<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sunland-group">Sunland Group</a> has officially lodged plans for its first Gold Coast apartment project since the departure of the Abedian family from the company three years ago, unveiling a new high-rise proposal for a prominent Broadbeach corner site on Old Burleigh Road.

The application was submitted by an entity directed by Tom Jamieson, stepson of longtime Sunland leader Soheil Abedian, and Riaz Rezvanipour, brother-in-law of Sahba Abedian, Soheil’s son.

Sunland acquired the 1,283 sqm site on the corner of Old Burleigh Road and Armrick Avenue for $9.5 million late last year and is now seeking approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/99-101-old-burleigh-road-broadbeach-qld-4218">42-storey tower with 81 apartments</a>.

<img alt="First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fea2946d-90ee-4cfc-babe-2a8ad5db2cb6" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers.png?VersionId=BV0fihJw31nDIQ8ozY_h3GbS8mxDyhnm" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/contreras-earl-architecture">Contreras Earl Architecture</a>, the proposed tower at 99-101 Old Burleigh Road would deliver a predominantly larger-format apartment mix aimed at the owner-occupier market. Plans include 17 two-bedroom apartments, 55 three-bedroom apartments, and nine four-bedroom residences across 35 residential levels.

The development also incorporates three basement levels, four podium parking levels, two levels of communal recreation facilities, and rooftop plant and equipment. A total of 189 car spaces are proposed, significantly exceeding the 90 spaces required under the planning scheme.

The architecture adopts a sculpted, curvilinear form, with deep wraparound balconies and integrated landscaping intended to soften the tower’s vertical expression. The planning report states the building’s “slender footprint/form provides a complimentary yet varied built form within the local streetscape” and contributes to “a varied, yet ordered skyline.”

Contreras Earl noted in its Architectural Statement that from the early stages, the project addressed a fundamental challenge: how to accommodate the required residential yield while avoiding the conventional model of a tower sitting on a rigid, fully resolved parking podium.

“The most direct response would have been to consolidate parking into a singular, flat podium and extrude a repetitive tower above,” the statement said. “While efficient, this approach would result in a consolidated built form with limited engagement with the surrounding landscape and public realm.”

Instead, the conventional podium model was “deliberately rejected”. The architects described the base of the building as “a landscaped architectural condition where structure, planting and circulation are integrated”.

“Rather than presenting a continuous built mass, the base of the building is articulated through a series of concrete planter elements that organise the podium into a fragmented system,” the statement said. “This approach reduces the perceived bulk of the lower levels while establishing a more permeable interface with the streetscape and adjacent open space.”

<img alt="Sunland" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="923fad8d-c960-4527-8fbe-975cf1ddf88d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%2010.32.03%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=pngwb0hYOIUpq9vDw6F2EsOiVuHF3DiX" />

&nbsp;

The site sits within the High Density Residential Zone and inside the City of Gold Coast’s unrestricted “HX” building height area, where the planning framework anticipates intensified residential development tied to the expanding light rail corridor. The planning report notes the area is undergoing “transition toward more intense development forms” given its proximity to Broadbeach, Surfers Paradise, and high-frequency public transport infrastructure.

Positioned directly opposite Broadbeach Park and within walking distance of Florida Gardens light rail station, the development would sit among a rapidly evolving stretch of Old Burleigh Road that has become one of the Gold Coast’s most active apartment development corridors.

The application joins a growing pipeline of luxury residential projects reshaping Broadbeach, including nearby developments by 5Point Projects, Polycell, and Graya.

The planning report argues the project contributes toward the Gold Coast’s long-term housing targets under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, which forecasts the need for more than 100,000 additional high-rise dwellings across the city by 2046.

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-4" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" dir="auto">
The Abedian family departed Sunland Group in late 2023, ending a four-decade association with the company, and subsequently established the private development firm Abedian &amp; Co. The group is currently delivering <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/greenmount-residences-cnr-hill-street-and-marine-parade-coolangatta-qld-4225">Greenmount Residences</a> at Rainbow Bay and recently launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/18-mary-avenue-14-18-mary-avenue-broadbeach-qld-4218">18 Mary Avenue</a> in Broadbeach.
</section>

Joel Robinson

First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach new apartment market with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans

The Minns Labor Government has established the new Bays West Delivery Authority to lead the development&nbsp;of the Bays West Precinct and Blackwattle Bay Precinct.&nbsp;

The Authority is charged with creating Sydney’s newest precinct, a thriving, connected, sustainable hub with White Bay Power Station as its cultural heart. Its vision is to build on the area’s natural, cultural and industrial history to shape a vibrant new neighbourhood.

The precinct will deliver up to 8,500 well-located homes, including a minimum of 10 per cent affordable and essential worker homes. Combine new housing with public open space, opening public access to the waterfront for the first time in more than 100 years, while retaining important deep-water facilities to support Sydney’s working harbour.

Located just minutes from the Sydney CBD and connected to a world-class metro, ferry, walking and cycling links, the Bays West precinct will rebalance housing growth towards well-serviced inner-city locations and help tackle the state’s housing crisis.

The Bays West Delivery Authority,&nbsp;an agency of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, will report to the NSW Minister for Lands and Property who already has oversight of major precinct renewal projects including at Blackwattle Bay and Barangaroo.

As part of the broader Bays West transformation, the Minns Government recently announced that a proposal from Lendlease to redevelop part of the Bays West Precinct has progressed to Stage 2 of the NSW Government’s unsolicited proposals process.

<img alt="Sydney" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2ed71eb9-d8e8-4fa7-b9d1-de4531dcf2f3" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%209.42.31%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=IDryFIbped9SNDg72LEN_EecvhUsOPvp" />

The Minns Labor Government has also confirmed the Bays West precinct will have a new suburb name. This will be the first major suburb built in close proximity to Sydney’s CBD in decades and will encompass the area currently being referred to as Bays West, including Glebe Island and the White Bay Power Station. Served by a new Metro station just five minutes from the CBD, it will become one of the most populous suburbs in the Inner West and one of Sydney’s premier cultural destinations.

An early works program is taking shape, which&nbsp;includes the first stages of an international design competition.&nbsp;

The aim of the Bays West&nbsp;International&nbsp;Design Competition is to&nbsp;ensure design excellence is embedded in the project from the start. The competition will deliver an&nbsp;urban framework that defines the character, ambition and long-term identity of&nbsp;this&nbsp;former industrial precinct as it transitions to a vibrant, inclusive and sustainable residential&nbsp;neighbourhood.

The competition will be led by the Bays West Delivery Authority in partnership with Government Architect NSW.&nbsp;

It will launch with an invitation for a global Expressions of Interest, before moving to an invitation-only stage that will be assessed by a panel that&nbsp;will provide advice to Cabinet who will select a winner.

Premier of NSW, Chris Minns said the establishment of the new Authority is the first step in transforming the Bays West precinct into a vibrant, livable suburb minutes from the Sydney CBD and two stops from Hunter St Station on the Metro West line.

