Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

Joel Robinson

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Local Little Bay residents, along with buyers from premium postcodes across Sydney’s affluent Eastern Suburbs, have dominated purchases in developer-builder Urban Property Group’s first Eastern Suburbs apartment development, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a>.

The $250 million coastal project, one of the first new developments in the area in several years, has proven particularly popular with downsizers, especially those from Coogee and Bondi. One Double Bay downsizer paid $4.7 million for a four-bedroom penthouse, setting a new local apartment price record in the process.

Buyers have been attracted to the combination of coastal tranquillity, premium design and amenity-rich neighbourhood living. The walkable village setting, along with proximity to three of Sydney’s leading golf courses, New South Wales Golf Club, St Michael’s Golf Club and The Coast Golf Club, has also been a key drawcard.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352689]

Built across two low-rise buildings designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/hill-thalis-architecture-urban-projects-pty-ltd">Hill Thalis</a> and set along a lush, landscaped green spine, designed by leading landscape architect <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/landscape-architect/arcadia-landscape-architecture">Arcadia</a>, ESTE Little Bay offers a collection of one, two, three and four-bedroom residences with interiors by Richards Stanisich.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> Sales Director, Tom McIvor said the response to ESTE has been "nothing short of extraordinary."

“Buyers have been quick to recognise ESTE as a rare opportunity to invest in a coastal sanctuary that offers both seclusion and connectivity to the heart of Sydney,” McIvor said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352687]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">SRM Residential</a> Senior Director, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">Clayton Ross</a> said the local market has responded incredibly well, driven by ESTE’s exceptional location and the rarity it offers.

“We’ve seen strong interest from a variety of buyer groups, all of whom are drawn to the exclusivity and quality of the build and construction by the 4.5-star iCIRT-rated builder / developer, Urban Property Group. There’s truly nothing else like it along Sydney’s coastline.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352690]

The project also includes robust buyer protections, including Resilience Insurance’s Latent Defects Insurance, providing 10 years of structural cover, and an independent iCIRT-rating of the developer.

“The iCIRT-rating adds another layer of confidence,” Ross added. “Buyers see it as a safeguard for their investment and their lifestyle.” A highlight of ESTE’s offering is its exclusive wellness amenities, including a heated rooftop infinity pool and outdoor heated spa, a state-of-the-art Technogym fitness centre, and a sauna.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a> is topped out and is on track to complete towards the end of 2026, with residents moving in before Christmas.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112343]

Eastern Suburbs buyers snap up ESTE Little Bay apartments

Sydney’s property market is known for high prices, competitive bidding, and mounting pressure on first home buyers. But change is on the horizon.

From late 2025, eligible first home buyers in New South Wales will have access to a new federal government initiative aimed at addressing affordability: the Help to Buy Scheme.&nbsp;

<h2>What is the Help to Buy Scheme?</h2>

The program introduces a shared equity model intended to reduce the upfront cost of entering the property market, particularly in high-demand urban areas such as Sydney.

The scheme operates under a shared ownership structure in which the federal government takes an equity stake of up to 40 per cent for new homes, or 30 per cent for existing dwellings. This arrangement allows eligible buyers to significantly reduce their loan size and avoid the added cost of Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI).

Under this model, purchasers can enter the property market with as little as a two per cent deposit, well below the traditional 10 to 20 per cent usually required. The government’s contribution is not a loan but a co-ownership stake in the property. As such, there is no interest or rent charged on its portion.

Because the government’s equity combined with the buyer’s deposit typically meets or exceeds the 20 per cent threshold, LMI does not apply. The remaining balance, generally between 60 and 70 per cent of the property’s value, is financed through a standard home loan with a participating lender.

The government's equity in the property remains in place until the buyer chooses to repay it voluntarily or until the property is sold. Buyers can buy back the government’s share over time, in increments of at least five per cent, depending on their financial situation.

There is no fixed repayment timeline, but the amount to be repaid will be based on the property's market value at the time of repayment, not the original purchase price.

<h2>How do you qualify for the&nbsp;Help to Buy Scheme?</h2>

To qualify for the Help to Buy Scheme, applicants must meet the following conditions:

<ul>
	<li>Be an Australian citizen at least 18 years of age.</li>
	<li>Be a first-home buyer who does not currently own property.</li>
	<li>Intend to live in the property as their primary residence.</li>
	<li>Earn less than $100,000 per year for individuals, or $160,000 for couples.</li>
	<li>Purchase a property within the regional price caps, currently $950,000 in Sydney, though this is expected to rise to approximately $1.3 million ahead of the program’s launch.</li>
</ul>

While the Help to Buy Scheme does not solve affordability challenges across the board, it does offer a more accessible pathway for a defined segment of the market, particularly younger buyers with moderate incomes who have been priced out of traditional lending routes.

The scheme is expected to commence in NSW in late 2025, as part of a national rollout.

