<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>
ASIC has accepted an enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group Pty Ltd, based in Mascot, New South Wales, and its sole director, Mr Chris Pappas.
An ASIC surveillance of Ascentiv, the holder of an Australian financial services (AFS) licence, found concerns about Ascentiv's advice to clients to establish or use a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF).
In particular, ASIC had concerns about Ascentiv's failure to:
<ul>
<li>ensure its representatives provide SMSF advice that was appropriate and in the best interests of their clients</li>
<li>adequately manage conflicts of interest</li>
<li>adequately monitor and supervise its representatives, and</li>
<li>ensure its representatives were adequately trained and competent to provide SMSF advice.</li>
</ul>
According to ASIC, surveillance also found that Ascentiv failed to provide its clients with clear and concise statements of advice. 
"Instead the statements of advice were very lengthy and difficult to understand, making it difficult for Ascentiv's clients to make informed decisions about the advice provided to them," ASIC said.
"Under the EU, Ascentiv has agreed to cancel its AFS licence and write to some of its existing clients to inform them of the EU and the clients' rights to dispute resolution."
Mr Pappas has also undertaken to:
<ul>
<li>give a copy of the EU to any AFS licensee that authorises him to provide financial services in the future;</li>
<li>complete further SMSF specialist training before becoming a representative of an AFS licensee; and</li>
<li>refrain from becoming an AFS licensee or office holder of an AFS licensee for two years.</li>
</ul>
ASIC Deputy Chairman, Peter Kell said elf-managed super funds are not appropriate for everyone. It is important that the advice provided to clients of financial advisers is appropriate for those individuals' needs and circumstances.
'ASIC further expects that AFS licensees that provide SMSF advice to adequately monitor their representatives and have processes which lead to the provision of high quality SMSF advice," he said.
"ASIC will intervene where it finds the quality of advice provided by advisers and the supervision of those advisers by the licensee to be lacking."
ASIC acknowledges Ascentiv and Mr Pappas' cooperation throughout the process.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

ASIC accepts enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group relating to SMSF advice 

<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>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

The new $500,000 lifetime contribution cap is retrospective and bad law

<html><body><div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The average balance of self-managed super funds has topped $1 million for the first time, the latest tax office statistics show. It was at around $800,000 four years ago.
SMSFs returned 9.8 percent on assets in fiscal 2014, the fifth consecutive year of positive returns.
"For the first time the average assets of SMSFs grew to over $1 million in 2014, a growth of 23 percent over five years," ATO assistant commissioner Kasey Macfarlane said.
"Likewise, average assets per member increased to $564,000, the highest over the period," Fairfax Media reported.
The data shows there are one million members of DIY super funds which combined are worth $590 billion in assets.
The average assets per small fund are $1,066,080 and median assets $602,629.
Nearly 31percent of SMSFs now have assets of $1 million or over, including 10.8 percent with assets between $2 million to $5 million; 2.1percent in the $5 million to $10 million range and 0.5percent with a balance over $10 million.
 