“The Authority will deliver well-located homes close to the heart of the city and integrate the new precinct with Blackwattle Bay and the new Sydney Fish Market.

“This is a generational opportunity to build a new suburb on the city’s edge and open the harbour foreshore to the public for the first time in a century.”&nbsp;

Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper said the new Bays West Delivery Authority established by the Minns Government will turbocharge the development of Sydney’s newest suburb.

“The Authority is working at a record pace to deliver an international design competition, planning pathways and a financial model so that this development benefits Sydney with well-designed homes in a central location, close to public transport, jobs, entertainment and essential services.

“If we want Sydney to stay liveable and affordable, we need to be bold about using underutilised government-owned land to deliver homes for the future while making sure essential working harbour functions can be accommodated.”

Bays West Delivery Authority established to "turbocharge" Sydney’s newest suburb

Around 400 additional homes could be built at Southwark Grounds on Port Road, lifting total site capacity from 1300 to around 1700 dwellings.

A recently approved code amendment would allow apartment towers of up to 14 storeys in some areas of Renewal SA’s redevelopment of the former West End Brewery.

Renewal SA Acting Chief Executive Shane Wingard said he welcomed the code amendment, with the increase in heights and homes making a positive impact on the supply of high-quality, well-connected housing close to the city.

“By going higher across some parts of Southwark Grounds, we are adding a substantial number of very well-located homes with little impact on project delivery time or planned open space,” Mr Wingard said.

Since the project officially launched in 2025, Mr Wingard said more than 12,000 enquiries had been received about living at Southwark Grounds.

“The very strong early interest we’ve seen since homes were first released in the precinct reinforces our plans to create more housing opportunities,” he said.

The Southwark Grounds code amendment was launched in December last year, with community engagement undertaken over five weeks from January.

It proposed increasing maximum building heights from eight to 14 storeys on the eastern section of Southwark Grounds, and to 12 storeys across the remainder of the site, with minimum building heights ranging from two to four storeys.

The code amendment was implemented through an Early Commencement policy in late January, allowing developers to quickly explore the viability of increased height and housing yield while other planning processes continue.

One of the first developers delivering apartment sites have already finalised redesigns to increase the number of apartments following the code amendment.

Samaras’ development adjacent to the future Colonel Light Park is now planning to deliver 125 apartments across 11 storeys, significantly greater than original plans of around 50 apartments across four storeys.

The developer is also exploring the potential for additional affordable housing outcomes.

Most of the apartments at Southwark Grounds will be delivered within a master-planned precinct on a large parcel of land on the eastern portion of the site, covering around two-thirds of its 8.4 hectares.

Wingard said detailed precinct planning over the coming months may identify further opportunities to increase yield further that could see total apartment numbers at Southwark Grounds, exceed this number.

Affordable homes at Southwark Grounds will also see a net increase, with Renewal SA maintaining its commitment to a minimum of 20 per cent affordable housing across the development.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Civil works have begun across the site, with construction under way on the first new roads surrounding a townhouse precinct in the south‑west corner of Southwark Grounds. This includes Renewal SA’s 17 Founder’s Row homes, which are on track for completion by Christmas.

“We expect to have people living at Southwark Grounds by the end of the year, so delivering roads and public spaces for those residents is among our highest priorities.”

Construction of 40 townhouses off Anderson Street, known as West Village and being delivered by Contour, is forecast to begin in mid‑2026. Kolabb’s Anderson Lane development will follow shortly after, delivering a further 26 townhouses.

Southwark Grounds is a state government‑led urban renewal project now set to deliver around 1,700 homes over the next decade.

Homes will be supported by a supermarket, a range of retail and hospitality offerings anchored by a revitalised Walkerville Brew Tower, a childcare centre, car parking and well‑connected public spaces.

400 new homes planned for Adelaide's former West End Brewery site

Brisbane developer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/cavcorp">Cavcorp</a> has lodged plans for a new mixed-use residential development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/55-wyandra-street-teneriffe-qld-4005">55 Wyandra Street</a>, Teneriffe, anchored by an 85-metre public laneway designed to reconnect the suburb’s riverfront with the Gasworks precinct.

The buildings, known as Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane, would replace the existing Queensland Cotton head office site with a 15-storey residential tower transitioning to eight storeys toward Helen Street. The project has been designed by Plazibat Architects and lodged as a code assessable development application for 93 apartments across a 3,401 sqm mixed-use site within the Newstead and Teneriffe Waterfront neighbourhood plan.

Central to the scheme is the transformation of an existing service easement into a publicly accessible cross-block connection linking Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the new laneway will act as both a pedestrian shortcut and a landscaped civic space between the Teneriffe Riverwalk, ferry terminal, and Gasworks precinct.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="26e7f058-b065-4de8-b13d-a2b8cb64dfcc" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/bldg.png?VersionId=sELS0ZKYi361oYipUa1BIKfe_.DLZoFV" />

“The revised proposal delivers a legacy public-realm cross-block link, permanently secured for community use, transforming an existing private easement into a safe, high-quality pedestrian connection between the Teneriffe heritage riverwalk and the Gasworks–Long Island precinct,” the planning report states.

The laneway will sit beneath a large subtropical loggia integrated into the podium levels of the development. The design incorporates deep landscaping, water gardens, lobby spaces, business lounges, and ground-floor apartments to create what Cavcorp describes as a climate-responsive “urban verandah.”

The tower itself has been designed as a slender form with recessed floorplates and curved translucent corners inspired by contemporary Japanese architecture. The building height aligns with the Commercial Road precinct controls, which permit towers up to 15 storeys within proximity to Longland Street.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a8a17d40-43b6-4718-b3fd-67676fcbb485" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers%202_1.png?VersionId=i3VwDtp5AmL_8InW7w4qRbDFEpb744Jt" />

The project will comprise a mix of larger-format apartments aimed at owner-occupiers, downsizers, and families. The proposed apartment mix includes 11 loggia apartments across the lower levels, 50 four-bedroom Sky-Terrace apartments from levels three to seven, and 32 Sky-Pool Homes occupying the upper tower levels. The Sky-Pool Homes will feature private thermal plunge pools integrated into oversized balconies.

According to the application, the apartments are intended to reinterpret the scale and character of Teneriffe’s woolstore conversions and Queensland homes within a vertical residential format.

“The sky-pool homes build on Cavcorp’s previous projects and introduce a distinct apartment typology to Teneriffe, informed by both local and international precedent and responding to an identified market demand for enhanced safety, space and amenity,” the planning submission notes.

A major focus of the proposal is its five-level wellness and lifestyle offering, extending from the basement through to the rooftop.

Amenities proposed include a rooftop Swim &amp; Racquet Club with a 25-metre Olympic lap pool and tennis court, coworking spaces and libraries, golf simulators, wine storage, concierge facilities, business lounges, pet wash areas, and rooftop longevity-focused wellness spaces with spas, outdoor fitness zones, and landscaped terraces.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="944b352c-49b9-4247-a4c6-5967b4b69fda" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/amenity.png?VersionId=Ed_qKjAtMwFT.5gfl3jiA9QwdWxSMsaX" />

All parking will be concealed within basement levels accessed from Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the deep-basement engineering approach allows the entire ground plane to prioritise landscaping, pedestrian movement, and active frontage rather than vehicle infrastructure.

