M J Heywood & Co
Chartered Accountant
 

Address:
Suite 407
1 Princess St.
Kew, Vic. 3101

Phone:
613 9853 1234

Fax:
613 9853 1023

Email us

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

 Latest Accounting News Service
Hot Issues
Small businesses may ‘collapse under strain of payday super’, IPA warns
ATO’s hands tied with scrapping on-hold debts, expert says
What Drives Your Business Growth and Profits?
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) shifting to firmer debt collection activity
Why employee v contractor comes down to fine print
Sharing economy reporting regime for platform operators
Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
Illegal access nets $637 million
Accessing superannuation benefits.
Does your business have a company Power of Attorney?
Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
GrantConnect
2 in 3 SMEs benefit from instant asset write-off, survey reveals
Updated guidance on R&D claims
Do you know how to recover debts?
Wheat Production by Country
Types of small business benchmarks
What is a Commercial Lease?
ATO warns advisers against suspect R&D tax claims
The year of workplace law upheaval
How to Resolve Invoice Payment Disputes
Raft of revenue tweaks in MYEFO to raise millions
The Countries that Export the Most Wine in the World
Record low invoice values ‘reveal inflation sting’
A 2023 Advent Calendar for our clients
Average refund plummets by $580, total payout down $5.4bn
FBT – Christmas Parties and Taxi Fare/Rideshare
Articles archive
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 3 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 2 April - June 2005
Recent court case has 'implications' for SMSFs

 

The outcome of a recent court case offers a “timely reminder” to SMSFs that own units in related trusts, according to AMP SMSF’s Peter Burgess.


Speaking to SMSF Adviser, Mr Burgess noted the Pope v FC of T case involved a family trust that owed some distributions to a taxpayer, but the trust was unable to pay the distributions.



       


 


The taxpayer wrote off the amount that was owed, Mr Burgess said, and then tried to claim the amount written off as a tax deduction.


The deduction was denied because the tax department said it was a loan rather than an unpaid present entitlement.


“This was not an SMSF case … but I think it’s a timely reminder to SMSFs that own units in related trusts. They need to ensure the SMSF is receiving distributions owed to the SMSF in a timely manner,” Mr Burgess said.


The definition of "loan" in the SIS Act is “very broad” and includes any form of financial accommodation.


“So it’s open to the ATO commissioner, where there are unpaid distribution for an extended period of time, to call that a loan,” Mr Burgess said.


This has implications for SMSFs that may invest in related trusts which comply with regulation 13.22C, with one of the requirements of those trusts being they cannot have any borrowings, he said.


“So this would result in those units being classified as the in-house assets of the SMSF, which can lead to breach situations and a $10,200 admin penalty under the new penalty regime,” Mr Burgess said.


“The other issue here is once the related trust has breached the requirement of SIS regulation 13.22C, it can never be a 13.22C trust again, meaning the trust would need to be unwound,” he added.


Written by Katarina Taurian
Monday, 11 August 2014
smsfadviseronline.com.au




21st-August-2014