Under the new model, purchasers can enter the property market with as little as a two per cent deposit, well below the traditional 10 to 20 per cent usually required

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

<html><body>
Where problems are perceived to exist with the SMSF sector, its important policy decisions are based on reality and hard facts, not ideology and hearsay.
The seemingly inexorable rise of self-managed funds is the most striking dynamic of Australia's superannuation system. More so because the rise of self-managed superannuation has been driven by the choice and determination of individuals rather than by government policy direction.
Self-managed funds are the only funds realising the vision set for Australia's superannuation system – to enable people to make themselves financially independent in retirement and avoid reliance on the age pension.
Generally SMSF members are achieving this goal while the members of the large industry and retail funds are not. The average balance in a self-managed fund account is over $500,000 compared with average account balances in industry and retail funds of less than $30,000.
The higher balances in SMSFs result from people maximising their concessional and non-concessional contributions and from the returns generated by their assets. Yet self-managed superannuation is not just for those paid higher. ATO statistics show that 66 per cent of SMSF members are on incomes of less than $80,000.
One important outcome of self-managed superannuation is enabling a generation of Australians to fund their retirement and old age within their own lifetime, instead of leaving a pension tab on the table for the next generation to pick up.
The fact that a million Australians, with more joining every day, are willing and capable of taking charge of their retirement savings, and doing a good job of it, is to be applauded.
However, it seems success breeds envy and draws criticism.
You'll hear it said that self-managed funds are driving up property values, distorting capital allocation, investing too conservatively, investing recklessly, straining the Budget, getting an unfair tax advantage and are costly to run.
We challenge each of these claims as they are often driven by ideology, or self-interest or are just plain wrong.
Take the claim that SMSFs are used to gain an unfair tax advantage.
Members of self-managed funds are subject to exactly the same tax rules as members of pooled super funds.
Critics are quick to point out the top 20% of income earners get the lion's share of super tax concessions but they don't always acknowledge that the top 20% also pay the lion's share of income tax. They get 57% of the tax concession but pay 64% of income tax. So, as you would expect, the value of their super tax break is proportionate to the amount of tax they pay, and actually a bit lower.
Or take the claim that super tax concessions are an unsustainable drain on the Budget.
Tax incentives to save for retirement are sensible policy because in the long run it's cheaper than paying out the age pension. If super tax incentives are reduced, less will be saved, fewer people will be financially independent and more will have to rely on a full or part taxpayer-funded pension.
Are SMSFs too costly to run? It's true that a relatively low account balance in a self-managed fund will cost more to administer than one held in a pooled super fund. But above around $100,000, costs are comparable or much lower. Two-thirds of self-managed funds have an operating expense ratio to assets of less than 1% and 40% have an expense ratio of less than 0.25%.
It’s not just about cost. The main reason people set up self-managed funds is to take control of their savings and more are doing so relatively early in their working lives. They make a commitment to save and as they build their assets, the relative cost of running their fund comes down. They are being helped by the emergence of a range of low-cost, online fund management service providers.
The real cost issue in superannuation is the fees charged by the large industry and retail pooled super funds, which are estimated to have consumed a quarter of these funds' returns in the past decade, a cost borne by their members.
Another common criticism of SMSFs is that they drive up property prices through highly leveraged investment. But no hard evidence is presented to back up this claim. Very low interest rates and an inadequate supply of new housing is likely fuelling property prices more. SMSFs actually put quite a small proportion of their assets into residential property – around 3.5% and this has been steady for five years. They put three times as much into commercial property, often linked to the owners' business.
Some people, on dubious advice, may be starting an SMSF to borrow to buy a residential property. Having one highly leveraged asset is clearly not a sensible strategy. To the extent that it is occurring it should be managed through better advice, credit restraint by lenders and regulation of property promoters.
In pondering the report of <a href="/guides/smsfs-to-rush-further-into-property-after-borrowing-ban-looms-following-murray-financial-system-inquiry">David Murray's Financial System Inquiry</a> and, in due course, the forthcoming tax white paper, the government should reflect on the singular success of self-managed funds in achieving the objectives of the superannuation system, appreciate the motivation of people who set them up and recognise the social and economic benefits they deliver.
Duncan Fairweather is executive director of the SMSF Owners' Alliance. Contact him <a href="https://www.smsfoa.org.au/contact" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Are SMSF’s causing property values to increase and receiving an unfair tax advantage? Duncan Fairweather

<html><body>
Suggestions that young and naïve investors are rushing to set up self-managed super funds have been debunked by figures from the Australian Taxation Office.
Graeme Colley, director of technical and professional standards at SMSF Professionals' Association of Australia (SPAA), told SmartCompany that despite an increase in <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/superannuation/35704-younger-generation-interest-in-smsf-on-the-rise">popularity with the younger generation</a>, the latest statistics show SMSFs are still very much the heartland of the wealthy and the mature.
“From what we see, it’s still the 50 plus category,” says Colley.
The September ATO figures show the greatest proportion of SMSFs are funds of between $200,000 and $2 million. The number of funds within this range has risen from 63.9% in 2009-10, to 65.7% in 2012-13.
In contrast, funds under $150,000 have been in a decline over this four-period from 20.5% to 17.2%.
Colley says there has been unfounded media speculation young people were rushing into setting up SMSFs.
“What the industry didn’t want to see happen was people brashly going into SMSFs without seeing if it was the right option for them. But we are not seeing that from these figures,” says Colley.
Colley says while the popularity of SMSFs is certainly on the increase, there has been a “steady as she goes” approach to SMSF investment.
“It’s more of a ‘look before you leap’ situation, we don’t want a runaway freight train,” he says.
Colley believes there has recently been a considerable focus given to the education and training of SMSF managers, in the wake of <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/politics/44700-fofa-changes-scrapped-by-senators-as-financial-planners-plead-for-certainty" target="_blank">changes to the financial planning industry.</a>
He says the ATO statistics also put to bed the myth that SMSFs with low balances have an "unhealthy" concentration of their assets in residential property.
“That doesn’t seem to be the case. Funds with property investment seem to be in the $300,000-$400,000 plus range. It is a common sense investment, rather than people with massive mortgages.”
"The notion that SMSFs are piling into residential property with their ears pinned back is simply not supported by the ATO figures,” says Colley.
The SPAA expects another 20,000 SMSF will be created in 2015.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