The development continues Cavcorp’s concentration in Newstead and Teneriffe, where the Brisbane developer has delivered a number of apartment projects including Lucent, Le Bain, and Luminare, as well as the Long Island Wellness Precinct nearby. Several of those projects have received national design and architecture awards, including recognition under Brisbane’s “Buildings that Breathe” program.

Cavcorp unveils wellness-focused Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane apartment buildings

Focus Group Investments has lodged plans for a new apartment development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/64-70-hanover-street-fitzroy-vic-3065">64–70 Hanover Street</a> in Fitzroy, seeking to utilise the Victorian Government’s recently introduced Great Design Fast Track pathway to accelerate approvals for the project.

The proposal is among the latest developments to emerge through the state-led initiative, which was established to fast-track well-designed residential projects in activity centres and transport-connected inner-city locations. The pathway allows qualifying developments that meet elevated design and housing benchmarks to bypass traditional council planning timeframes and instead be assessed directly by the Department of Transport and Planning.

Designed by SJB, the development will comprise a mix of apartments above activated lower levels, with a strong focus on architectural articulation, landscaping, and communal amenity. The design response seeks to balance the industrial character of Richmond’s former warehouse precincts with a more contemporary residential form.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="abea51cc-d85b-479e-9aef-a589f3b37ca7" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/ground.png?VersionId=e1Kf8EyPWwyiVumtqQ4rM5S4GpOR3CCz" />

Proposed are 63 new dwellings, a wide ranging mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, and townhouses and duplexes. They will be spread across a part-three, part-eight storey building.

The Planning and Urban Context Report by Tract says the development is of an "exemplary architectural standard" and has been carefully crafted by SJB Architects.

"Dwellings&nbsp;will benefit from excellent access to natural light, cross-ventilation opportunities and extensive communal space," the report noted.

The architectural material highlights the project’s integration of landscaped elements and communal spaces throughout the building. The proposal also incorporates sustainability initiatives aligned with the Victorian Government’s push for higher-performing apartment developments under the fast-track program.

The Great Design Fast Track was unveiled by the Victorian Government in 2024 as part of a broader housing supply strategy aimed at accelerating the delivery of new homes. Projects assessed through the pathway must demonstrate high-quality architecture, sustainability outcomes, and housing diversity while being located close to public transport and existing infrastructure.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="afdbe834-8dc4-4a77-a943-ba07bc927348" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/site_11.png?VersionId=0J657j.TaChAZfp93wqJYBTqSsnREJx2" />

Focus Group, founder and led by Paul De Lutiis, is increasingly active across Melbourne’s inner suburbs, targeting well-connected urban renewal locations suited to medium and higher-density residential development. The Fitzroy proposal continues that strategy, leveraging the area’s strong transport links, established retail amenity, and proximity to the CBD.

Fitzroy has been one of the most popular spots for developers and buyers in recent years. The likes of PACE Development Group, SMA Projects, Crema Group and Chapter Group, currently selling projects in the suburb.

First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Fitzroy apartments

Smsfs

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The premise of superannuation relies on trust in the system and trust in the government to protect Australia’s primary savings vehicle. Stability of legislation and consistency of policy. This is why we strongly support enshrining the objectives of superannuation in law, and why we are so adamant that the objectives must strive for dignified and secure retirement. Also, consumers need to be able to trust that the advice they receive from their advisors is accurate and in their best interest.
Today I want to focus on three main points.
First, I will briefly reflect on our significant achievements as an Association since establishment in 2003. Second, I will discuss ‘professionalism’ and last, I will touch on the tremendous opportunities that we have at this time.
Fourteen years ago, very few understood the SMSF sector, let alone its role in our nation’s future prosperity. Its survival was hanging in the balance and desperately in need of a ‘leader’.
It is now the largest sector in the superannuation industry. Since those dark days in 2003 when SMSFs were under real threat, the sector has had six-fold growth in funds under management and more than doubled in the number of funds. These are phenomenal statistics and something which each of you should be immensely proud. It is your doing.
Predictions by Rice Warner in fifteen years’ time have SMSFs continuing to be a standout leader in Australian superannuation doubling again in size and numbers.
As a direct result of the SMSF Association’s contribution to that growth:
ˇ      There is public recognition of the SMSF specialist and the SMSF profession. Others tried and failed, but we continue to grow.
ˇ      Career pathways from high school to PhDs exist through the Association’s specialisation programs and we now have our first graduates from the University post-graduate SMSF specialist programs.
ˇ      Our strong advocacy programs have improved access to superannuation and advice. We punch well above our weight.
Today, SMSFs are now integral to our superannuation system and national prosperity. They are too big to ignore.
The growth, and the importance of SMSFs and their communities can be tracked directly to your Association and your input.
Despite at time significant headwinds, we have never wavered from our Vision “to enable Australians to take greater control of their own destiny through a sustainable SMSF community”.
Our Mission has always been to ‘lead the professionalism, integrity and sustainability of the SMSF sector’. These enabled us to navigate the constantly changing environment in which we exist professionally.
There is no better example of this than last year’s far-reaching changes to superannuation in the May Budget.
Our strong advocacy ensured that concessional and non-concessional caps were not further reduced.
We maximised the benefits of the new rules, particularly for women, and SMSFs are now the best placed to adjust to new laws such as the $1.6 million transfer balance cap and flexible contribution rules.
And this leads to my second point.
The word “profession”, at its core, it’s an indicator of trust and expertise.
A ‘professional’ is someone who is independently qualified by a recognised body, governed by a code of ethics, committed to excellence, integrity, professional development and the promotion of the public good within their expert domain.
While we have advocated strongly and you have personally committed as a professional, we have left it to others and government to determine what our profession really looks like. Too often in the past, parts of our industry preferred to pull back towards the lowest common denominator instead of making the tough decisions to move forward into a new professional era.
Often fear, costs and efficient systems design were reasons for the focus on products instead of people and the building of a profession.
It is time to take control.
Research shows trustees number one motivation for being an SMSF trustee is control.
Our members are early adopters. But now as role models you must demand your peers and others in your supply chain join in the journey. Help them commit to their learning journey and membership.
I challenge you now to take control of your profession. I challenge you to be a leader.
It is your responsibility to continue building the profession by bringing everyone in the supply chain into your professional community, whether it be at the entry administration level or the elite strategic advice level. You should maximise and leverage opportunities at every level of your business.
Don’t settle for mediocrity because it is safe or what the government sets a baseline for you – be the cornerstone in creating your future profession. Take a good honest look at the opportunities before you.
You need to want co-regulation. Create a professional legacy for others to follow.
Raising competency and knowledge is not easy, nor is it quick, but it is necessary. To create trust, you, as advisors, accountants, auditors and administrators, must maintain standards expected and demanded of professionals.
It is absolutely necessary. To think otherwise is delusional. Truly professional advice will create trust with your clients. It will help them make better decisions.
It will lead to a better outcome for you and the SMSF industry.
It will set you apart in a crowded market.
To my last point, the future is in our hands and the opportunities held within that future are enormous.
Your clients have never been in greater need of your trusted professional advice.
As I mentioned, last year’s budget changes have provided the SMSF sector with unexpected but significant advantages, which if understood, can add such significant value to your clients. There has never been a better time to engage and build trust and confidence.
I know that due to the complexity of SMSFs, you as advisors will have opportunities to add meaningful value well into the future.
Technology and digital innovation will create new tools to assist those who commit to their own future professional development and help them stand out.
I also believe future advice will be part technology and part human. If you look to the US market you see the growing need for advice in retirement implementing a hybrid advice solution.
You and your peers are absolutely necessary to the SMSF industry, but the future will not again tolerate a product story.
You can be leaders.
In fifteen years’ time, just imagine what the industry will look like to efficiently advise, service and invest in the predicted $1.2T of funds under management in SMSFs. 
We must all continue to demonstrate that SMSFs can be a vehicle for people to take control of their destiny.
Others in our super sector are threatened by the power of SMSFs.
They continue to oppose us.
Others claim to be run for the benefit of members. SMSFs are run BY the members.
As your representative Association, we will continue to engender integrity and trust for consumers and government in this sector. It is critically important that we maintain and further develop a highly competent, well-regulated, competitive SMSF sector.
I am confident you will meet these challenges and opportunities in all their different forms. You have done so in the past and will continue to so, knowing 1.1m people have already placed their faith in us and knowing that this figure will also double.
We cannot let the future SMSF Trustees down.
John F. Kennedy said in 1962 about why it matters to go to the moon: "We choose now, not because it is easy but because it is hard…..this challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
We are ‘flying to the moon’ to achieve our future as professionals who are trusted by Australians.
I have trust in you.
I know you will accept this challenge and I know you will win.
Be proud of where we sit as an industry but be vigilant to ensure the SMSF industry fulfils its potential and its place in the Australian economy.
Andrea Slattery is managing director and chief executive officer, SMSF Association, and can be contacted <a href="https://www.smsfassociation.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
This is an excerpt of the speech given to the 2017 SMSF Association National Conference.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

