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
Latest Newsletters
Hot Issues
- Aged care report goes to the heart of Australia’s tax debate
- Removed super no longer protected from creditors: court
- ATO investigating 16.5k SMSFs over valuation compliance
- The 2025 Financial Year Tax & Super Changes You Need to Know!
- Investment and economic outlook, March 2024
- The compounding benefits from reinvesting dividends
- Three things to consider when switching your super
- Oldest Buildings in the World.
- Illegal access nets $637 million
- Trustee decisions are at their own discretion: expert
- Regular reviews and safekeeping of documents vital: expert
- Latest stats back up research into SMSF longevity and returns: educator
- Investment and economic outlook, February 2024
- Planning financially for a career break
- Could your SMSF do with more diversification?
- Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
- Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
- Quarterly reporting regime means communication now paramount: expert
- Plan now to take advantage of 5-year carry forward rule: expert
- Why investors are firmly focused on interest rates
- Super literacy low for cash-strapped
- Four timeless principles for investing success
- Investment and economic outlook, January 2024
- Wheat Production by Country
- Time to start planning for stage 3 tax cuts: technical manager
- Millions of Australians lose by leaving savings in default MySuper funds
- Vanguard economic and market outlook for 2024: A return to sound money
- An investment year of ups and downs
Article archive
- January - March 2024
- October - December 2023
- July - September 2023
- April - June 2023
- January - March 2023
- October - December 2022
- July - September 2022
- April - June 2022
- January - March 2022
- October - December 2021
- July - September 2021
- April - June 2021
- January - March 2021
- October - December 2020
- July - September 2020
- April - June 2020
- January - March 2020
- October - December 2019
- July - September 2019
- April - June 2019
- January - March 2019
- October - December 2018
- July - September 2018
- April - June 2018
- January - March 2018
- October - December 2017
- July - September 2017
- April - June 2017
- January - March 2017
- October - December 2016
- July - September 2016
- April - June 2016
- January - March 2016
- October - December 2015
- July - September 2015
- April - June 2015
July - September 2015 archive
- 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
- 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