into the superannuation fund whilst the fund reverted, albeit temporarily, back into accumulation phase. Despite this, there may be some income and other accretions that may have been received by the fund during the period the member's entitlements were in accumulation phase.
In these circumstances, the biggest compliance challenge facing trustees is then calculating the tax-free and taxable components of the member's superannuation interest when they commence the second pension (often referred to as the new pension) from the same original superannuation interest. In other words, the biggest question being asked is how do the trustees of the fund calculate the tax-free and taxable components of the second pension?
In practical terms, do the trustees of the fund calculate the tax-free and taxable components of the pension without regard to the original proportions calculated with the original pension or do the trustees need to include these proportions when applying the proportioning rule for the second (that is, new) pension?
Industry view / suggested treatment
Unfortunately, there are two views on the application of the proportioning rule in the above circumstances.
On a more literal interpretation, the trustees of the fund are required to completely recalculate the tax-free and taxable proportions at the start of the second (new) pension without regard to the tax-free and taxable proportions that were applied to the original (that is, first) pension. Such an outcome arises on the basis that paragraph 307-195(3)(a) requires the taxpayer to calculate the tax-free and taxable proportions of a superannuation interest 'at the commencement' of the pension. It is contended that the fact the taxpayer may have previously commenced a pension with the same (or similar) superannuation entitlements does not disrupt the application of this provision.
Another interpretation applies a more liberal reading to the application of paragraph 307-125(3)(c) in these circumstances. Under this interpretation, it could be argued that the taxpayer must go back to the original tax-free and taxable components that were calculated at the commencement of the first (that is, original) pension and these proportions need to be taken into account when determining the proportioning rule on the new (that is, second) pension.
Impact on clients
Unknown at this stage
Priority of issue where ATO view is required
High - It is understood that the above situation has become almost common place and advisers are still unsure about how to apply the proportioning rule. It is therefore contended that this issue is addressed as soon as is possible.
ATO initial response
Yes. Where a member of a SMSF commutes their pension in full and 'rolls back' the remaining balance of their pension account to the accumulation phase within the fund, the trustee must recalculate, in accordance with section 307-125 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), the tax free component and the taxable component of any new benefit subsequently paid from the fund.
This requirement arises because the full commutation of the pension changes the member's superannuation interest in the fund from one that was supporting a superannuation income stream to a new accumulation interest.
The following provides a simple example of how the components of any new benefit paid in the circumstances contemplated in the query are to be recalculated.
Bob, a member of an SMSF, commenced an account based pension on 1 July 2008 with the full amount of his accumulated superannuation savings.
The opening pension account balance was $100,000.
The tax free component (TFC) percentage of Bob's pension interest is 50% and the taxable component (TC) percentage of the pension interest is 50%.
Bob decides to commute his pension in full on 30 June 2009 and rollover his remaining pension account balance back to the accumulation phase within the fund.
His remaining account balance is $60,000, reflecting a payment to Bob of $20,000 and negative investment returns of $20,000 during the 2008-09 year.
As per paragraph 307-125(3)(c) of the ITAA 1997, the TFC of Bob's commutation lump sum is $30,000 and the taxable component is $30,000.
Bob decides to commence a new account based pension on 1 July 2010 with the full amount of his new accumulation interest.
As at the time just before the new pension is commenced, the balance of Bob's new accumulation interest was $80,000 comprising the $60,000 lump sum resulting from the full commutation of his original pension and $20,000 positive investment returns.
It is assumed for simplicity that Bob made no contributions to or withdrawals from his new accumulation interest prior to commencing his new account based pension.
As at the time just before the new pension is commenced, the TFC percentage of Bob's new accumulation interest is 37.5% ($30,000 / $80,000) and the TC percentage of the interest is 62.5% (100% - 37.5%).
Hence the TFC percentage of Bob's new account based pension is 37.5% and the TC component is 62.5%.
The chair talked the members through the question and the ATO's initial response and invited the member who submitted the question to comment.
Members agreed with the response provided.
Period from 1 September 2010 to 07 December 2010
Since the last NTLG meeting held September 2010, 12 litigation matters were finalised in the Superannuation area.