SMSFs integral to our superannuation system: Andrea Slattery

<html><body>
Dear Margaret,
My husband and I would like to build granny flat through an SMSF at our own home – is this possible to do?
Lyn
 
Dear Lyn,
This one is a tricky one. I consulted Property Success team member Ian Rodrigues to get his thoughts and talk it through.
I’m not sure what it is that you are hoping to see as an outcome for doing this. Presumably, you are thinking that you can either get rental income from the granny flat into the super and it will be an inexpensive project since you won’t need to pay for the land, or that you can ‘rent’ some of your land to the super fund for the purposes of building the flat.
The issue is, once a building is built on a piece of land, that building becomes the property of the owner of the land.  And so the super rules would prohibit this, as the asset would no longer be owned by that super fund.
In talking this through with Ian, we considered what may happen if the granny flat was one of the mobile varieties, such as those often erected in holiday or mobile home parks. In this case, the super fund would be buying the flat as ‘plant’ and you would be allowing that piece of plant to be housed on your land. Technically speaking, if this piece of plant was fully mobile and could be shifted from place to place, it may be allowed, as the super fund can retain the ownership of this piece of plant, and receive any rent it attracted.   
Keep in mind that this granny flat would not be able to be rented out to any parties related in any way to the super fund, so if you’re thinking it could be a good way to get a place for the kids or a relative, then you won’t be allowed to do this. You may be able to personally receive rent on the land you provide to park the mobile home on. I say this because if you were, say, a plumber by trade, and your super fund rental property needed a plumber, you can carry out the work and be paid for that work.  I can’t see a lot of difference between that and receiving rent for land you provide.
The best way to check if any of this is allowable is to have a lawyer experienced in super fund law to check it out for you, or get a ruling from the tax office. As with all questions of this nature, pass it by your accountant to see what they think.
Regards,
Margaret
Have a property question?   <a href="mailto:admin@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

mlomas-KC9MUPZ6Ca

A granny flat with your SMSF? Ask Margaret Lomas

<html><body>
ASIC has issued an information sheet for accountants who provide services in relation to self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).
Information Sheet 216 AFS licensing requirements for accountants who provide SMSF services (<a href="https://asic.gov.au/for-finance-professionals/afs-licensees/applying-for-and-managing-an-afs-licence/limited-financial-services/afs-licensing-requirements-for-accountants-who-provide-smsf-services/" target="_blank">INFO 216</a>) covers how the Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensing regime applies to SMSF services provided by accountants. It sets out the various SMSF services an accountant might provide and whether a licensing exemption applies to them or whether an accountant must be covered by an AFS licence for those services.
Peter Kell. ASIC deputy chairman said ASICs primary role in relation to SMSFs is to regulate the gatekeepers – the accountants, financial advisers and SMSF auditors. 
"We think that accountants and financial advisers have a critically important role to ensure that only those investors for whom an SMSF is suitable go into the SMSF sector and, in doing so are fully informed," he said.
The exemption which allowed recognised accountants to give financial advice about acquiring or disposing of an interest in an SMSF was repealed on 1 July 2016 and accountants need to be clear about which services must be covered by a licence and which remain exempt. INFO 216 will assist accountants in understanding which services do and not require them to be covered by an AFS licence.
ASIC has also modified Corporations Regulation 7.1.29(4)(c)(ii) to ensure that accountants can continue to provide taxation advice on financial products not covered by their licence in <a href="https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/class-orders/2016-legislative-instruments/" target="_blank">ASIC Corporations (Recognised Accountants: Exempt Services) Instrument 2016/1151</a>. 
The Instrument modifies reg 7.1.29(4)(c)(ii) so that a limited AFS licensee can rely on the exemption to provide tax advice to a retail client on a financial product which is not covered by an authorisation in their licence. 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Property 101: ASIC update for SMSF accountants

