SMSF Year End Planning Webinar

As we approach the end of the financial year, it is important to focus on the various planning opportunities that are available for members of self-managed super funds.  As both trustees and the broader SMSF industry place a greater focus on the quality advice, being able to effectively deliver strategies in the lead up to 30 June is crucial.

In this session, I will be exploring various contribution and pension strategies leading up to 30 June, along with a range of investment and estate planning considerations that are vital as part of your clients year-end and ongoing planning.

FIND OUT MORE AND REGISTER HERE

How a re-contribution strategy can save you and your family thousands of dollars

A recontribution (or recycling) strategy is a simple yet highly effective strategy in early retirement that when used effectively can save a member or their beneficiaries many thousands of dollars.

The strategy involves a process of withdrawing benefits from a member’s superannuation account and then making a non-concessional contribution (NCC) of the same money back into the fund.

The primary objective of this popular strategy is to convert all or part of a member’s taxable component into tax-free component.  In order to undertake a recontribution strategy, the member must:

  • have first met a condition of release (with a nil cashing condition) to withdraw benefits (or already have unrestricted non-preserved benefits), plus
  • be eligible to contribute into superannuation.

There are a number of reasons why fund members may wish to undertake a recontribution strategy, including:

  • improving the tax-effectiveness of a superannuation income stream paid up to age 60;
  • reducing the tax impost on death benefits paid to non-dependant beneficiaries; and
  • hedging against legislative risk (transferring benefits to a spouse)

Improving the tax-effectiveness of a superannuation income stream paid up to age 60

A recontribution strategy can be effective for a member receiving an income stream prior to age 60, as any pension is assessable income to the recipient.  Where a member has satisfied a condition or release, they have the ability to withdraw a lump sum and recontribute this amount to improve the tax-free component of the income stream.  From a strategy viewpoint, this taxable component withdrawal is typically taken up to the low rate cap amount ($165,000 for 2011/12), taken in proportion with any tax-free component.

Where an income stream is started after the recontribution, the proportions of the tax-free and taxable components are ‘locked in’ at the commencement date.  These proportions are then used to determine all future income payments and commutations that the member receives.  Subject to the member’s personal tax position and pension amounts to be taken, the recontribution amount may be more effective to operate as a separate interest.  That is, establish two separate pensions, one made up entirely of tax-free component. Reducing the tax impost on death benefits paid to non-dependant beneficiaries.

Since 1 July 2007, benefits received in the form of a lump sum or income stream from age 60 are tax-free in the hands of the recipient.  As a result, the primary driver for a recontribution strategy post age 60 is to improve the tax position of death benefits paid to non-dependent beneficiaries, whether directly or via an estate.  Where a non-dependant beneficiary (i.e. adult kids) receives a lump sum death benefit, they will be taxed on the taxable component at 16.5%.  Therefore, the use of a recontribution strategy can provide a tax saving of up to 16.5 cents in every dollar that is recycled.  For a fund member aged 60 – 64 (having met a condition of release), they could effectively withdraw up to $450,000 of their benefits tax-free and recontribute this amount back into the fund, providing an estate planning benefit of up to $74,250.  Again, it may be beneficial for the member to run a multiple pension strategy as the recontribution will be made up of entirely tax-free component.

Recontribution to a spouse

Prior to the introduction of Simpler Super (pre 1 July 2007), a recontribution from the member to a spouse account was an effective income-splitting strategy.  With the tax-free status of benefits post age 60, this strategy has been somewhat diminished.  It does however have limited application for members where one spouse may be significantly older than the other, for example where one member is under 60 and one member is over 60 years of age.  Centrelink may also be a consideration here with individuals who may qualify for an age pension.  Consideration of the spouse’s age and eligibility to accept the contribution must be considered as part of any recontribution strategy.

The issue of changing government policy is always at the back of people’s minds when it comes to superannuation.  Whilst a withdrawal post 60 as a lump sum or pension is currently tax-free, is it always going to be the case?  A recontribution to a spouse can be used to ‘hedge’ against future legislative risk.

Practically how it must work

To undertake a recontribution strategy, this money must be physically withdrawn from the fund, paid to the member and then deposited back into the fund as a contribution.  An accounting entry is not sufficient; there must be a debit and corresponding credit within the fund’s bank account.

A recontribution strategy can be undertaken when the member is either in accumulation or pension phase.  The tax treatment of any benefits taken need to be considered when determining whether the withdrawal as a lump sum or pension (i.e. under age 60).  Where there is insufficient cashflow to undertake a recontribution, this strategy could be undertaken as an in-specie lump sum (not as in-specie pension payments, unless done as a partial commutation according to TR 2011/D3).  Any recontribution of assets is subject to the exceptions outlined in section 66 of the SIS Act (acquisition of assets from a related party).  Where the lump sum or pension withdrawal is taken by a member under age 60, the appropriate statutory reporting to the Australian Taxation Office will apply, including reporting of benefits on the Fund’s Activity Statement, preparation of PAYG payment summaries, etc.

Tax Office’s view on recontribution strategies

The ATO’s view of recontribution strategies dates back to August 2004, where they issued a media release that stated various straightforward recontribution strategies would not attract the general anti-avoidance provisions (Part IVA) of tax law.

Since the introduction of Simpler Super on 1 July 2007, the ATO’s position on recontribution strategies has been addressed through an industry stakeholder Q&A document, that outlines that where a “…recontribution strategy that is carried out to minimise the tax that might be payable on a death benefit paid to a non-dependant, the Commissioner is very unlikely to apply Part IVA to such an arrangement”.   It is important to note that this view is not legal binding on the ATO and that they would assess each scenario on a case-by-case basis.

