Are there reasons to help the tax man do his job?
Once an SMSF runs into problems, it seems counter-intuitive to assist the ATO in investigation or in prospectively rectifying issues.
However, a Federal Court case just made public, along with recent ATO comments, suggest this can assist in mitigating the consequences.
2015 Federal Court case
The recent Federal Court case of Olesen v Early Sunshine Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 12 (‘Early Sunshine’) involved multiple contraventions of the Commonwealth Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (‘SISA’) for which the Court was asked to make declarations and impose penalties.
Early Sunshine Pty Ltd was the trustee of an SMSF. The company had three directors, who were also the members of the SMSF.
George MacDonald & Sons Pty Ltd (‘GMS’) carried on a freight trucking business on the NSW Central Coast. The members of the SMSF were also the directors of GMS. Due to financial stress experienced by GMS, the trustee of the SMSF made a total of $553,568.20 in loans to GMS during the four-year period from 25 June 2007 to 23 June 2011 (in total, 71 discrete loans to GMS were made). A small loan was also made to Vertu Pty Ltd, a company controlled by one of the members. Each of the loans was ultimately repaid in full.
Prior to the Federal Court decision, the ATO and the people involved in the SMSF had agreed on what contraventions had occurred, as well as to the amount of the civil penalties. In particular, the parties had cooperated and produced a set of agreed facts and a proposed set of penalties. However, because of the requirements of the ‘old’ civil penalty regime (which is still in force in addition to the ‘new’ administrative penalty regime) the Court still had to be asked to decide whether the agreed penalties were appropriate.
It was agreed that the trustee of the SMSF had contravened:
- the sole purpose test (by making loans to the two related companies);
- the requirement to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the in-house asset requirements are complied with (by making loans to the two related companies that exceeded the relevant limits); and
- the arm’s length rule (by loaning money to GMS on terms more favourable to GMS than would have been arm’s length — the loans were interest-free).
The agreed penalties were that each director would pay a penalty of $13,000 and $5,000 of the ATO’s costs in bringing the case (that is, a total of $39,000 in penalties and $15,000 in costs).
Judicial comments on cooperation in Early Sunshine
Foster J made telling comments in the case. In particular, he referenced earlier cases and principles, which noted that "contravening conduct under the Act may be difficult to detect and its investigation can be complex and expensive".
His Honour also noted that the contraventions were serious, deliberate, repetitive and took place over a period of four years. On the other hand, Foster J also noted that all of the respondents "admitted all of the contraventions… pressed by the Commissioner and cooperated fully with the Commissioner both at the investigation stage and in the proceeding". Interestingly, immediately before writing as to declarations and final orders, his Honour stated:
"When first informed of the quantum of the pecuniary penalties which the parties had agreed, I initially felt that the quantum of those penalties was insufficient. However, upon more mature reflection and having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, I formed the view that the quantum of those penalties was appropriate."
This tells firstly of the ATO’s apparent willingness to impose relatively lenient penalties in the case of cooperation, which no doubt saves public servants considerable time in resolving contravention scenarios. Secondly, the decision suggests that Courts are not inclined to tinker with outcomes that are agreed on by the parties who have spent considerable effort in forming an agreement (even if judges are initially surprised at the outcome).
The prohibition on loans and financial assistance
It is also interesting to note that the Commissioner abandoned his claim that the trustee had contravened s.65 of the SISA (the prohibition on loans or financial assistance to members or relatives of members). While the conclusion involves conjecture, this suggests that a loan to a related party (who is not a member or relative of a member) will not be enough to enliven this contravention (unless, for example, the money or financial assistance was directly passed on to a member or relative of a member).
ATO comments on SMSF cooperation
ATO commentary also indicates that the willingness of SMSF trustees to self-rectify situations will affect how they are treated by the ATO (and may affect whether the ATO imposes penalties). This is particularly relevant in light of the new ATO penalty regime currently in force.
The ATO’s Matt Bambrick (Assistant Commissioner, Self-Managed Superannuation Funds Segment) stated in a speech at the CPA 'Learn from the Masters' SMSF Conference and Expo 2014, held in Sydney on July 17, that all SMSFs reported by way of auditor contravention reports will be contacted by the ATO and assessed as either high, medium or low risk.
Mr Bambrick stated that all high risk funds will face a comprehensive audit. He further stated that:
"[The ATO’s] discretion on whether or not to apply a penalty is limited. … Not every ACR will lead to a penalty, but every ACR that leads to an ATO audit that then confirms an eligible breach will result in an SMSF administration penalty imposed on the trustees."
Mr Bambrick stated that medium risk funds will receive a phone call, with the ATO being "generally willing to give the fund an opportunity to self-address identified issues with no penalties applied". Bambrick further stated that:
"[For medium risk funds] we aim to achieve voluntary and timelier resolution of compliance issues, thus avoiding costly and complex audits further down the track."