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
In October 2016, Treasury released the third tranche of draft legislation to implement the announcements in the Federal Budget. The principal component of this tranche was the new non-concessional contribution rules.
Hidden in the legislation is a very important concession.
I envisage that advisers will only need to apply it a handful of times in their careers. However, when they do apply it, it will be some of the most important and helpful advice that can be provided.
(Note that this article must be read subject to the discussion regarding the AFSL regime at the end.)
This hidden gem relates to structured settlement contributions. More specially, it relates to contributions covered by s 292‑95 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth).
In this article, when I refer to a ‘structured settlement contribution’, I will refer to a contribution covered by s 292‑95. The full official version of s 292‑95 is currently available <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00916" target="_blank">here</a>.
However, for the purposes of this article, it is suffice to say that s 292‑95 covers the following contributions (however, I stress that there are other types of contributions that it covers too):
<ul>
<li>the contribution arises from the settlement of a claim that is for compensation or damages for personal injury suffered by the fund member</li>
<li>the contribution is made by the fund member</li>
<li>the claim is based on the commission of a wrong, or on a right created by statute</li>
<li>the settlement takes the form of a written agreement between the parties to the claim (whether or not that agreement is approved by an order of a court, or is embodied in a consent order made by a court)</li>
<li>two legally qualified medical practitioners have certified that, because of the personal injury, it is unlikely that the fund member can ever be gainfully employed in a capacity for which the member is reasonably qualified because of education, experience or training</li>
<li>no later than the time the contribution is made to a superannuation plan, the member notifies the trustee, in the approved form, that s 292‑95 is to apply to the contribution and</li>
<li>the contribution is made within 90 days of the day of receipt of the payment from which the contribution is made.</li>
</ul>
I want to stress two aspects: Firstly, the above is not the only combination of facts that can be covered by s 292‑95 (ie, be a structured settlement contribution).
Again, advisers should read s 292‑95 in full. Secondly, the clock ticks very quickly.
To be covered by s 292‑95 — and thus to get the benefit of the ‘hidden gems’ that I will discuss in this article — broadly the contribution must be made within 90 days of receipt of the payment.
Clients might not tell advisers promptly when they receive a compensation payment.
Accordingly, advisers should be pro-active about this and upon the first ‘whiff’ that a client might receive a compensation or similar payment, should start alerting clients to these rules.
There are two key concessions for structured settlement contributions.
The first is contained in the proposed s 307‑230(2). Broadly, this provides that, when determining how much money a person has in superannuation (ie, their ‘total superannuation balance’), ignore any money that came from a structured settlement contribution.
Naturally, this important because, under the new non-concessional contribution rules contained in the third tranche of draft legislation, if immediately before the start of the year, a person’s ‘total superannuation balance equals or exceeds the general transfer balance cap for the year’ (which will start at $1.6 million on 1 July 2017), then the person has a nil non-concessional contributions cap for the year.
In short, a person will be able to make structured settlement contributions to superannuation regardless of how large the contribution is or how much money the person already has in superannuation.
(For legal completeness, I note that structured settlement contributions do not constitute non-concessional contributions and so are irrelevant to the non-concessional contributions cap, however, it was a relief to see that the third tranche of legislation did not impact upon this and indeed expressly retained this position.)
The second key concession is contained in the second tranche of legislation that was released in late September.
At the risk of oversimplification, it provides that a structured settlement contribution is a debit to a person’s transfer balance account (see item 2 in the table in the proposed s 294‑70). Effectively, this means that the $1.6 million cap on how much can be used to commence a pension (and thus how much can be covered by the pension income tax exemption) does not apply to pensions funded by structured settlement contributions.
Consider the following example from the draft explanatory memorandum that accompanied the third tranche:
Masayo is self-employed and has been making contributions to her account in her self-managed superannuation fund Couture Super, which is her only superannuation interest. At 30 June 2017 Masayo had not yet commenced any superannuation income streams and the total of her accumulation phase value is $1 million.
In the 2017-18 financial year Masayo is involved in an accident that results in her receiving a structured settlement of $2 million which she contributes to Couture Super on 15 May 2018.
To determine whether she is eligible to make non-concessional contributions in the 2018-19 financial year, Masayo calculates her total superannuation balance at 30 June 2018 as; accumulation phase value ($3 million) less the structured settlement contribution in accumulation ($2 million), equalling $1 million. As Masayo’s total superannuation balance is below $1.6 million Masayo is eligible to make non-concessional contributions in the 2018-19 financial year.
In the above example, Masayo could also then:
<ul>
<li>make a further $600,000 of non-concessional contributions and</li>
<li>commence a pension funded by a total of $3.6 million of capital (assuming of course she had satisfied a relevant condition of release, which she almost certainly would have).</li>
</ul>
The new draft rules contain very important concessions for those who are able to make structured settlement contributions.
Accordingly, advisers need to be very proactive when there is a possibility to make a structured settlement contribution, especially given that there is generally only a narrow 90 day window when such a contribution can be made.
Naturally, advisers must remember all of the usual requirements when advising on contributions, pensions and the like.
One very timely aspect is the AFSL regime. Naturally, I will not discuss this aspect ‘chapter and verse’, however, those advisers who have entered the AFSL regime, may well need to provide a statement of advice and those who have not entered the regime need to think very carefully about how appropriate information can be provided to their client while complying with all relevant laws.
For accountants in the second category, they might consider something along the lines of a letter to their client setting out certain objectively ascertainable facts (eg, the structured settlement contribution rules detailed in this article) along with a recommendation to seek advice from an appropriately licensed adviser and the appropriate disclaimers.
Bryce Figot is a lawyer at DBA Lawyers and <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/" target="_blank">can be contacted here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Property 101: Key concessions for structured settlement contributions