Of the 12 cases:
- five were withdrawn by the applicant
- three were finalised by section 42C orders as a result of further information being supplied by the applicant
- two decisions were favourable to the Commissioner
- France v Federal Commissioner of Taxation  AATA 858 was favourable to the Commissioner
- An Employee v Federal Commissioner of Taxation  AATA 912 was favourable to the Commissioner
- two decisions were that the AAT did not have jurisdiction under Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (both matters were heard together)
- McMennemin v Federal Commissioner of Taxation  AATA 573
These were the first matters in relation to excess contribution tax and were reviewed in September but internal administration of the case had not then been finalised. The Commissioner has appealed this decision.
France v Federal Commissioner of Taxation  AATA 858
- Were the applicant and his wife involved in an employment relationship, such that he was entitled to a deduction in respect of her wages and employer contributions to superannuation on her behalf?
- Was the penalty imposed at the rate of 25% on the shortfall on the basis that the taxpayer or his agent did not exercise reasonable care in preparing the tax return excessive or unreasonable?
Senior member McCabe concluded there was no employment relationship in the circumstances of the case.
He also concluded there was a want of care in the matter and that it therefore followed that he was satisfied the penalty was properly imposed. He noted that he was not referred to any evidence that would suggest the imposition of the penalty would be harsh in the circumstances, although these included the illness of the applicant. He noted that he was not provided with evidence that would justify remission of the penalty or the shortfall interest charge.
An Employee v Federal Commissioner of Taxation  AATA 912
- Whether any part of the payment received under a deed of release an employment termination payment in accordance with subsection 82-130(1) of the ITAA 1997?
- Whether any part of the payment received under a deed of release assessable under the capital gains tax provisions?
The Tribunal decided that, following from the reasoning in Reseck, McIntosh, Le Grand and Dibb, the payment was received by the taxpayer 'in consequence of the termination ' of his employment and therefore the payment is an employment termination payment (ETP) unless it is a payment mentioned in section 82-135 of the ITAA 1997.
The Tribunal decided that paragraph 82-135(i) of the ITAA 1997 did not apply as there was no admission of liability by the former employer and it must follow that even if the 'pain, suffering, anxiety, hurt, stress and humiliation ' claimed by the taxpayer amount to 'personal injury ', no part of the payment to him can represent a payment 'for, or in respect of, personal injury '.
The Tribunal also confirmed the ATO decision that the payment received under a deed of release was not assessable under the capital gains tax provisions.
Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) advisory notices
10-218AD Criminal proceedings against Sydney woman withdrawn
Wednesday 27 October 2010
ASIC notes the decision of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to withdraw a charge against Ms Lucia Sini for dishonest conduct relating to a financial services business.
Ms Sini of Sydney, New South Wales, had been due to answer a charge in relation to operating a bank account in connection with an illegal early release superannuation scheme. (Refer to 09-151AD.)
The charge was withdrawn on Tuesday 19 October 2010 in Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court.
The ATO provided the following further updates on current cases:
- The special leave application in the Roy Morgan case scheduled to be heard on Friday 10 December 2010.
- The appeal in McMennemin case is scheduled for hearing by the Full Court of the Federal Court on 14 February 2011.
No further comments were received.
Background: The following is an edited extract of a letter recently issued by Brett Peterson:
Thank you for your letter of 24 June 2010 regarding implementation of an aspect of Taxation Ruling TR 2010/1 Income tax: superannuation contributions.
I note that you do not agree with the views stated in the ruling about the amount of contributions that can be included in a valid notice of intention to claim a deduction for superannuation contributions where there is a partial withdrawal or roll-over of a member's interest.
You requested a further period of relief from applying the views in the ruling until the issue is resolved. Currently funds do not have to apply the views expressed in the ruling on this issue until the 2010-11 income year. You suggested that most funds have been unable to build the systems to administer accounts in line with the ruling by 1 July 2010 and that relief from applying the views in the ruling should be extended to at least 1 July 2011.
I am conscious that the issue here was not included in the draft ruling circulated for comment, that systems change for funds is likely to be needed, and that systems changes can take time.
I therefore agree your proposal for a 'no action policy' for the 2010-11 year to allow funds further time to implement the deduction notice aspects of TR 2010/1.