But, if trustees fail to engage with us and fail to self-address the issues raised or if further compliance issues arise we will very likely consider these funds for audit, possibly imposing penalties, among other firm outcomes.
Lastly, he stated that low risk funds will:
"receive a tailored advice letter reminding trustees of their obligations and encouraging compliance in future. The issue reported in the ACR will be closed with no penalties applied. However, if trustees fail to rectify all issues in full or if further compliance risks arise, these funds may be considered for compliance action."
The key points in Mr Bambrick’s comments are that high risk funds that demand immediate audit can expect penalties for contraventions. On the other hand, medium risk funds are generally left to rectify the situation themselves, if they prove engaged and cooperative.
Members who prefer to take a back seat
For SMSF members who do not wish to take on the obligations of the trustee of an SMSF (or a director of the corporate trustee), there may be sense in that member making an enduring power of attorney in favour of another person who remains in the trustee role, and then resigning from the trustee or director position themselves. Section 17A(3)(b) of the SISA allows this structure to remain a self-managed superannuation fund.
In the current climate of the ATO’s increased flexibility to enforce superannuation law, it is worth remembering that the law does not allow a ‘passive’ trustee to get ‘let off the hook’ merely because they allowed another person to make decisions (see, eg, In the Estate of William Just deceased (No 1) (1973) 7 SASR 508, 513). Matt Bambrick’s speech also echoed this sentiment, with his stating:
All trustees and directors are liable for the actions of their fellow trustees and directors. This might have an impact on the willingness of trustees who are not members from continuing in a trustee role.
Conclusion
Where SMSF trustees take on an attitude of ‘let the tax man do his job to catch me’, it is not hard to imagine that the decision-makers may be more inclined to let the full penal force of the law bear down on the people behind the contraventions, particularly in order to compensate the ATO for having to perform investigations that are more ‘taxing’ on public servants.
Accordingly, SMSF trustees who are ‘on the ATO radar’ should be equipped with the knowledge that how they respond to ATO contact may affect the outcome.
Written by David Oon, lawyer, DBA Lawyers
Thursday, 11th February 2015
www.smsfadviseronline.com.au
Hot Issues
- ATO encourages trustees to use voluntary disclosure service
- Beware of terminal illness payout time frame
- Capital losses can help reduce NALI
- Investment and economic outlook, August 2024
- What the Reserve Bank’s rates stance means for property borrowers
- How investing regularly can propel your returns
- Super sector in ASIC’s sights
- Most Popular Operating Systems 1999 - 2022
- Our investment and economic outlook, July 2024
- Striking a balance in the new financial year
- The five reasons why the $A is likely to rise further - if recession is avoided
- What super fund members should know when comparing returns
- Insurance inside super has tax advantages
- It’s never too early to start talking about aged care with clients
- Capacity doubts now more common
- Most Gold Medals in Summer Olympic Games (1896-2024)
- SMSF assets reach record levels amid share market rally
- Many Australians have a fear of running out
- How to get into the retirement comfort zone
- NALE bill passed by parliament
- Compliance focus impacts wind-ups
- LRBA interest rates increase for 2025
- Income-free areas set to increase from 1 July
- Most Spoken Languages in the World
- Middle-to-higher incomes boosting SMSF growth
- Investment and economic outlook, May 2024
- Transitioning into retirement: What you should know
- Plan now to take advantage of stage 3 tax cuts
- Deeming freeze a win for Age Pensioners
Article archive
- April - June 2024
- January - March 2024
- October - December 2023
- July - September 2023
- April - June 2023
- January - March 2023
- October - December 2022
- July - September 2022
- April - June 2022
- January - March 2022
- October - December 2021
- July - September 2021
- April - June 2021
- January - March 2021
- October - December 2020
- July - September 2020
- April - June 2020
- January - March 2020
- October - December 2019
- July - September 2019
- April - June 2019
- January - March 2019
- October - December 2018
- July - September 2018
- April - June 2018
- January - March 2018
- October - December 2017
- July - September 2017
- April - June 2017
- January - March 2017
- October - December 2016
- July - September 2016
- April - June 2016
- January - March 2016
- October - December 2015
- July - September 2015
- April - June 2015
- January - March 2015
- October - December 2014
January - March 2015 archive
- ATO urges caution on pensions
- Market Update - February 2015
- Aussie economy shifts gears as structural changes take hold
- The catch 22 of retirement savings
- Are there reasons to help the tax man do his job?
- Some financial terms explained
- Small business paradox
- Good financial planning finally has a value: 23% more income in retirement
- Market Update - January 2015
- ‘Incredibly high’ number of trustees hold no life insurance
- SMSFs in 2015 Budget’s firing line
- Rebalancing resolutions
- Hammering away at asset allocation is only part of the retirement income solution
- Market Update – December 2014