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian Taxation Office (‘ATO’) released Taxation Determination TD 2016/16 — Income tax: will the ordinary or statutory income of a self-managed superannuation fund be non-arm’s length income under subsection 295-550(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) when the parties to a scheme have entered into a limited recourse borrowing arrangement on terms which are not at arm’s length.
TD 2016/16 confirms the ATO’s view that where an SMSF trustee enters into a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (‘LRBA’) on non-arm’s length terms, it is necessary to consider whether the self managed superannuation fund (‘SMSF’) has derived more ordinary or statutory income under the scheme than it might have been expected to derive had the parties been dealing with each other at arm’s length in relation to the scheme.
Non-arm’s length income (NALI) will only arise in those cases where the answer to this question is affirmative.
In answering this question, it is necessary to identify both the steps and the parties in relation to the scheme.
This also requires an analysis of what the arm’s length borrowing terms would have been (‘hypothetical borrowing arrangement’).
It is then necessary to analyse whether it is reasonable to conclude that the SMSF trustee could have and would have entered into the hypothetical borrowing arrangement.
The ATO view is that where it is reasonable to conclude that the SMSF trustee could not or would not have entered into the hypothetical borrowing arrangement, the SMSF will have derived more ordinary or statutory income under the scheme, and this income will be treated as NALI.
Accordingly, where s 295-550(1) applies, the total amount received by an SMSF trustee from the arrangement, after any applicable deductions to the extent they are attributable to that income, is taxed at the highest marginal tax rate plus the temporary budget repair levy (currently 47%), instead of the concessional tax rate that typically applies to SMSFs.
This rate applies even if the SMSF is in pension phase (subject to the proposed $1.6 million balance cap).
TD 2016/16 states at [22] that:
where the SMSF can objectively establish with evidence that it could have and would have entered into the hypothetical borrowing arrangement, a comparison can then be made of the SMSF’s ordinary or statutory income from the scheme (where the parties have not been dealing with each other at arm’s length and have entered into an LRBA on terms which are not at arm’s length) and the income under the hypothetical borrowing arrangement.
The example provided in TD 2016/16 represents an extreme loan arrangement that provides limited practical guidance for the vast majority of related party LRBAs that may be almost but not quite in line with the safe harbour provisions set out in <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/announcements/ato-releases-safe-harbours-non-bank-smsf-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements/">PCG 2016/5</a>. The example in TD 2016/16 includes the following facts:
<ul>
<li>the loan to value ratio (‘LVR’) is 100%;</li>
<li>the interest rate is nil;</li>
<li>the loan term is 25 years, with no repayments required until the cessation of the loan term; and</li>
<li>a mortgage is provided in respect of the property.</li>
</ul>
These facts are clearly not consistent with an arm’s length loan arrangement. The facts from this example are then compared with a hypothetical borrowing arrangement example (which reflects the ATO’s safe harbour guidelines for real estate in PCG 2016/5, ie, 70% LVR, 15-year term, interest at 5.75% p.a. for the 2016 financial year, monthly repayments and security over the property).
Therefore, when determining what is an arm’s length hypothetical borrowing arrangement, the ATO is likely to refer to the safe harbour terms set out in PCG 2016/5 as a starting point (as per the example in TD 2016/16).
Alternatively, an SMSF trustee can obtain and maintain written evidence that demonstrates that the LRBA terms are consistent with an arm’s length dealing in the same factual circumstances.
In TD 2016/16, the ATO states that the rent of $1,000 per week derived from the property is not sufficient to make monthly principal and interest repayments at the rate determined under PCG 2016/5 of $5,800 per month.
The ATO then goes on to conclude that the SMSF trustee could not and would not have entered into the hypothetical borrowing arrangement for a number of reasons, including because once the weekly rental and any future capital gains are taken into account, the property would not be earnings accretive. (‘Accretive’ is commonly defined as growth or increase by gradual addition over time.)
The ATO’s methodology, however, for determining that the property would not generate sufficient future earnings or capital gains is not outlined in TD 2016/16.
The requirement that a property be earnings accretive from the outset of an LRBA requires further consideration and analysis.
The determination of the future capital growth of a particular property would, for instance, involve an analysis of property prices in the area over the proposed ownership period and forward projections of capital appreciation and net income flows.
An SMSF trustee must formulate and implement an investment strategy under s 52B of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (‘SISA’) that considers the:
<ul>
<li>risk and likely return from the SMSF’s investments having regard to its objectives;</li>
<li>diversification of the SMSF’s investments and the risks of inadequate diversification;</li>
<li>liquidity of the SMSF’s investments and cash flow requirements; and</li>
<li>ability of the SMSF trustee to discharge any existing and prospective liabilities.</li>
</ul>
Furthermore, the earnings and growth from the asset acquired using an LRBA may not necessarily be the main funding source to repay borrowings.
Contributions, rollovers and the admission of further members can also provide the necessary funding.
On the basis that an SMSF trustee has given due consideration to the investment strategy factors outlined above, and has a plan to repay the borrowing on arm’s length terms (as well as meeting any other existing and prospective liabilities), the SMSF trustee is investing in a manner that is consistent with the SISA requirements.
Furthermore, if the LRBA was on arm’s length terms and this could be clearly substantiated, the fact that a property was negatively geared would not, by itself, be sufficient to give rise to NALI.
There is no basis under superannuation or tax law for the position that a borrowing must be repaid from income or gains derived from the asset acquired with that borrowing for the parties to be dealing on arm’s length terms; albeit this may in fact occur in many conservatively leveraged LRBAs.
TD 2016/16 also states that the ATO will consider whether an LRBA is ‘an optimal use’ of the SMSF’s assets. Again, this statement does not reflect the obligations placed on SMSF trustees under superannuation or tax law.
An SMSF trustee is certainly required to invest in a prudent manner and in the best financial interests of members.
Determining, however, what is an ‘optimal use’ of the SMSF’s assets is a subjective exercise that is difficult to quantify or enforce, and that goes beyond the duty to exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence as an ordinary prudent person would exercise in dealing with the property of another for whom the person felt morally bound to provide for under s 52B of the SISA.
While the legislation provides certain prohibitions or limitations on particular forms of investments, eg, the 5% limit on in-house assets in pt 8 of the SISA, the legislation does not seek to influence a trustee’s choice of investment.
If the ATO views SMSF trustee investment decisions through a prism that requires optimal positively geared investments that generate an accretive return from the date the particular asset is acquired, SMSF trustees will be held to a standard above that required by superannuation and trust law and will find it increasingly difficult to identify asset classes in which to invest, given the risk of a negative return inherent in all but the most conservative of investments.
Fortunately, the ATO’s view expressed in TD 2016/16 regarding optimal positively geared investments, appears to be limited to related party LRBAs at this time.
Parties to an LRBA who are dealing on arm’s length terms can substantiate their position by retaining sufficient evidence to demonstrate that each aspect of the LRBA as a whole has been benchmarked to commercial terms in substantially the same circumstances.
In particular, an SMSF trustee must ensure that the interest rate, LVR, loan term and security provided as well as the other terms of the borrowing are consistent with an arm’s length dealing.
In forming its view, an SMSF trustee must take into consideration all these factors to ensure it can support the position that the LRBA terms have been continually maintained on an arm’s length basis.
Importantly, a written loan agreement and related documents should be prepared and should reflect the arm’s length terms.
The parties must also act in accordance with the terms of that agreement, eg, ensure regular monthly repayments are being made (at least from 31 January 2017).
SMSF trustees should also obtain quotes from banks, mortgage brokers and from other sources to support the arm’s length terms.
As a result of the latest ATO views expressed in TD 2016/16, SMSF trustees undertaking related party LRBAs should also seek to document cash flow projections in respect of any proposed acquisition that reflects a positive cash flow and capital appreciation wherever possible to minimise any NALI risk.
TD 2016/16 replaces the ATO view outlined in ATO ID 2015/27 and 2015/28, which have been withdrawn. PCG 2016/5 has also been revised following the release of TD 2016/16.
Broadly, the key change is the ATO’s clarification in TD 2016/16 regarding the need to establish a hypothetical arm’s length borrowing arrangement in determining whether NALI applies.
TD 2016/16 is a public ruling that can be relied on by taxpayers and is binding on the Commissioner.
SMSF trustees with related party LRBAs have until 31 January 2017 to ensure that each LRBA is either benchmarked to the LRBA guidelines provided by the ATO in PCG 2016/5 or arm’s length benchmark evidence has been obtained to support the terms of their arrangement.
This benchmark evidence should demonstrate that the parties are dealing on arm’s length terms and preferably moving forward should be accompanied by cash flow projections.
Daniel Butler is director and Rebecca James SMSF lawyers, DBA Lawyers. They can be contacted <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