krobb-aCrRNnPq6D

SMSFs still the heartland of the mature and wealthy 

<html><body>
The Federal Treasury's Murray Financial System Inquiry has recommended that self-managed superannuation funds be banned from borrowing to buy assets such as property and shares.
There is no indication the recommendation will be accepted, or how it may be implemented, but the spectre could see the current levels of SMSF property investors further elevated before any announcement in 2015 of changes or grandfathering of the current rules.
<div title="Page 118">
In implementing the recommendation, Murray says funds with existing borrowings should be permitted to maintain those borrowings.
Funds disposing of assets purchased via direct borrowing would be required to extinguish the associated debt at the same time.
<div title="Page 117">
<div>
<div>
Over the past five years, the amount of funds borrowed using LRBAs increased almost 18 times, from $497 million in June 2009 to $8.7 billion in June 2014.
The inquiry opted against imposing a maximum cap on fund assets that can be invested in a single asset other than cash or bonds, saying it would impose additional regulation, complexity and compliance costs on the superannuation system. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
David Murray, chairman of the Financial System Inquiry, said the panel recommended a removal of the exception to the general prohibition on direct borrowing for limited recourse borrowing arrangements by superannuation funds.
</div>
One reason for the recommendation was that it would fulfil the objective for superannuation to be a savings vehicle for retirement income, rather than a broader wealth management vehicle. 
“Restoring the original prohibition on direct borrowing by superannuation funds would preserve the strengths and benefits the superannuation system has delivered to individuals, the financial system and the economy and limit the risks to tax payers,” the report also said.
After borrowings within super funds have risen to $8.7 billion, the FSI noting the level of borrowing was relatively low, but could pose a risk to the financial system.
“Further growth in superannuation funds’ direct borrowing would, over time, increase risk in the financial system,” the report stated.
“Borrowing, even with LRBAs, magnifies the gains and losses from fluctuations in the prices of assets held in funds and increases the probability of large losses within a fund.”
The FSI recommended the government should remove section 67A of the SIS Act on a "prospective basis".
The report noted that lenders can charge higher interest rates given the higher risks associated with limited recourse lending, and often required personal guarantees from SMSF trustees.
There were 44 recommendations to the government from the inquiry, the first wide scale review of the financial system in 17 years. Treasurer Joe Hockey will respond next year.
Previous financial system inquiries, including the Campbell Report in 1981 and Wallis Report in 1997, were the catalysts for major economic reforms in Australia. The Campbell Report led to the floating of the Australian dollar and the deregulation of the financial sector.
The Wallis Inquiry led to streamlined financial services regulation, the creation of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), and the current form of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

SMSFs to rush further into property after borrowing ban looms following Murray Financial System Inquiry

<html><body>
The unfulfilled dream of countless small business owners is to run an active business through their self-managed super fund (SMSF).
The typical driver is to pay tax at half the corporate rate or no tax once the super fund is in the pension phase.
During his 40-plus years advising SMSFs, Martin Murden has had at least one request a year from fund trustees for advice about whether they can operate a business, such as a corner shop, through a self-managed fund.
But Murden, a director of SMSF consulting and auditing with the Partners Wealth Group, says none of these trustees to his knowledge has gone ahead and operated a business through their SMSF after listening to his warnings.
While Murden says that the law does not, in theory, prohibit SMSFs from running active businesses, various superannuation and trust laws make it highly impractical.
Here are five questions that fund trustees should ask themselves before trying to setup an active business in their SMSFs:
<ol>
<li>
Will your fund still comply with the sole-purpose test if running a business? This is the biggest stumbling block to an SMSF operating an active business. Under the sole purpose test, a super fund must be maintained for the purpose of providing retirement or death benefits to members. Indeed, Stuart Jones, author of the Australian Superannuation Handbook 2014-15, published by Thomson Reuters, writes that the Tax Office, as self-managed super regulator, “generally considers” an SMSF is breaching the sole-purpose test if conducting a business. 
</li>
<li>
Does your SMSF trust deed allow the fund to operate an active business? An SMSF may not be permitted by trust law to carry out a business unless expressly empowered under its trust deed, Jones warns. 
</li>
<li>
Can your SMSF business operate without an overdraft? Murden says the strict limits on borrowing by an SMSF will prevent the fund having an overdraft. SMSF are prohibited from borrowing except in limited circumstances. An SMSF can borrow for up to 90 days to pay a member benefit or to cover the settlement of securities such as shares and bonds. (Such loans must not exceed 10% of a fund’s assets.) 
</li>
<li>
Will your SMSF business have to pay cash for its trading stock? An SMSF is prohibited from lending to members or relatives of members, Murden stresses. 
</li>
<li>
Will your SMSF business employ members or relatives of members? While superannuation law does not prohibit a fund from employing members and relatives, their employment may encourage the Tax Office, as SMSF regulator, to take a closer look.
</li>
</ol>
Jones says the regulator may look at the “stated rationale” for employing family members and at the level of income.
In regard to salaries paid to family members, Murden points to provisions in superannuation law requiring funds to conduct their affairs on an arm’s length, commercial basis.
An inflated salary paid to a family member would also be an issue under the sole-purpose test.
As Murden says, it is common for SME owners to own their business premises through their SMSFs. Business real estate is among the few types of assets that SMSFs are permitted to acquire from their members and other related parties.
And business real estate is one of the few types of assets that funds can lease to related parties – including fund members and their businesses – without a restriction on its value.
However, running an active business through an SMSF is much harder to achieve without breaching superannuation and trust laws.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