</div></body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

SMSF average balance hits $1 million

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The ATO have released important information detailing interest rates, loan-to-value ratios (‘LVRs’) and other terms that constitute safe harbours for SMSF limited recourse borrowing arrangements (‘LRBAs’) so that arrangements will be taken to be consistent with an arm’s length dealing. The ATO is officially calling their release a ‘Practical Compliance Guideline’.
Broadly speaking, LRBAs consistent with arm’s length terms should not give rise to non-arm’s length income (‘NALI’). On the other hand, LRBAs that are not consistent with arm’s length terms will attract NALI.
It is important to note here that many refer to non-arm’s length LRBAs as ‘related party’ LRBAs. However, some SMSFs have obtained loans from unrelated parties such as friends that are not related parties that still fall under the ATO’s target of LRBAs that are not on arm’s length terms. Accordingly, in this article we refer to ‘non-bank’ LRBAs.
Accordingly, this ATO Practical Compliance Guideline is critical for:
·         SMSF trustees that have already entered into LRBAs as action might be required; and
·         SMSF trustees that are considering entering into LRBAs,
that are not financed by a bank.
SMSF trustees that have already entered into non-bank LRBAs might need to revise the terms of the loan or take other timely corrective action by 30 June 2016. In view of the ATO safe harbours, we strongly recommend that a review be undertaken of every LRBA that is not financed by a bank as soon as practicable and in any event prior to 30 June 2016.
DBA Lawyers provides advice and documentation in respect of all SMSF matters and  we also offer a fixed fee service to alter the terms of an existing LRBA with appropriate documentation. Indeed, there are LRBAs that have insufficient documentation in place that are not consistent with arm’s length terms.
Background
At the risk of oversimplifying, to the extent that an SMSF has NALI, that income is taxed at a very high rate (47% in the 2016 financial year) even if the fund is in pension mode. 
When the predecessor of the current LRBA laws (ie, the old instalment-warrant exception in the now repealed s 67(4A)) was first introduced in 2007, a question mark was over non-bank loans that have terms that favour the SMSF. In this regard, see ATO Taxpayer Alert TA 2008/5.
In 2010 the ATO released ATO ID 2010/162, which considered whether an SMSF trustee contravenes the arm’s length provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) ‘if it borrows money from a related party of the SMSF under a limited recourse borrowing arrangement on terms favourable to the SMSF?’ The ATO answered this in the negative saying that it was not a contravention.
Later on, in the December 2012 NTLG minutes, the issue of interest free or low interest loans to SMSF trustees was considered. These minutes record that ‘ATO ID 2010/162 failed to identify whether any other provisions of the superannuation or tax law would be contravened by the trustee entering into a no interest or low interest limited recourse loan arrangement.’
These minutes went on to state:
The ATO position on low rate loan arrangements and LRBA is that that they do not generally invoke a contravention of the SISA, do not give rise to non-arm's length income under section 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA), do not invoke Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 and are not considered to give rise to contributions to the SMSF just from that one fact alone. [Emphasis added]
Accordingly, this piqued the interest of some in non-bank LRBAs that favour the SMSF.
However, DBA Lawyers has always felt non-bank LRBAs pose risks and NTLG minutes are not binding. Accordingly, we have always cautioned our clients to keep all LRBA terms on an arm’s length basis.
In December 2014 the ATO released ATO ID 2014/39 and ATO ID 2014/40 (since replaced — but not practically altered — by ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28 respectively). These both considered non-bank LRBAs with nil interest being charged and both stated that the ATO’s view is that the arrangements did give rise to NALI.
Accordingly, the position that DBA Lawyers had long been in favour of then became broadly well accepted by all in the industry, namely, that non-bank LRBAs should be on the same terms that would be agreed with an arm’s length lender.
In December 2014 the ATO released a page on their website (since taken off the ATO’s website, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150322033333/https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/Non-commercial-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements/" target="_blank">available here</a> stating:
To be able to demonstrate that NALI does not arise, a fund trustee entering into an LRBA with a related-party borrower should obtain and keep documentation that enables them to establish that the terms of the loan, taken together, and the ongoing operation of the loan are consistent with what an arm’s length lender dealing at arm’s length would accept in relation to the particular borrowing by the fund trustee. 
Accordingly, the importance of benchmarking terms of non-bank LRBAs to what, for example, a bank might offer, was reinforced to the entire industry.
However, in a practical sense, benchmarking can be difficult. Accordingly, the ATO safe harbours are a very positive step and the ATO should be commended for developing and releasing them.
Terms of the safe harbour
The Practical Compliance Guideline states that the ATO:
will accept that an LRBA structured in accordance with this Guideline is consistent with an arm’s length dealing and that the NALI provisions do not apply purely because of the terms of the borrowing arrangement.
At the risk of oversimplifying, essentially the terms are as follows:
<a href="/images/2016/04/8/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-08%20at%209.36.17%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/04/8/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-08%20at%209.36.17%20AM.png" alt="">
The Practical Compliance Guideline also provides further detailed guidance regarding the specifics of setting interest rates, particularly for fixed versus variable loans.
What to do if an existing non-bank LRBA does not meet the safe harbour
Advisers should contact all clients with non-bank LRBAs and tell them to read the Practical Compliance Guideline in full. Naturally, this article is just a summary and does not do the Practical Compliance Guideline justice.
If the existing LRBA does not meet the safe harbours set out above, the Practical Compliance Guideline provides the follow options by 30 June 2016:
·         Option 1 — Change the terms so that they are consistent with an arm’s length dealing by 30 June 2016. 
·         Option 2 — Bring the LRBA to an end by 30 June 2016.
·         Option 3 — Refinance to a commercial lender by 30 June 2016.
The ATO also require all non-bank LRBAs to be put on arm’s length terms on or before 30 June 2016. This includes, for example, SMSFs being required to pay a full year’s repayments under loans prior to 30 June 2016. This may place many SMSFs under financial stress given that they only have limited time available to come up with substantial cash funding. 
Moreover, from 1 July 2016 LRBAs covered by the ATO’s safe harbour will need to make regular monthly repayments of principal and interest. As you would be aware, some non-bank LRBAs may have allowed more flexible repayments such as only requiring annual payments and some only required full repayment on finalisation of the loan term.
The closeness of 30 June 2016 cannot be overemphasised. All advisers (and then SMSF trustees) should act immediately as time is needed to obtaining advice, prepare documents and arrange the cash flow to be obtained and transferred before the 30 June deadline If the 30 June deadline is not practical and is likely to be overshot, then expert advice should be obtained as soon as practical as a special approach to the ATO may be required.
Interesting points to note
Assets not covered by the safe harbours
What should one now make of non-bank LRBAs that are not covered by the safe harbour?
First, the safe harbours in the Practical Compliance Guideline only expressly apply to:
·         real property;
·         a collection of shares in a stock exchange listed company; and
·         a collection of units in a stock exchange listed unit trust.
 
For example, if an SMSF trustee has borrowed from a non-bank to acquire units in a specific class of units in certain Vanguard managed funds what action should the SMSF trustee take? Many think of such an investment as being tantamount to a listed security, but technically it’s not.
Perhaps somewhat more controversially, what to do if an SMSF trustee has borrowed to acquire units in a related trust such as a reg 13.22C/div 13.3A unit trust?
Given there is no safe harbour available, the ATO’s comments from December 2014 are more important than ever, namely: 
To be able to demonstrate that NALI does not arise, a fund trustee entering into an LRBA with a related party borrower should obtain and keep documentation that enables them to establish that the terms of the loan, taken together, and the ongoing operation of the loan are consistent with what an arm’s length lender dealing at arm’s length would accept in relation to the particular borrowing by the fund trustee.’
Therefore the onus is on the SMSF trustee to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to support the arm’s length nature of the terms of their LRBA. This may be difficult where there is no readily available market information and quotes and proposals from third parties and other sources may need to be researched and documented.
Indeed, some may not wish to continue with a non-bank lender and may prefer to refinance with a bank.
Actually calculating the loan-to-value ratio
How is the LVR calculated? More specifically, is the ‘value’ of the real property its value excluding GST, stamp duty and other similar costs? In the absence of ATO clarification, the conservative approach is to assume that the answer is yes.
The ATO require the market value to be established at the time of the relevant loan. Thus, the market value of the asset will generally be at the time of refinancing or if there is no refinancing at the date of the original loan.
Multiple assets for one loan
The Practical Compliance Guideline reinforces that it is possible to have multiple loans to acquire one asset. More specifically, it states:
If more than one loan is taken out in respect of the acquisition of the asset, the total amount of all those loans must not exceed [for real property] 70% of the asset’s market value [or 50% for listed securities].
What does ‘real property’ mean?
The Practical Compliance Guideline refers to real property. On first blush it seems to cover all real property, referring to ‘real property, whether that property is residential or commercial premises (including property used for primary production activities)’.
However, there are a lot of ambiguous assets which might be seen as real property or might not be so seen, such as:
·         A tenants in common interest in real estate — technically this is real property but the ATO do not expressly mention a non-bank lending to an SMSF to acquire a, for example, 50% tenants in common interest in a house using a 70% LVR and a 5.75% interest rate.
·         Life interests in real estate or listed shares/units — technically this is real property, but similar to tenants in common we doubt whether the ATO would be comfortable with an SMSF using these safe harbours to acquire such an asset.
·         Shares in a real estate company — there exists ‘company title’ whereby a property does not have a plan of subdivision per se but rather comprises a number of apartments and a company owns all the property and by buying, for example, all of the C class shares the owner of the shares has exclusive possession to apartment number 3. Technically, such shares are not real property. However, there are certain areas of the laws that essentially allows them to be treated as real property (such as the CGT main residence exemption). The conservative position would be to treat such shares in a real estate company as not constituting real estate for the safe harbour relief and apply to the ATO for SMSF specific advice.
Don’t interpret the safe harbours for something they are not
The safe harbours do not state that just because the terms in the Practical Compliance Guideline are satisfied NALI can never occur. Rather, they have the following more restrained comment ‘an LRBA structured in accordance with this Guideline is consistent with an arm’s length dealing and that the NALI provisions do not apply purely because of the terms of the borrowing arrangement’ (emphasis added). For example, if an SMSF acquires an asset for a non-market value from a related party, NALI could apply (refer Darrelen Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 35).
Conclusions
The safe harbours are critically important. They are a very practical solution and the ATO should be commended accordingly for its positive manner in managing these non-bank LRBAs.
All non-bank LRBAs should be reviewed and appropriate taken by 30 June 2016.
 