Various issues concerning deduction notices have been discussed by the ATO with the superannuation industry over quite a long period of time, including through the NTLG Superannuation Technical Sub-group meetings and in the course of preparing TR 2010/1. Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2009/D3 issued on 17 July 2009. The draft ruling indicated that a notice is not valid where a trustee no longer holds a contribution and included the example from the Explanatory Memorandum1 where a partial roll-over occurred to illustrate that view. The example indicates that only a part of a contribution made in a year can be included in a valid notice which is provided after a partial roll-over has occurred. The simplicity of the example was revealed in the comments received on the draft ruling. The comments included a number of different suggestions on what amount could be included in a valid notice. The final ATO view on how to calculate the amount was included in TR 2010/1 and as a result of this new calculation a later application date was given to allow funds to make any necessary changes to their administrative practice. TR 2010/1 was issued on 24 February 2010.
I note your concerns about compliance cost. I am of course sympathetic about compliance costs for funds, and we would be happy to examine with the industry ways in which those costs can be reduced. However, I cannot compromise the correct application of the law in that process.
At the June 2010 NTLG meeting, it was suggested that there had been some attempt to quantify the administrative impact of the ruling. However, no details were provided to the ATO. For example, the taxation statistics for the 2007-08 income year show that approximately 230,000 individuals claimed a deduction for personal superannuation contributions. It would help us to know how many such individuals might be affected by the issues addressed in this letter. If you have not already done so, perhaps you might consider what administrative strategies your members have considered as an alternative to significant computer system changes.
Clarification of technical issues
You sought clarification of a range of issues in relation to the practical application of the formula included in example 10 (paragraphs 94 to 99) of the ruling. Our response to those issues is set out in the attachment to this letter.
I recognise that there is not universal agreement with our view on this issue. However, the submissions we have received on this issue have not persuaded us that our view is incorrect. Subject to the start date issue dealt with above, the approach set out in the ruling is our considered view. We would be happy to discuss with you potential approaches to testing our view, including through the Courts. Please let me know your thoughts about this.
We will put this issue on the agenda for the NTLG Superannuation Technical Sub-group meeting on 7 September 2010, to confirm our position, explore what might be achieved in relation to compliance costs, and discuss start date and means of testing our view.
Brett Peterson talked members through this item and informed members that an addendum to Taxation Ruling TR 2010/1 Income tax: superannuation contributions, has been published on 8 December 2010. The addendum reflects the further time that funds will have to implement the deduction notice aspects of TR 2010/1.
Members who do not agree with the ATO's approach in this matter were invited to raise this with the ATO. It was also suggested that the ATO would be prepared to discuss a test case if a member wished to challenge the ATO's position. Any decision about funding such a case could not be made until an actual case or issue is brought forward and considered against the criteria for funding.
It was agreed that this issue should be included on the agenda for the next meeting.
Taxation Ruling TR 2010/1 - Income tax - superannuation contributions
Deductions for Personal Superannuation Contributions - The ATO invited members to provide submissions/ cases on this issue.
The ATO will put this issue on the March 2011 agenda.
The next meeting was scheduled for 8 March 2011 in Canberra. Due to a late conflict with ATO meetings, the March meeting has had to be rescheduled to Tuesday 22 March 2010 in Canberra.
The ATO stated that an addendum to Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2009/8 had been approved to discuss the possible application of paragraph 71(1)(e) of the SISA to exclude certain water rights from the in-house assets of superannuation funds.
The ATO informed members that a product is being prepared discussing rectification of contraventions of section 66 of the SISA. It was noted by the ATO that reversing a transaction which contravened section 66 does not mean that the transaction did not happen and therefore care must be taken not to create more contraventions when reversing the earlier transaction report back next meeting?
TIES to be made a standing agenda item
The chair advised that TIES will be made a standing agenda item for every meeting. The members were asked to identify whether any items discussed ought to be considered for TIES, (other than those already discussed). No further items were identified.
Final meeting for 2010
The chair reflected that this is the last meeting for 2010. The chair thanked members for their contribution and participation during 2010 and extended best wishes, on behalf of the ATO, to members and their families for the coming holiday season.
The next meeting is scheduled for 22 March 2011 in Canberra.
1 Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006
Last Modified: Friday, 4 February 2011