mlaurence-vhAHaLZT8y

Five questions you should ask before trying to run a business through an SMSF

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Self-managed super funds are, and have been, flavour of the month for some time now.
The opportunities SMSFs provide for people to control their retirement incomes can be attractive. Of course, running such a fund has its own costs and the person in control (the trustee) has the onus to ensure the fund performs at an acceptable level.
But there are many rules and regulations that govern SMSFs and they can be a trap for the unwary. A recent Federal Court decision shows what can go wrong.
In the case, the Federal Court imposed civil penalties of $13,000 (plus $5000 in costs) for each of three directors of the corporate trustee of an SMSF in relation to breaches of the superannuation laws involving short-term loans to a related business.
The first respondent, Early Sunshine, was the corporate trustee of the SMSF known as the George MacDonald &amp; Sons Superannuation Scheme No 2. The other three respondents are the directors of Early Sunshine Pty Ltd.
Over a four-year period from 2007 to 2011, the three directors caused the SMSF to make 71 loans to the freight trucking business George MacDonald &amp; Sons of which the respondents were employees, directors and shareholders. The freight trucking business lost its principal customer in 2001 and began to experience significant financial stress in 2007-08 amid the global financial crisis.
Typically, the loans were outstanding for only a few weeks at a time and used to cover the working capital of the business (primarily to pay salaries and wages). A total of $553,568 in loans was made by the SMSF to George MacDonald &amp; Sons.
Each of the 71 separate loans was less than $20,000 (with an average of $7,768). The loans were unsecured and did not bear interest but each loan was ultimately repaid in full. The SMSF also made a $2000 loan to a company controlled by one of the respondents. This loan was unsecured but was repaid on demand with 8.5% interest.
In August 2009, the SMSF's auditor lodged the first of several auditor contravention reports for the relevant years noting breaches of the superannuation law in relation to the loans. The reports recorded breaches of the sole purpose test, the in-house asset rules and the arm's length dealing requirement.
In October 2011, the Tax Office issued the SMSF with a notice of non-compliance. As a result, the SMSF lost its concessional tax treatment and was issued with an assessment of $63,254 for the 2008 year (which it paid in January 2012). In August 2011, the trustee resolved to wind up the SMSF and roll over the members' benefits to an industry fund.
The applicant, as Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Superannuation), applied to the Federal Court to impose civil penalties. A statement of agreed facts indicated there was no dispute among the parties as to any aspect of the case.
While a maximum civil penalty of $220,000 could apply for each contravention under the relevant superannuation laws, the court imposed a penalty of $13,000 for each director of the trustee of the SMSF, together with $5000 (each) for the Commissioner's costs. The court agreed that the contraventions were "serious" from a regulatory perspective as they involved deliberate, repetitive breaches over a four-year period and put at risk the assets of the fund.
However, the court said it must be remembered that, in the end, the fund did not suffer any loss of capital. The foregone interest income was not significant. In addition, all of the respondents admitted all of the contraventions which were ultimately pressed by the Tax Commissioner and co-operated fully with the Commissioner both at the investigation stage and in the proceeding. Also, the fund has now been wound up and the members’ balances have now been transferred to a public fund which the court noted should ensure they are satisfactorily protected.
The court was also cognizant of the fact that each of the individual respondents had taken full responsibility for their involvement in the contraventions and had expressed remorse and contrition for their conduct.
In the case of multiple contraventions, the court said the pecuniary penalty should reflect the totality of the conduct. Although Early Sunshine was the primary contravener of the superannuation law, the court accepted there was no point imposing a civil penalty on the corporate trustee (which was now dormant). Instead, the court held that the three directors were each liable for a pecuniary penalty of $13,000.
The court initially considered that the penalties proposed by the parties were insufficient. However, after taking into account all of the circumstances, the court ultimately agreed that a penalty of $13,000 (plus $5,000 in costs) for each director was appropriate.
The court reached this conclusion after having regard to the relevant factors and applying the general principles for imposing civil penalties under the superannuation law, as set out in the established cases.
The case is a salutary reminder of the penalties that can apply when SMSFs contravene the laws that govern them. The penalties in this case were significantly lower than the statutory maximum and SMSF trustees can take a lesson from the reasons why the court considered that appropriate.
Terry Hayes is the editor-in-chief of tax news reporting at <a href="https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/">Thomson Reuters</a>, a leading Australian provider of tax, accounting and legal information solutions.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