ATO’s revised view on LRBAs and the NALI risk

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Government recently released for public consultation the third round of exposure draft legislation and explanatory material to lower the annual non-concessional contributions (‘NCCs’) cap to $100,000 and restrict eligibility to make NCCs to individuals with superannuation balances below $1.6 million from 1 July 2017.
While this legislation is in exposure draft form only (and has not yet been introduced in Parliament as a Bill) it’s important for advisers and those hoping to get some more money into super by way of NCCs to become familiar with the latest proposals. If the latest proposals get finalised as law, they may be effective from 1 July 2017, leaving a small window of opportunity for people to act.
Perhaps the most time sensitive change is the lowering of the annual NCC cap to $100,000 (down from $180,000) for FY2017 and the corresponding reduction in the amount allowed to be contributed under the three year bring forward rule (the current amount is $540,000 – this is to be lowered to $300,000 from 1 July 2017 subject to transitional rules).
The other key change is the requirement that an individual must have a total superannuation balance (‘TSB’) immediately before the start of each financial year (‘FY’) of less than the general transfer balance cap which is $1.6 million for FY2018 - to be indexed in increments of $100,000 - to be eligible to make further NCCs.
From 1 July 2017, if a member has a TSB of more than $1.6 million on the prior 30 June they will be precluded from making further NCCs.
The practical implication of this, simply put, is that a lot of people may want to make contributions prior to 1 July 2017. However, the complexity of the new proposals means that expert advice and, in particular, appropriate advice – bearing in mind the Australian financial services licence (‘AFSL’) rules – needs to be provided.
The importance of timing is probably best illustrated by a practical example.
First, let’s compare the current position with the proposed changes.
Under the current law, we have an annual NCCs cap of $180,000. Under the current bring forward rule, the total NCCs cap for the current FY and the next two FYs of $540,000, provided that:
· NCCs in that first FY exceeded $180,000
· the member did not trigger the bring forward rule in any of the two prior FYs and
· the member is under age 65 at any time during the first FY.
However, the following changes are proposed from 1 July 2017:
· The three year bring forward rule is retained but the annual $180,000 NCCs cap is to be reduced to an annual $100,000 NCCs cap.
· Individuals with total super balances of greater than $1.6 million on each prior 30 June are unable to make NCCs in next FY.
· Transitional rules apply, meaning that if an individual has triggered the bring forward rule and has not fully used their NCCs bring forward amount before 1 July 2017, the remaining bring forward amount will be reduced on 1 July 2017 to reflect the new annual caps.
 So, how does this work in practice?
Take Jane. Jane is under 65, and has not triggered the bring forward rule in FY2015 or FY2016. She had $100,000 in super on 1 July 2016, and made a NCC of $200,000 on 25 October 2016. She now wants to (and is in a position to do so) make further NCCs.
If Jane makes another NCC before 1 July 2017, she can contribute a further $340,000 (as she gets the benefit of the full $540,000 bring forward cap).
But if Jane waits until 1 July 2017 to make a further NCC, the maximum amount she can contribute is a further $180,000. Why? Because as Jane did not fully use her NCC bring forward amount before 1 July 2017, the remaining bring forward amount is reduced on 1 July 2017 to reflect the new caps. The bring forward cap on 1 July 2017 is $380,000, so $380,000 - $200,000 (her NCC made on 16 September 2016) = $180,000.
What if Jane triggered the bring forward rule in FY2016? Let’s say that Jane makes an NCC of $200,000 in FY2016. If she waits until 1 July 2017 to make another NCC, the transitional cap of $460,000 will apply. That means that Jane can only contribute a further $260,000 ($460,000 -$200,000).
You can see how the timing can result in NCCs of $540,000 versus NCCs of $460,000 or $380,000 depending on whether Jane invoked her bring forward rule in FY2016 or FY2017. What a difference a day or a year can make!
You can see from the above figures that many clients will appreciate being contacted by their advisers to give them a heads-up about this limited window of opportunity, and some clients will almost certainly want to make contributions prior to 1 July 2017.
But in light of the new AFSL regime, advisers will have to be careful in terms of how they convey this information to clients. It’s really important that advisers make themselves familiar with the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) relating to financial services and financial product advice.
Broadly, if you make a recommendation or provide an opinion that is intended to influence a person in relation to a financial product, or could reasonably be regarded as being intended to have such an influence, then you are providing financial product advice. An SMSF is considered a financial product under these rules.
So how can you keep clients updated on the proposed superannuation reforms if you don’t hold an AFSL, or you hold an AFSL but don’t want to provide a Statement of Advice?
Remember that you don’t need to be within the AFSL regime if you provide factual advice only. Factual advice, according to ASIC, is objective and factual information that is not intended to influence a person’s decision on a financial product. For example, providing a client with a government factsheet on the superannuation reforms (you can find a list of these on the budget website) would be factual advice. But what if a client presses you for further information, like ‘ok, I’ve read the factsheet, but what do the new NCC rules mean for me?’ ASIC RG 244 contains a template for dealing with these sorts of questions, with a handy introduction:
I can give you some factual information about making extra contributions to your superannuation this financial year, but I’m unable to provide you with any advice about contributing to your superannuation fund. If you would like personal advice about contributing to superannuation, I can set up a meeting for you with someone from our financial advice team. [Naturally, this wording could be varied to suit the circumstances as many accountants will need to refer such matters to an adviser who has an AFSL.]
Providing this factual information may then equip the client to make a decision on their own, and the client might then instruct you to assist them to facilitate the contribution to super. If this is indeed execution only (ie, the client has already made up their mind, and simply wants you to make it happen), then an AFSL is not required, but remember to be aware of the necessary disclaimers.
If you’re unsure of what should be included in the disclaimer, the <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/strategy-compliance-kits/non-licensed-afsl-smsf-advisers-kit/" target="_blank">DBA Lawyers non-licensed (AFSL) SMSF Advisers Kit</a> contains templates of various execution only services, including a range of disclaimers that can be used.
Alternatively, the client may press you for a recommendation tailored to their personal circumstances. Making such a recommendation would fall within the AFSL regime and would therefore need to be handled by an appropriately licensed adviser.
For detailed coverage of this topic, you might also want to watch this <a href="https://www.dbanetwork.com.au/dbalawyers/seminars3/6106/Special-SMSF-Training" target="_blank">webinar</a>.
DBA Lawyers can be contacted <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Property 101: The new NCC rules and the new AFSL regime

<html><body>
As a general guide, SMSF trust deeds should be updated every 4–5 years, or sooner in the case of major legislative change.
The last major legislative change to superannuation that warranted a blanket update for all SMSF trust deeds occurred in mid-2007, and the Federal Government’s proposed superannuation reforms are of similar magnitude, particularly in respect of the $1.6 million transfer balance cap measure.
Once these reforms are finalised (expected by mid 2017), then all SMSFs should be considering an SMSF deed update.
Some clients do not like to rely on the above general guidance, and to answer their concerns properly, it would be necessary to undertake a full review of the fund’s current governing rules.
Unfortunately, such a review may not be a cost effective exercise, as a proper legal review process itself is likely to be more costly than simply updating the deed.
This situation can create something of a dilemma for advisers with SMSF clients, as they may be unable to furnish the evidence that their clients would ideally like to have before them for the purposes of making an informed decision about updating their SMSF trust deed.
In any event, as discussed above, following the finalisation of the current reforms, most SMSF deeds will need updating. Following the update for the mid-2017 reform proposals, we would then expect the general guide of a 4–5 year update to be applicable.
For those advisers with clients using an existing DBA Lawyers’ deed, we provide periodic email updates outlining the superannuation law changes and other enhancements that have been implemented in our current SMSF trust deed since the fund’s deed was last updated.
However, to address this issue more broadly for others clients, DBA Lawyers has developed a checklist to help advisers and their staff assess whether an SMSF trust deed should be updated so they can better communicate with their SMSF clients about the appropriateness of their existing SMSF trust deeds.
The checklist can be combined with other informational tools, such as a chronological summary of major superannuation changes, to help provide more concrete guidance on the factors to consider in weighing up whether an SMSF trust deed is outdated or inappropriate.
The checklist provides general guidance only and is not a substitute for considered advice. Further, the checklist will be updated once the current reforms are finalised.
Click <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SMSF-deed-checklist.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> to download the checklist from DBA Lawyers.
</body></html>