Recontribution vs. Anti-detriment payment

An alternative prior to undertaking a recontribution strategy, is to consider whether the beneficiaries would otherwise be eligible to receive an anti-detriment payment (refund of tax paid on contributions).  This is important because a spouse or child or any age (including non-dependent kids) are generally eligible for an anti-detriment payment when a death benefit is paid as a lump sum.  However, as the anti-detriment payment is only paid on the taxable component, using a recontribution strategy to recycle taxable component to tax-free component will reduce or eliminate any anti-detriment entitlement of a deceased member.

Everybody will adopt one of two strategies when it comes to superannuation:

  • the SKI model (spend the kid’s inheritance) or
  • inter-generational wealth transfer

With many people who have built wealth within superannuation now looking for an orderly of transfer of wealth to the next generation, the recontribution strategy can be a valuable tool to maximise the amount that is passed on to future generations.

Scaled advice: Advisers prepare for ‘revolutionary’ change

Watch the video on Wealth Professional TV how scaled advice is set to ‘revolutionise’ the financial planning industry:

Has the Government stemmed the flow of SMSFs?

The latest quarterly SMSF statistics released by the Australian Taxation Office for the December 2011 quarter show some slowing in the growth of the self managed super fund market.  The question must be asked:

  • is this a result of SMSFs reaching saturation point; or
  • is it a result of the lack of Government direction and loss of consumer confidence in retirement savings policy?

The latter issue around loss of confidence in superannuation and investment markets was a key theme addressed in the SPAA/Russell research conducted, which produced the annual “2012 Intimate with SMSFs” report.

New establishments for the December quarter were 5,915, the lowest number of setups since statistics have been published on the ATO website (back to June 2008).  On an annualised basis, the 2011 calendar year saw 33,114 new funds established, more than 5% more than the previous year.  When looking at net establishments, this percentage is significantly higher (67% net growth) as we have seen 2,769 funds wound up during 2011.

Total fund assets is again around the $400 billion mark, with growth in both cash held by SMSF trustees and listed shares – the growth in shares may have been a combination of ASX movement and some trustees seeing ‘value’ in the market, both from a growth and yield perspective.

Not surprisingly, we are seeing the most growth in assets in Western Australia, 10.4% of total assets – up from 8.8% back in June 2004.  It doesn’t seem like much, but when the industry was $127 billion in 2004, this represented $11 billion, today this amount is more than $41.6 billion.

The data on younger entrants was still fairly strong for the quarter, 35.1% of new members were under the age of 45.  As I have previously raised in my both presentation at the SPAA conference and also on my blog, many advisers will need to re-think how to deliver education and advice to a younger, more engaged, and web-savvy group of SMSF members.  The scaled advice opportunity in my view presents an exciting time ahead for the SMSF industry.

Details of the December 2011 quarter SMSF statistics can be found here, http://www.ato.gov.au/superfunds/content.aspx?menuid=0&doc=/content/00309172.htm&page=1&H1

These latest growth statistics may just be a ‘blip’ on the radar, so we will continue to watch these SMSF statistics with great interest.

I would be interested in your thoughts whether you think these statistics are a result of SMSFs having peaked or a consumer confidence dropping due to Government using superannuation as a political football?

Limited Recourse Borrowing to again become a financial product

As we move closer to the implementation of industry reforms regarding the provision of financial advice, Treasury last week has added to the pile with the re-issuing of draft Corporations Amendment Regulations to provide that limited recourse borrowing arrangements as allowed under superannuation law are financial products.

These reforms were previously announced back in March 2010, with industry consultation in June of that year.  In light of the submissions previously made, Treasury has substantially revised these draft Regulations.  However, it remains a clear policy objective of Government to move these type of borrowing arrangements into the financial consumer protection framework as there continues to be concerns of targeted activity and inappropriate advice to acquire property using borrowings.

Under these Corporations Act 2001, those providing advice in respect to the limited recourse borrowing arrangement established in accordance with s67A and s67B will be required to have an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL).  For those simply providing credit facilities, they are not caught by these regulations.

To be able to provide advice in this area, an AFSL that allows for advice on derivatives or securities meets the requirements to also cover limited recourse borrowing arrangements.  This poses an interesting question for many accountants considering their licensing options with the proposed ‘conditional license’ to be implemented to allow for advice likely to be under a ‘class-of-product’.  All of the current limited licence solutions won’t provide for them to deal in securities unless they met additional competency requirements of the AFSL holder (and paid the additional licensing cost as well).

Who issues the financial product?

A previous confusion of the regulations related to the issuer of the limited recourse borrowing arrangement.  As a borrowing arrangement involves numerous parties, it is difficult to determine which party is the “issuer”, or when the product is “issued”.  These concerns posed difficulties for Government and the industry in determining which party, if any, is obliged to disclose information required under the corporations legislation.

These changes now clarify that the limited recourse borrowing arrangement is “issued” when a person enters into a legal relationship that sets up the arrangement and that each party to the arrangement is an “issuer” of the product.  It is unclear from these regulations whether related party lenders get caught under these arrangements as an issuer of a financial product?

When do these changes commence?

These proposed regulations would take effect three months after the legislative instrument was exercised by Government.

As we close in on the two-year review period proposed by the Cooper Review with limited recourse borrowings, in my view the Government can only start the clock ticking once these laws take effect.  With:

  • changes to the definition of limited recourse borrowing arrangements from 7 July 2010,
  • details of the final ruling SMSFR 2011/D1 expected in May 2012, and
  • changes to make these arrangements financial products

surely the Government’s assessment to date would be baseless? or maybe… just maybe once resolved, consumers and advisers alike will have a framework in which to work with moving forward!!  Let’s hope so.

Read the details of the Treasury Exposure draft.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers