The ATO’s recent release of Taxpayer Alert – TA 2012/7, provide trustees and professionals with a timely reminder about acquisition of property using a Limited Recourse Borrowing Arrangement (LRBA) and also through related unit trusts.
Some of the examples of concern raised by the Commissioner in TA 2012/7 surrounding LRBAs suggest individuals are either:
- oblivious to the appropriate legislative provisions; or
- not seeking the appropriate advice prior to entering into the property acquisition.
Of most interest from the features that concern the Commissioner, was the following statement:
“The trustee of the holding trust is not in existence and the holding trust is not established at the time the contract to acquire the asset is signed” [Arrangement 1, item (c)]
Whilst this may be a true statement for some state jurisdictions, this is not necessarily the case across all States and Territories of Australia. For example, Victoria’s conveyancing and stamp duty laws do not prohibit nor penalise parties when they incorporate and establish a Trust in contemplation of being the nominated party for a property transaction that is already on foot. It is commonplace in Victoria for parties to be nominated to complete a property acquisition to which they were not the original party. Usually, the initial Contract of Sale provides a nomination provision. If this is not the case, there is a statutory provision that enables a nomination of the purchaser of a property in Victoria within 14 days of the date of settlement. Any nomination is subject to the nominated party completing the transaction. If this not be the case the original purchaser is still liable to settle.
Additionally there is no stamp duty penalty if there is a nomination of a substituted purchaser that does not equate to a second sale.
The fact that the Custodial Trustee and the Bare Trust has not been established prior to the execution of the Contract for the property that is eventually acquired by the SMSF as law would be irrelevant in Victoria.
With a LRBA via nomination adhering to all of the provisions of section 67A & 67B of the SIS Act, it is difficult to determine what offends SIS or the ATO in respect of such arrangements?
The prohibition described by the ATO where the Custodial Trustee and the Bare/Holding Trust has not been established prior to the execution of the contract may in fact offend some State stamp duty provisions that would lead to double Stamp Duty.
The “lore” described by the ATO where the Custodial Trustee and the Bare Trust has not been established prior to the execution of the Contract may not be found offensive in Victoria. I would submit that the Victorian courts would question the ATO’s motives by making such a statement.
Only time will tell, but invariably frightened parties will shy away from when a good real estate investment opportunity presents itself to a SMSF.
Written by Ian Glenister, Solicitor
Legal Officer & Co-founder, The SMSF Academy