Bryce Figot and Daniel Butler are directors, DBA Lawyers and can be contacted <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
This article is for general information only and should not be relied upon without first seeking advice from an appropriately qualified professional.
</body></html>

ATO releases critical safe harbours for non-bank SMSF LRBAs

<html><body>
Following ASIC raising concerns, Urban Seed Project Marketing Pty Ltd (Urban Seed), Skybridge Portfolios (Skybridge) Pty Ltd and Tatnell DLS (Tatnell) Pty Ltd have taken steps to remove or amend potentially misleading representations about Self Managed Super Funds (SMSFs) in social media advertising.
Skybridge and Tatnell
Skybridge’s Facebook page included representations such as “Get yourself a SMSF for your Super – from $99, fully advised. No industry fund can compete with this” and “Want your Super Fund to replace your current income from work? You need to look at a SMSF – highest account balances out of all Super Funds.”
Tatnell’s YouTube videos included representations favourably comparing SMSFs to other superannuation funds without explaining or referencing the range of factors that will contribute to whether an SMSF is better performing or lower cost to consumers than industry and retail funds. 
ASIC was concerned that the representations made by Skybridge and Tatnell were potentially misleading about the benefits, risks and costs associated with SMSFs. Advertisements regarding financial products, including SMSFs, should give a balanced message about the returns, features, benefits and risks associated with a product. They should also not draw comparisons with other products without qualification or substantiation. 
Urban Seed
Urban Seed’s YouTube videos linked to a promotional website which included representations about “SMSF qualified” and “SMSF friendly” properties available for sale.
ASIC was concerned that the promotional website suggested that there was a category of property particularly suited to investment through an SMSF. Whether or not property is suitable for purchase through an SMSF will depend upon the investment strategy of the SMSF purchasing the property and the circumstances of the purchase. 
ASIC Deputy Chair Peter Kell said, ‘Accuracy in advertising is integral to maintaining consumer trust and confidence in the SMSF sector. ASIC will continue to take action where we  see advertising that might mislead consumers, whether that advertising is on social media or more traditional media '
Skybridge, Urban Seed and Tatnell have all removed the relevant posts and videos, have ensured future marketing on social media will undergo appropriate review and approvals processes, and have fully cooperated in responding to ASIC's concerns.
Background
With the growing popularity of social media sites including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, social media has become an increasingly important channel for the promotion of financial products and services, including SMSFs. 
In 2012 in response to the growth in SMSFs, ASIC established the SMSF Taskforce. A specific focus of the taskforce has been misleading advertising of SMSFs. Particular problems identified include misleading or deceptive statements about SMSF fees, returns and risks. 
In 2014 and 2015 ASIC’s SMSF Taskforce expanded its work on SMSF advertising to include a review of online SMSF advertising through social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. 
Outcomes and actions stemming from the SMSF Taskforce include:
<ul>
<li>Following an ASIC investigation, Ms Sarah Jane Busteed was charged with three counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and one count of dealing with over $100,000 that was the proceeds of crime (refer: 16-040MR);</li>
<li>Superannuation Warehouse Australia Pty Ltd was ordered to pay a penalty of $25,000 for false and misleading“Free SMSF Setup” advertising (refer: 15-332MR);</li>
<li>The Supreme Court of NSW found Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd had been unlawfully carrying on a financial services business for over five years by providing advice to clients to purchase investment properties through a SMSF (refer: 15-300MR);</li>
<li>Dixon Advisory Group Limited complied with two ASIC infringement notices, paying two $10,200 penalties after including potentially misleading claims on its website (refer: 15-207MR);</li>
<li>The credit licence of Queensland-based Smithson &amp; Baye was cancelled following an investigation into a property and SMSF promoting group (refer: 15-228MR<a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/find-a-media-release/2015-releases/15-228mr-asic-cancels-australian-credit-licence-of-queensland-company-involved-with-property-promoting-group/">)</a>;</li>
<li>ASIC released two information sheets to improve the quality of advice provided by advisers on  SMSFs: Information Sheet 205Advice on self-managed superannuation funds: Disclosure of risks (INFO 205) and Information Sheet 206 Advice on self-managed superannuation funds: Disclosure of costs <a href="https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/giving-financial-product-advice/advice-on-self-managed-superannuation-funds-disclosure-of-costs/">(</a>INFO 206) (refer 15-192MR).</li>
<li>Omniwealth Services paid a $10,200 penalty for potentially misleading claims on its website (refer: 15-190MR);</li>
<li>The principal of Sherwin Financial Planners, Bradley Thomas Sherwin, was charged with fraud. The charges relate to the use of SMSFs of former clients of Sherwin Financial Planners (refer: 15-158MR);</li>
<li>The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Craig Gore and several other parties and financial services businesses, including Queensland-based ActiveSuper and Royale Capital, contravened sections of the Corporations Act or were knowingly concerned in those contraventions. (refer: 15-134MR);</li>
<li>Australian Financial Planning Solutions Pty Ltd paid $10,200 in penalties for potentially misleading SMSF ads (refer: 15-052MR);</li>
<li>ASIC banned the founder of the Charterhill Group of Companies, George Nowak, from providing financial services until 3 July 2017 on the basis that Mr Nowak is an undischarged bankrupt (refer: 15-048MR);</li>
<li>Interprac Financial Planning agreed to address ASIC concerns relating to advice provided to some clients about SMSFs (refer: 14-258MR);</li>
<li>Sentry Financial Services agreed to address ASIC concerns about SMSF advice provided to clients (refer: 14-109MR);</li>
<li>SuperHelp Australia paid a $10,200 penalty after making potentially misleading statements about the cost of setting up SMSF (refer: 14-051MR);</li>
<li>Media Super paid $10,200 in penalties for potentially misleading SMSF ads (refer: 14-001MR);</li>
<li>Spring Financial Group entered into an enforceable undertaking following ASIC concerns about the level of monitoring and supervision of its representatives (refer: 13-263MR);</li>
<li>Anne Street Partners agreed to engage an independent expert following ASIC concerns about SMSF advice provided to clients (refer: 13-248MR); and</li>
<li>publishing Report 337 Improving the quality of advice given to SMSF investors. (refer: 13-081MR).</li>
</ul>
SMSFs will continue to be a focus in ASIC's enforcement work. Most recently, following an ASIC investigation, one New South Wales woman appeared in court on four charges, in relation to self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) property purchases.
</body></html>