thayes-XhNcNKLNWa

Making loans from SMSFs – court imposes $40,000 in penalties: Terry Hayes

<html><body>
Last December, the Financial Services Inquiry’s final report <a href="https://fsi.gov.au/publications/final-report/chapter-1/direct-borrowing/" target="_blank">recommended a ban on borrowing to inves</a>t in property through self-managed superannuation.<a href="https://fsi.gov.au/publications/final-report/chapter-1/direct-borrowing/"> </a>
Among its 44 recommendations the FSI report, advised government that to minimise risk to the financial system it should stop self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) using limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LBRAs) to acquire property and other assets.
Superannuation rules were changed in 2007 to allow SMSFs to borrow using LBRAs. The value of the loans rose from $497 million in June 2009 to $8.7 billion in June 2014.
“Further growth in superannuation funds’ direct borrowing would, over time, increase risk in the financial system,” the FSI report noted.
The inquiry pointed out that while a lender only had recourse to the asset over which the LBRA was held, trustees would likely sell other fund assets to repay the debt if the asset’s value fell.
“As a result, LRBAs are generally unlikely to be effective in limiting losses on one asset from flowing through to other assets, either inside or outside the fund,” it warned.
It also raised concerns that borrowing reduced diversification and concentrated risk in superannuation funds, and allowed SMSF members to circumvent contribution caps, which restrict the amount members can add to their funds.
Self-Managed Superannuation Professionals’ Association of Australia director of technical and professional standards Graeme Colley said there was “scant evidence of abuse of LBRAs to date”.
“But [SPAA] can appreciate the FSI’s position if leverage in superannuation did grow to a level where it could be a threat to people’s retirement savings,” he added.
Separate from the review, regulators have been cracking down on unlicensed property spruikers who have been luring investors into setting up SMSFs to buy residential property, often using borrowed money.
In November, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against property investment promoter, Park Trent Properties Group. <a href="/guides/asic-commences-proceedings-against-property-promoter-park-trent-properties">ASIC alleges</a> Park Trent advised at least 500 members of the public to establish an SMSF and then use the fund to buy investment properties that were owned or promoted by Park Trent companies.
If the FSI’s proposed ban on borrowing goes ahead, funds with existing LBRAs would not be affected, although those disposing of assets bought with an LBRA would have to extinguish the associated debt at the same time. No date was set for the proposed regulations to begin. 
</body></html>

zfielding-GvX3Uq9KTa

Growth in SMSF borrowing will "increase risk in the financial system"

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
People who buy property through a self-managed superannuation fund need to consider what to do with the asset after they have retired and how to pass it on after they have passed away. 
SMSFs allow for assets to be handed from one generation to another as an inheritance, but there are regulatory constraints and taxes to take into account. 
Reserves after retirement
At retirement, an SMSF member may start a pension from their fund, in which case the balance will reduce over time. The fund may have sufficient cash flow to support pension payments but as the person ages the proportion of the fund’s balance that must be paid out as a pension increases so it becomes more likely that the property will have to be sold to support the pension. 
If the family has other sources of income, and doesn’t need to draw a pension from the SMSF, it is possible to leave the assets untouched by keeping the fund indefinitely in what’s known as the accumulation phase. 
SMSFs in accumulation phase do not issue a pension but the income and capital gains made within the fund are taxed at 15%, while they would be tax free if the SMSF was paying a pension. For some retirees, the 15% tax is still less than they would pay if they held the property in their own name so there can be advantages to holding it in the SMSF to pass on as an inheritance.
Inheritance
When an SMSF member dies, the assets held in their fund do not automatically form part of their estate. The estate can access the assets and distribute them according to the person’s will but conditions in the SMSF’s trust deed and superannuation laws must also be satisfied.
There have been cases in which surviving SMSF trustees have been able to go against the wishes of the deceased fund member. SMSF members should seek legal advice on how to avoid that risk.
SMSF members may provide their fund with a binding death benefit nomination, which gives direct instructions on who should receive the deceased member’s share of the fund’s assets but there are restrictions on who can be named as the recipient. Whether such a nomination is appropriate will depend on the fund member’s personal circumstances. 
Relationships matter
The way in which beneficiaries receive their inheritance depends on their relationship with the deceased SMSF member.
People who are in what’s classified under superannuation law as a dependent relationship with the fund member can receive their inheritance payment as a lump sum or a pension from the fund. People who are not in a dependent relationship must be paid a lump sum. 
Dependants can include a spouse, de facto or ex-spouse, as well as children who rely on the person for necessary financial support or are aged under 18 years. Other people may qualify as being dependants of the deceased but adult children typically do not.
The amount of tax each beneficiary pays on the inheritance also depends, in part, on whether or not they are a dependant of the deceased. Other factors also influence the amount of tax due, including the tax structure of the fund itself.  
In some cases, a property held through an SMSF can be passed from a deceased fund member to their beneficiaries without leaving the fund. The way the SMSF is structured affects how easy and how costly it is to do this. 
SMSFs can have up to four members. They can be established with individual trustees, where each member is also a trustee, or with a corporate trustee where each member is also a director of the trustee company. 
If the fund was established with individual trustees, the titles on the SMSF’s assets and the individual trustees must be updated when a fund member dies. State governments and any administration systems the SMSF uses may charge fees for these changes.
Funds with a corporate trustee can change their members by updating the corporate trustee’s directors. The fund must notify the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office of these changes but there is no change to the title of the SMSF’s assets.
Are other vehicles better?
Holding property through an SMSF is just one way to pass the asset on through the generations. Other options include owning the property directly, or through another tax structure such as a company or family trust. Each has its advantages and drawbacks. 
SMSFs can be tax effective in some situations but there may be simpler and less costly alternatives. Each family is different and what’s best will vary depending on individual circumstances. Seek professional advice. 
 
