Why the ATO’s new powers make SMSF compliance more important than ever
It was big news when the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) was granted the right to unilaterally impose monetary penalties for certain contraventions of superannuation laws.
The ATO gained this power with effect from July 1, 2014.
Before July 1, 2014, in order to have a monetary penalty imposed, the ATO had to apply to the Federal Court and argue its case there. The court did not always impose a penalty (see Dolevski v Hodpik Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 54).
However, that has all changed. Now, under the new powers, for the more serious contraventions (such as contravention of the borrowing rules), the ATO can unilaterally impose monetary penalties at a rate of up to 60 penalty units per trustee.
The number of penalty units has not increased. However, the dollar amount that a penalty unit represents has increased.
When the ATO first received the power to impose monetary penalties on July 1, 2014, one penalty unit represented $170. From July 31, 2015, this was increased by almost 6 per cent to $180.
This increase received little attention, but it can add up to a significant additional penalty. For example, consider a self-managed super fund (SMSF) with two individual trustees that lends more than 5 per cent of its assets to members.
This is simultaneously a contravention of section 65 (no loans to members) and section 84 (in-house asset rules) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. Contravention of each leads to – among other things – the ATO being able to impose an administrative penalty of up to 60 penalty units per trustee.
Accordingly, the past and present positions are set out in Table 1:
Please click on image for larger version.
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 8.10.02 PM
Individual versus corporate trustees
The above table also segues into an important point regarding administrative penalties. Namely, many have observed that unlike individual trustees who each receive a separate administrative penalty, in the case of contraventions by a corporate trustee of an SMSF, the directors are jointly and severally liable for the penalties. Accordingly, if the SMSF in the above example had a company as trustee, the table would be as in Table 2.
Please click on image for larger version.
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 8.10.39 PM
Naturally, this benefit gets more and more pronounced the more trustees a fund has. For example, if an SMSF had four individual trustees, the maximum administrative penalty if the contravention occurred post July 31, 2015 would be $86,400, whereas if the SMSF had a corporate trustee, the maximum administrative penalty would remain at $21,600.
However, there is a practical quirk to be aware of. Where the ATO imposes administrative penalties in respect of an SMSF with a corporate trustee, the directors are jointly and severally liable. What this means legally is that the ATO may collect the entire penalty from any one of the directors of the corporate trustee or from all directors in various amounts until the penalty is paid in full and – to continue the example from above – the total amounts paid by all the directors would need to add up
to $21,600.
However, what this means practically is very different. Practically, each director will receive a letter from the ATO stating “You are liable for an administrative penalty…” To again continue the example from above, each director would receive a letter from the ATO with the subject “Notification of penalty” stating “You are liable for an administrative penalty…The assessment of penalty (or penalties)…$21,600”. The next page might explain the nature of joint and several liability; however, some can incorrectly read the letter to think that the benefit of corporate trustees in minimising exposure to administrative penalties does not exist.
The statistics
A recent ATO speech by Kasey Macfarlane, ATO assistant commissioner, SMSF segment, has revealed some interesting statistics – namely, that during the 2014-15 financial year:
- 27 rectification directions were given (a new ATO power)
- 44 SMSFs were wound up due to compliance action
- 54 education directions were given
- 92 funds were made non-compliant, with trustees receiving a notice of non‑compliance
- 361 enforceable undertakings were accepted by the ATO
- 662 disqualified trustees were disqualified.
Considering that there were 528,052 SMSFs at the start of the 2014-15 financial year, the above suggests that the proportion of “ratbag” SMSFs is very low.
Another noteworthy point is that disqualification is a relatively common outcome compared to other avenues such as non-compliance. Naturally, once a person has been disqualified, they can never be a member of an SMSF again. If that person never intends to have an SMSF again, then on its face, being disqualified is not such a big deal.
However, the real sting is that if someone is disqualified, that is publicly available information. Many people are often not aware of this. The Notice Of Disqualification is gazetted and a simple Google search of the person’s name often brings up the Notice Of Disqualification from the government website ComLaw in the first few Google hits. Naturally, this can have a negative implication for someone’s reputation.
(I am often asked if a disqualified person can still be a member of an SMSF, but where the holder of their enduring power of attorney is the trustee/director – the answer is no: see section 17A(10) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, which expressly addresses this.)
Compliance with the superannuation law is more important than ever. The ATO has new – and more powerful – options available to it. In my experiences with the ATO, the ATO is practical and reasonable, but naturally everything has limits and an SMSF trustee that contravenes the law and does not make appropriate efforts to rectify the situation may face significant negative implications.
By Bryce Figot
October 22, 2015
professionalplanner.com.au
Hot Issues
- Time for a superannuation check-up?
- Scam alert: fake ASIC branding on social media
- Millions of landlords the target of expanded ATO crackdown
- Government urged to exempt small firms from TPB reforms
- ATO warns businesses on looming TPAR deadline
- How to read a Balance Sheet
- Unregistered or Registered Trade Marks?
- Most Popular Operating Systems 1999 - 2022
- 7 Steps to Dealing With a Legal Issue or Dispute
- How Do I Resolve a Dispute With My Supplier?
- Changes to Casual Employment in August 2024
- Temporary FBT break lifts plug-in hybrid sales 130%
- The five reasons why the $A is likely to rise further - if recession is avoided
- June quarter inflation data reduces risk of rate risk
- ‘Bleisure’ travel claims in ATO sights, experts warn
- Most Gold Medals in Summer Olympic Games (1896-2024)
- Estate planning considerations
- 5 checklists to support your business
- Are you receiving Personal Services Income?
- What Employment Contracts Does My Small Business Need?
- The superannuation changes from 1 July
- Hasty lodgers twice as likely to make mistakes, ATO warns
- Landlords who ‘double dip’, fudge deductions in ATO crosshairs
- Most Spoken Languages in the World
- Tax Time Checklists - Individuals; Company; Trust; Partnership; and Super Funds
- Compare your business
- 2024 Year End Tax Planning Guide (Part 2)
- ATO to crack down on rental income, WFH deductions this tax time
- How to Draft a Standard Form Contract
- GST, PAYG withholding a ‘significant portion’ of $50bn tax debt
- ATO changes will make it harder for over 42,000 small businesses.
- The Deadliest pandemics in History
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
October - December 2015 archive
- FBT – Christmas Parties and Taxi Fares
- Merry Christmas for 2015 and Happy New Year.
- Common errors in claiming deductions for super contributions
- Employee Christmas Parties and Gifts – Any FBT?
- Collectables Require Action Now
- Why the ATO’s new powers make SMSF compliance more important than ever
- Self Managed Superannuation Funds – Is it for Retirement?
- ATO warns against misusing partnerships
- The Scammers Shame
- ATO offers SMSF 'unwinding' for aggressive tax arrangements
- Salary and Wages PAYG Shortfall
- SuperStream
- Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Telephone Scammers – BEWARE!
- Navigating the BDBN minefield
- SMSFs warned on emerging LRBA issue
- Short Access to Term Deposits
- Retirees taking super in lump sum is a ‘myth'