ASIC warn of $99 SMSF social media campaign 

<html><body>
Following an ASIC investigation, Sarah Jane Busteed has appeared in the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney charged with three counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and one count of dealing with over $100,000 that was the proceeds of crime. 
The New South Wales woman has appeared in court on four charges, in relation to self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) property purchases. 
The ASIC investigation into Busteed's conduct in dealing with members of SMSFs which were undertaking property purchases, prompted ASIC to allege that Busteed dishonestly obtained monies from those SMSFs.
Busteed is also alleged to have dealt with monies obtained from a SMSF which are believed to be proceeds of crime. 
Busteed was not required to enter a plea and was granted conditional bail. The matter is listed for return at the Downing Centre Local Court on 12 April 2016. 
Under the New South Wales Crime Act, the charges of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, while under the Commonwealth Criminal Code the charge of dealing in the proceeds of crime carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment or a $216,000 fine or both.
The investigation into Busteed’s conduct was carried out by ASIC’s SMSF Taskforce, which was established in 2012 in response to the growing popularity of SMSFs.
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is prosecuting the charges against Busteed stemming from the ASIC investigation, while separate charges including dishonestly obtaining financial advantage have been bought against Busteed by the NSW Police and NSW Director of Public Prosecutions.
</body></html>

SMSF deception charges follows ASIC investigation

<html><body>
Property investments by SMSFs through limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) could come under increased scrutiny of the tax office this year, says major accounting firm H&amp;R Block.
Last year, the ATO had expressed concern at LRBA loans that were not structured correctly, including incorrect registration of the ownership of property bought under an LRBA. It spoke of increasing its focus on the LRBA route.
Given the growth in the SMSF sector and the increasing popularity of strategies such as LRBAs, H&amp;R Block has tipped that property will remain a top priority for the ATO’s compliance work in the SMSF sector this year.
“I know the ATO always keeps a close eye on property investment and especially LRBAs,” H&amp;R Block's director of tax communications, Mark Chapman told SMSF Adviser.
This particularly applies to related party borrowings which may currently be structured on non-commercial terms, with a June 30 deadline to have these structures rectified, it said.
According to the ATO website, an asset purchased by an SMSF trustee through LRBA is held in a separate trust.
If the loan defaults, the lender's rights are limited to the asset held in the separate trust, but not to assets held in the SMSF.
In 2015, an ATO campaign saw 500 postcodes issued with warnings urging holiday home owners to ensure deductions were not made during periods a property was not available for let.
“With property rental a valuable source of extra income for millions of taxpayers, it can be expected that the ATO will follow up with some targeted reviews and audits this year,” Chapman was quoted as saying.
The “sharing economy” – “driven in part by the high levels of non-compliance amongst those driving for Uber or renting rooms through Airbnb,” would also be an area of scrutiny by the ATO, he said. 
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

ATO to focus on LRBA route to property investment by SMSFs

<html><body>
The Supreme Court of NSW found Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd (Park Trent) had been unlawfully carrying on a financial services business for over five years by providing advice to clients to purchase investment properties through a SMSF.
Acting Justice Sackville said it was in the public interest that Park Trent be restrained from carrying on a financial services business.
"There is a clear public interest in the court expressing its disapproval of Park Trent’s behaviour," the judgement advised.
ASIC launched legal proceedings in November 2014 against Park Trent who, by the time of the trial in June 2015 had advised over 860 members of the public to establish and switch funds into an SMSF.