</body></html>

admin-TPy8csjoDs

Set up future generations through estate planning: Forrester Cohen

<html><body>
Tim Mackay, principal of financial advice firm Quantum Financial, says property investors struggling to pay higher demanded deposits on off the plan purchases through their SMSFs need to be careful they do not breach Australian Taxation Office rules.
Abrupt lending policy changes on required deposit has meant some buyers have lost out on valuable tax deductions given the top up deposit balance was a non-concessional (or after-tax) contribution. 
His other recommendations to Australian Financial Review readers included:
<ul>
<li>Consider if the investment is worth keeping. It might be worth cutting losses rather than losing generous tax concessions or being forced to liquidate scheme assets on unfavourable terms;</li>
<li>Reduce costs;</li>
<li>Sell other assets in the fund to reduce the debt;</li>
<li>Contribute more to your super – either through personal contributions or salary-sacrificing (making pre-tax contributions);</li>
<li>Seek a better deal on your loan;</li>
<li>Review existing advice and question how it allowed you to get into mortgage stress.</li>
</ul>
Last week it was suggested one in three off-the-plan Bankstown district investors are facing financial distress completing purchase of their properties because of tough new lending rules for higher deposits.
Chan &amp; Naylor partner Peter Ristevski's analysis suggested he had not had anyone's sale fall through yet with second mortgages being secured at higher interest rates.
Financial planner Sam Henderson, chief executive of Henderson Maxwell, says he thinks buying a property using SMSF was a great idea for a solid long-term strategy, but only for the right people and under the right conditions. 
"The idea of an off-the-plan development diminishes my excitement owing to potential onerous sunset clauses (whereby developers can change the terms and price), banks altering their lending criteria between exchange of contract and settlement, developers potentially going bust and the common issue of being surrounded by scores of similar properties in overdeveloped suburbs," he suggested to AFR readers.
"Consider, for example, that you buy a $700,000 property and put down your 10% deposit of $70,000.
"Let's assume the bank has agreed to fund your loan of 80% (thereby allowing you to use $140,000 of your fund as a deposit) and that you will fund the stamp duty via your next contribution of $30,000.
"Let's say the bank changes its view on SMSF loans and drops its LVR (loan to value ratio) so it will lend to 60 per cent, as many of the banks do for commercial properties.
"Well, you've just done your $70,000 deposit!"
</body></html>

Off the plan SMSF investors face challenges under higher deposit era

<html><body>
Commercial properties in NSW’s Port Macquarie are attracting self-managed super funds (SMSF) because of the Mid North Coast’s affordability and healthy yields.
“It’s a bit like Sydney in towns such as Port Macquarie, with SMSFs driving the sales of quality investment assets,” said Graeme Garrett, co-principal of Raine &amp; Horne Commercial Port Macquarie. 
SMSFs leasing a commercial property back to a related business is becoming a common trend in the sub-$500,000 market in Port Macquarie, added Garrett.
Several small business owners too are buying properties through SMSFs and then leasing them back to the business, which the current superannuation laws allow, he said.
In many cases, professionals such as accountants, lawyers, engineers, architects and real estate agents are buying commercial properties through a related DIY fund. Properties around the range $400,000-$500,000 are in particularly in demand.
“The trouble is that there’s a shortage of industrial stock in this price range to meet demand,” said Garrett.
Investors operating outside a super fund are also active in the Port Macquarie market because of the low interest rates and the fact that commercial properties are viewed as an investment safe haven, he added.
“Sydney investors seeking solid yields are also starting to make their presence felt in Port Macquarie.”
Yields for industrial stock priced below $500,000 range from 8%, while it’s 6.75-7% for retail and 8% for office space, according to Raine &amp; Horne Commercial Port Macquarie. 
“We auctioned a retail property to a Sydney investor, who purchased it through a self-managed super fund, and who intends on retiring to Port Macquarie down the track,” said Garrett. The property located at 5/56 Clarence Street, Port Macquarie sold under the hammer for $622,500.
Garrett said members of SMSFs would be best served considering a commercial asset that will appeal to future tenants.
“If you occupy it yourself now and then retire, you need to consider what appeal that property will have to future tenants and whether it will be easily let out if it’s part of your future retirement plans.
“Our proximity to Sydney and Newcastle is attracting investors from those cities through a combination of our healthy yields and commercial real estate affordability. 
“When you can buy two or three assets in Port Macquarie for the equivalent of a single-tenant property in Sydney, investors see this as value.”
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

DIY super funds driving Port Macquarie commercial markets: Raine & Horne

<html><body>
Guest Observer
 
One of the most disturbing aspects of the $500,000 lifetime non-concessional contribution (NCC) cap announcement in the 3 May 2016 Federal Budget is that the new lifetime NCC cap catches prior NCC’s made since 1 July 2007.
We consider the implementation of this announcement would effectively give rise to retrospective legislation for almost 9 years (ie, 1 July 2007 to 7.30pm (AEST) on 3 May 2016 is around 3,230 days or just over 8.8 years). Thus, people who have previously relied on the law during this 9 year period in making contributions to their super funds may now have no or little lifetime NCC cap left remaining.
We acknowledge that if your NCCs made during the prior 9 year period did not exceed $500,000, then there may be some remaining cap. For example, if someone had only made $10,000 of NCCs, they will have a $490,000 remaining cap.
However, if someone makes an NCC after the Budget announcement at 7.30pm on 3 May 2016, including any NCCs made in the prior 9 year period that exceeds $500,000, then their super fund must either reject any excess amount or the excess will be taxed at 49% if the member leaves the excess in their super account if possible. (There is doubt as to whether the announcement will allow the excess to remain in the superannuation fund given the little detail on this announced change).
If we trace back recent history, recent limits on making NCCs can be summarised as follows:
•        NCCs prior to 7.30 pm 9 May 2006 — unlimited;
•        NCCs from 9 May 2006 to 30 June 2007 — $1 million;
•        NCC from 1 July 2007 to 7.30 pm 3 May 2016 — $180,000 (indexed figure) per financial year or $540,000 averaged over three consecutive financial years where the member was under age 65 and was eligible to apply the bring forward rule in s 295-85(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (‘ITAA 1997’); and
·                NCCs from 1 July 2007 to 7.30pm 3 May 2016 — $500,000 as reduced by any NCCs made from 1 July 2007.
As you can see, given the far more generous contribution caps applying before 4 May 2016, the $500,000 lifetime cap is a retrospective and an unfair change of law made by way of Budget announcement especially as it may not survive the political and legal process that lies ahead.
Before anyone who has made NCCs in the past 9 years makes any further contributions to superannuation, they would be well advised to request ATO confirmation of their NCCs to check whether they will exceed the new cap. The Budget Paper confirms that:
To ensure maximum effectiveness the lifetime cap will take into account all non-concessional contributions made on or after 1 July 2007, from which time the Australian Taxation Office has reliable contributions records …
<h2>Other points on retrospective law</h2>
The Treasurer, Mr Scott Morrison, may argue that the new cap is not retrospective as it does not require NCCs that already exceed $500,000 on 3 May 2016 to be rejected and therefore prior contributions are not adversely impacted.
However, this is an argument equivalent to an argument about ‘splitting hairs’. The prior law permitted NCCs of $180,000 per financial year or $540,000 over three consecutive financial years (if the bring forward rule applied). Moreover, let’s assume that someone had contributed $540,000 of NCCs during the prior 9 years and now wishes to contribute more, they now have a nil lifetime cap. When did the current Government warn the public that the ‘rug may be pulled from underneath them?’
Indeed, the Government has repeatedly promised (particularly leading up to the 2013 election) that there would be no adverse changes in its next term of office without appropriate consultation. In particular, in January 2013, the Coalition released its pre-election policy document Real Solutions, which pledged to "deliver greater stability and certainty" around superannuation laws. "We won't move the goalposts... We will ensure that no more negative unexpected changes occur to the superannuation system," the document said.
However, following Mr Malcolm Turnbull’s appointment as Prime Minister in September 2015, he confirmed that under a Turnbull Government prior policies could be changed. “We've got to be agile all the time" Mr Turnbull told AM's Michael Brissenden on 21 September 2015.
This is despite the repeated requests for stability in respect of our superannuation law due to the ‘long-term’ nature of being locked into a regulatory environment where someone cannot withdraw their money if there is an adverse change in law.
The usual process of retrospective legislation
The Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’) report on retrospective law recognises that retrospective tax laws may be introduced, typically for tax avoidance or integrity type measures. Moreover, when retrospective tax laws are introduced, they usually only apply for a relatively short-time frame.
Also, these type of retroactive tax changes to address tax avoidance and integrity announcements should be contrasted with superannuation measures where people are ‘locked into’ a regulatory system without being able to easily withdraw their savings. Indeed, most people cannot access their superannuation until they attain age 65 (subject to strict exceptions under strict preservation rules).
The Senate has processes intended to minimise periods of retrospectivity. Standing Order 44 provides that where tax legislation has been announced by press release more than six months before the introduction of the relevant legislation into Parliament (or publication of a draft bill), that legislation will be amended to provide for a commencement date after the date of introduction (or publication).
Further, Ms Michelle Gordon, a High Court judge, commented that retrospective tax law is not only hurting taxpayers but may be making foreign investment less attractive. This comment was made during her presentation to tax experts at the University of Melbourne law school in late August 2012 when she was then a Federal Court judge.
Given that all Federal legislative processes are now in ‘care taker’ mode until after the election on 2 July 2016, there is going to be considerable uncertainty as to whether this lifetime cap announcement will become law and if it does, in what form. The Labor Government has ruled out any retrospectivity to this reform should it win the election.
More detail on the $500,000 lifetime cap
This article has put forward numerous reasons why retrospective law stretching back nearly 9 years should not be tolerated by the Australian community.
Assuming, despite these reasons, that the Government persists to introduce a $500,000 lifetime NCC cap, we note that such a cap is surprisingly low given the summary provided above where some 10 years ago, the amount of personal NCCs (then known as ‘undeducted contributions’) were unlimited in amount.