Property 101: SMSF deed update checklist

<html><body>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
SMSF trustees are still consistently investing in assets they understand and can trade easily.
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) figures show that although there might be a bias towards Australian investments, a lack of diversification across asset classes is typically not an issue. 
When critics of SMSF trustees’ asset allocation point to a lack of diversification, they often highlight the absence or low allocation to assets such as international equities, forgetting SMSFs are still getting exposure to these assets via ETF’s, listed and unlisted trusts and managed funds. 
The investment returns that SMSFs have consistently generated over the years speak volumes for the capacity of trustees to manage their investment portfolios. 
Based on ATO statistics, for example, for the eight years from the 2007 financial year to the 2014 year, SMSF returns outperformed all other alternative superannuation arrangements for four of those years. 
Although in recent times, the predominant asset allocation of SMSF trustees has not performed as well compared to alternative funds, it is still within reach. APRA statistics for the 2015 financial year, for example, show the return for SMSFs after expenses (excluding contributions) to be 5.7 percent. This compares with non-SMSF returns of 8.5% for the same period. 
These returns do not support the suggestion that SMSF trustees are dangerously out of their depth or incompetent in investing their members’ superannuation balances. It also has to be noted that many SMSFs are in pension phase and therefore have more defensive investment portfolios to suit their needs. 
The asset allocation of SMSFs has remained largely consistent over the years, rejecting the suggestions that they continue to load up on bank stocks or residential property. 
As the two tables below show, residential property has only inched up half a percentage point in that five-year period (2011-16), while Australian equities have dropped one percentage point. 
All the evidence suggests SMSF trustees are prudent, investing in asset classes where they have knowledge, or giving the responsibility to a manager where they lack expertise. It’s hardly surprising really – it is their money. 
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
For the year to 30 June 2016, SMSF assets totalled $622 billion. The percentage break-up of the same asset classes were:
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<ul>
<li>
  Australian listed shares – 30% 
</li>
<li>
  Australian residential property – 4% 
</li>
<li>
  Australian commercial property – 11% 
</li>
<li>
  Cash &amp; term deposits – 26% 
</li>
<li>
  Overseas investments in total – 1% 
</li>
<li>
  Listed &amp; unlisted trusts &amp; other managed investments – 19% 
</li>
<li>
  Debts &amp; loans – 2% 
</li>
<li>
  Other investments – 7% 
The year to 30 June 2011 told a similar story. Assets totalled $402 billion in the SMSF sector. The percentage break-up of the same asset classes were: 
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
  Australian listed shares – 31% 
</li>
<li>
  Australian residential property – 3.5% 
</li>
<li>
  Australian commercial property – 11.5% 
</li>
<li>
  Cash &amp; term deposits – 28% 
</li>
<li>
  Overseas investments in total – 1% 
</li>
<li>
  Listed &amp; unlisted trusts &amp; other managed investments – 18% 
</li>
<li>
  Debts &amp; loans – 1.5% 
</li>
<li>  Other investments – 5.5%</li>
</ul>
Peter Hogan is head of technical at the SMSF Association and can be contacted <a href="https://www.smsfassociation.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

SMSFs continue to invest in assets they understand

<html><body>
<div>
The idea the SMSF sector is largely unregulated is a myth according to SMSF Association head of policy Jordan George, who said the fact self-managed super funds (SMSFs) don’t come under APRA’s regulatory umbrella often gives this false impression.
He said the SMSF sector is rigorously regulated by two key Government agencies: the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), which administers the relevant superannuation laws for SMSFs, and the Australian Securities &amp; Investments Commission (ASIC), which regulates financial services to protect consumers and registers SMSF auditors. 
The ATO is the key regulator for the SMSF sector. Its role includes: 
·       Verifying that a fund’s primary purpose is to pay retirement benefits to members;
·       Providing information and forms to assist trustees set up and manage a fund;
·       Checking that funds are compliant with the superannuation laws;
·       Taking enforcement action when the laws are breached;
·       Ensuring SMSF auditors perform their duties to the required standard.
"The ATO has proved a highly effective regulator," he said. 
"The evidence for this is the high compliance rate among SMSFs, with 98 percent of funds annually meeting their obligations under the superannuation laws.
"ASIC’s prime responsibility is to ensure that all SMSFauditors are registered, as well as meeting other eligibility requirements, including holding a tertiary accounting qualification or equivalent, meeting a fit and proper test, and holding professional indemnity insurance.
"The “unregulated or lack of regulation” myth that continues to pervade SMSFs flies in the face of the findings of the Cooper and Murray inquiries, both of which gave the sector a clean bill of health.
“Leaving aside Murray’s recommendation to ban LRBAs, neither inquiry found there was any systemic issue threatening the viability of the SMSF sector – further evidence that the regulatory regime is working effectively.”
 
</div>
<div> </div>
</body></html>

Property 101: SMSFs and APRA’s regulatory umbrella

<html><body>
The University of Melbourne will run a subject focusing heavily on SMSFs.
‘This is a great opportunity for the SMSF industry’, said DBA Lawyers’ director Bryce Figot, who is also a senior fellow at the University of Melbourne and is the subject’s coordinator. ‘Practitioners can now spend an intensive five days studying the latest developments, rules, policies and strategies relevant for SMSFs and receive University recognition,’ said Mr Figot.
The subject, titled Taxation of Superannuation, will run on 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28 February 2017. ‘Given the magnitude of recent changes to superannuation, which hopefully should be finalised and legislated by February for a 1 July 2017 start date, I feel the timing of the subject could not be better,’ said Mr Figot.
‘I believe Taxation of Superannuation is the first time a Victorian University has had a subject so relevant for those in the SMSF industry’ added Mr Figot.
Although run via the University's law school, the subject is also part of the Master of Taxation and the Graduate Diploma in Tax programs and is designed to be of tremendous use for accountants and financial planners.
The subject has a quota of 30 students.
For more information:
<a href="https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/view/2017/laws70267" target="_blank">https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/view/2017/laws70267</a>
<a href="https://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/study/masters" target="_blank">www.law.unimelb.edu.au/study/masters</a>
</body></html>

Smsfs

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Smsfs

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News