In handing down his judgment, his Honour observed that Park Trent's business model depended on "persuading relatively unsophisticated investors of the virtues of using their superannuation accounts to purchase investment properties and to establish SMSFs… Investors were influenced to make important decisions concerning their superannuation strategy with little or no genuine consideration of whether the decision took proper account of their individual financial circumstances. Some suffered financial loss as a consequence."
His Honour also referred to the role of Park Trent's CEO, Ronald Cross and referred to his "willingness to ignore legal advice as to the nature of Park Trent's statutory obligations."
Mr Cross was the person who made all significant decisions within the Park Trent Group and "who was the controlling mind of Park Trent."
The reporting structure within the Park Trent Group makes it clear that Mr Cross, as the CEO, directed the activities of all companies within the group and responsible for the strategies that were employed to persuade clients to purchase properties.
"On the approach devised by Mr Cross, where a purchase of an investment property was feasible only through an SMSF, the client was advised as to the merits of setting up an SMSF to facilitate the purchase.
"Mr Cross personally conducted many of the seminars and was responsible for determining the content of the PowerPoint presentations made at seminars
"Mr Cross’ role included training all new sales consultants, a process that took place at Park Trent’s head office in Wollongong over a period of four days.".
His Honour said that his decision "serves as a warning to others who conduct or propose to conduct businesses which seek to influence clients to establish SMSFs for investment purposes, without having the necessary licence to do so."
"I have found that the making of recommendations and stating opinions as to the desirability of purchasing investment properties was integral to Park Trent’s business.
"But that finding does not mean that an injunction would prevent other companies within Park Trent Group continuing to conduct the business of selling investment properties to clients on a commission basis. That is precisely what Park Trent’s submissions contend that the other companies (except Easy Plan) have been doing throughout the Relevant Period.
"In any event, if any companies within the Park Trent Group suffer any prejudice, it is not “unfair prejudice” within the meaning of s 1101B(1) of the Corporations Act.
"If they do sustain any prejudice, it will be because Park Trent’s business in which they have participated and from which they may have derived some benefit, can no longer be conducted unlawfully.
"It should be noted that the proposed order does not restrain Park Trent from facilitating the purchase of investment properties by means of an SMSF." 
ASIC Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said the decision demonstrates the courts, ASIC and the public will not tolerate this type of "unscrupulous" behaviour.
"Property spruikers who recommend people invest in property via SMSFs, or facilitate such an investment, and who do not have an Australian financial services licence are breaking the law.
"ASIC’s message is that anyone recommending or facilitating SMSFs as a way of investing in property will need to have a licence and provide appropriate advice that prioritises the client's interests.
‘It is important that advisers who deal with SMSFs are appropriately licenced because the important safeguards and standards that come with being licenced are in place for a sector which is of growing importance to more Australian investors."
The court was told Park Trent's business model to a considerable extent, "depends on persuading relatively unsophisticated investors of the virtues of using their superannuation accounts to purchase investment properties and to establish SMSFs (at considerable expense) to enable the purchase to proceed.
"Park Trent’s contraventions of s 911A(1) of the Corporations Act have influenced investors to purchase investment properties through SMSFs without receiving appropriate financial advice," the judgement noted.
"Investors have therefore been influenced to make decisions that expose the investors and their superannuation accounts to significant risks of financial loss (notwithstanding the optimistic projections presented to them)."
The parties have until October 29 to file submissions on the form of final orders. Subject to any submissions by the parties on costs, his honour's present view was that Park Trent should pay ASIC’s costs of the nine day trial proceedings.
ASIC established a SMSF taskforce in 2012 to focus on high-risks in this sector, including potentially inappropriate geared investment strategies and increasingly aggressive advertising for SMSFs.
</body></html>