The NCC cap was then, following a brief transitional period, reduced to $150,000 (as indexed on 1 July 2014 to $180,000) per FY subject to then a $450,000 (as indexed on 1 July 2014 to $540,000) three year bring forward rule until 3 May 2016. This 10 year slide has been a major restriction on what people could previously have contributed to their super savings.
Certainly, there were numerous submissions to Government by different industry bodies and members of the community to restrict the tax concessions in relation to superannuation for those people who had attained a certain monetary threshold within the super system. However, the Government’s response overlooks the fact that these people had contributed on the basis of the law as then applying (which was unlimited prior to the budget announcement in May 2006) and as a result, the Government should not overly restrict the ability for everyone else to accumulate a reasonable amount in superannuation to provide a satisfactory lifestyle in their retirement.
Assuming the Government sees the light of day and drops the retrospective nature of the $500,000 lifetime cap, we also consider the Government has overreacted with a $500,000 lifetime cap. Such a cap does not allow any flexibility for the numerous investment timing and life cycle risks that may arise which we examine in further detail below.
What if a member suffers an investment loss?
Many who have previously contributed more than $500,000 have lost considerable value — many losing far more than 50% on their investments — as a result of the global financial crisis (‘GFC’).
A $500,000 lifetime cap provides no scope or flexibility for these people who may suffer another GFC or another market correction (as in the October 1987 share market crash), where a substantial value of their lifetime savings may be lost in volatile trading over a short-time frame.
Indeed, there are many who were hoping to retire but got GFC’d and are still in the workforce at age 65 and 70, who expected to retire much earlier.
Moreover there have been many thousands of people who have suffered from one of the many fraudulent investment schemes and who will have no chance to accumulate any further super savings as they will generally have burnt up their lifetime NCC cap but unfortunately, and through no fault of their own, have zero or next to no dollars remaining in superannuation.
SMSFs that have entered into contracts pre-budget
SMSFs that have entered into contracts and transactions to buy investments, incurring limited recourse borrowing arrangements to gear up an investment property and other investment contacts that span 7.30pm 3 May 2016, may now be in default of such contracts and stand to lose deposits and suffer considerable loss and damages as a result of the threatened retrospective impact of the new lifetime NCC cap.
So with a mere Budget announcement without any forewarning or transitioning rule, many peoples’ superannuation planning may now be in ruins by the announced change in law.
In contrast, when changes were made to restrict SMSFs investing related unit trusts on 11 August 1999, a special 10 year transitional rule was introduced to allow an SMSF that invested in a related unit trust with borrowings to invest in further units up to 30 June 2009 to enable the unit trust to reduce its debt. Without the introduction of s 71E of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (‘SISA’), SMSFs would have similarly been caught by an announced change but were granted a 10 year transitioning period.
The timing of the $500,000 lifetime NCC cap is particularly adverse for many SMSFs with related party LRBAs that need considerable cash flow before 30 June 2016 to place their LRBAs on arm’s length terms to comply with recent ATO guidelines. For these SMSFs to comply with the ATO’s recently released Practice Compliance Guideline PCG 2016/5, relevant SMSFs need to make the entire outstanding 2016 FY payments of principal and interest on non-arm’s length loans before 30 June 2016.
Impact on small business
The new cap is particularly unfortunate for business owners who generally are not in a financial position to contribute super throughout their lives and fall outside the CGT small business concessions in div 152 of the ITAA 1997. Many small business owners treat their business as a ‘de facto’ superannuation savings vehicle as they generally do not have enough cash to contribute to superannuation as they are building their business.
Small business owners will also have limited capacity to utilise their SMSFs from now on to acquire their business premises. The proposed lifetime NCC cap will adversely affect many small businesses, farmers and others that wish to invest in real estate, with many properties now in capital cities (and farm land on the city fringes) valued far in excess of $1 million.
Transfers from overseas to Australian superannuation funds
Those seeking to make transfers funds from foreign superannuation funds will also now be limited on what they can transfer to Australian superannuation funds.
Without the ability to transfer savings from foreign superannuation funds, many will leave their moneys in these overseas funds as the upfront tax cost on repatriation may be unviable compared to drawing a steady pension.
Australia should encourage foreign savings to be invested here, but the new lifetime cap imposes severe limits on these savings being available to produce any benefit to the Australian economy.
Conclusions
If there is to be announced legislation by budget or press release, then it should prospective. Being prospective, if the limit is $500,000 then most people will hopefully adjust and learn to live with this new limit. However, to then seek to impose a retrospective 9 year inclusion period on prior contributions when people have gone about their affairs in an ordinary and lawful manner is unreasonable and should not be tolerated by our community. Indeed, the current Government has misrepresented that there will be no adverse super changes. A change of Prime Minister in September 2015 is no excuse for such poor law making.
 
This was written by DBA Lawyers Director Daniel Butler and Special Counsel Rebecca James, who can be contacted below
Daniel Butler, Director (<a href="mailto:dbutler@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">dbutler@dbalawyers.com.au</a>) 
Rebecca James, Special Counsel (<a href="mailto:rjames@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">rjames@dbalawyers.com.au</a>)
 
</body></html>

Latest Guides

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

News

Editor's Picks

News

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Latest Guides

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

News

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

News

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News