Park Trent unlawfully ran financial services SMSF advisory

<html><body>
Sydney had just two weekend apartment sales under $500,000 sold at weekend auction.
The cheapest was $400,000 for a studio apartment at 605/144 Mallett Street, Camperdown which sold auction eve.
It last sold at $279,000 in 2009, reflecting 5.6% annual price growth.
The 32sqm apartment sold through <a href="https://urbane.com.au/listings/residential_sale-492301-camperdown/" target="_blank">Charles Bailey at Urbane Property</a>.
It sold by a SMSF investor to a SMSF investor, currently renting at around $380 a week, reflecting 4.9% gross yield.
But there was the prospect of around $420 a week, buyers thought.
The other sub-$500,000 sale was $440,000 at Blackett.
APM had Sydney's median auction price as $1.15 million at the weekend. 
</body></html>

Sydney's weekend cheapest $400,000 at Camperdown as SMSF investors sell and buy

<html><body>
ASIC has cancelled the Australian credit licence of credit providers Smithson &amp; Baye as part of an ongoing investigation into a property and self-managed superannuation fund promoting group. 
The group includes the companies formerly called Heritage Financial Solutions Australia and Sunpac Finance Pty Ltd. 
The sole director and shareholder of Smithson &amp; Baye, Mr Ricardo Viana, is also the sole director and shareholder of Sunpac Finance.
ASIC found  Smithson &amp; Baye failed to keep adequate financial records, comply with notices to produce documents, comply with its licence conditions in order to make sure representatives comply with the credit legislation and ensure representatives were adequately trained. 
Smithson &amp; Baye purported to have accepted assignment of, and was collecting payments from borrowers in respect of, additional loans provided to clients of Heritage Financial Solutions and Sunpac Finance, beyond that which mainstream lenders would lend, to assist those clients to purchase real estate in Queensland through SMSFs.
ASIC found that:
<ul>
<li>Smithson &amp; Baye had contravened its obligations under the National Credit Act;</li>
<li>it had reason to believe that Smithson &amp; Baye was likely to contravene its obligations under the National Credit Act;</li>
<li>it had reason to believe that Smithson &amp; Baye is not fit and proper to engage in credit activities; and</li>
<li>there is no reasonable prospect that the defects in Smithson &amp; Baye's compliance with the National Credit Act can or would be remedied. </li>
</ul>
 
ASIC's investigation involves advice to investors to establish an SMSF for investment in real estate in Queensland and the arranging of finance for those investments.
ASIC has concerns about the way the loans and property ownership have been structured and advises anyone who obtained advice or finance from people associated with Heritage Financial Solutions, Sunpac Finance, Smithson &amp; Baye or Vegeta Pty Ltd (currently in liquidation) to contact their lender and obtain independent professional advice to ensure that the loans to their SMSFs and their property ownership have been structured in compliance with the trustees' superannuation law obligations.
ASIC's investigation is continuing.
Smithson &amp; Baye has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC's decision.
</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