The ruling provides examples where an asset within an SMSF incurs an expense that is not charged at market rates, which would then see any income generated by that asset treated as non-arm’s length income, while the asset would also be fully liable for capital gains tax when it was disposed of.
Importantly, the examples clarify that professionals such as accountants that engage their own business as a service provider to their SMSF, but do not charge commercial rates for the service, will see all the relevant income within their fund classified as NALI.
“For the 2020–2021 income year, Mikasa as trustee of her SMSF engages an accounting firm where she is partner to provide accounting services for the fund. The accounting firm does not charge the fund for those services,” one example states.
“For the purposes of proposed subsection 295-550(1), the scheme involves the SMSF acquiring the accounting services under a non-arm’s length arrangement. The non-arm’s length expenditure (being the nil amount incurred for the services) has a sufficient nexus with all of the ordinary and statutory income derived by the SMSF for the 2020–21 income year.
“As such, all of the SMSF’s income for the 2020–21 income year is NALI.”
However, a subsequent example clarifies that if such a professional were to provide the service for free in a personal capacity as trustee of the fund, the SMSF’s income would not be treated as NALI.
“Leonie is a trustee of an SMSF of which she is the sole member. She is a chartered accountant and registered tax agent who is employed in an accounting and tax agent business,” the example states.
“Leonie in her capacity as trustee prepares the accounts and annual return for the fund. She does not use the equipment or assets of her employer, nor does she lodge the annual return using her tax agent registration. As she performs these duties or services as the trustee of the SMSF, she does not charge the fund for this work.
“The non-arm’s length expenditure provisions do not apply as the duties or services performed by Leonie are in her capacity as trustee rather than under an arrangement in which parties are dealing with one another on a non-arm’s length basis.”
More certainty for trustees
SuperConcepts general manager of technical services and education Peter Burgess said the ruling provided welcome clarification on how the new rules would apply in a practical sense.
“If [trustees] use the equipment and other assets of their business to provide a service, or it’s covered by an insurance policy relating to their business, and they don’t charge their fund an arm’s-length fee, the NALI provisions will apply,” Mr Burgess said.
“This is highly fact-dependent, but I think it’s the most appropriate outcome and probably the only plausible outcome when you consider what these new provisions are trying to achieve.”
Mr Burgess said the possibility of the whole of a fund’s income being classified as NALI came as a surprise.
“This appears to be a departure from the explanatory materials released with the legislation and will have much broader application than first thought,” he said.
The changes to NALI rules, passed through Parliament last month, are yet to receive royal assent.
So we’re lodging our personal SMSFs on paper forms next year? That will help the ATO streamline their ‘services’.
Comments are exactly as expected. I agree with every single one of them! Someone at the ATO needs to be fired.
And these ATO clowns get paid how much to focus on this pathetic SMSF attack ?
Can someone please tell these govt morons who live in the Canberra bubble of cosy CSS lifetime pension to stop being so petty and do some real important.
Seriously baffling to real world people
The examples don’t cover the situation where a sole practitioner accountant uses their work computer to prepare the accounts and annual return for the SMSF of which he/she is the sole member and director of the trustee company. Presumably this will cause all the income of the fund to be NALI, so the accountant will need to do the work now on their personal computer to avoid application of this new rule – TOTALLY ABSURD!!
What about if the deed of the fund prevents the accountant from charging the fund a fee?
I agree with all the above. Its just another example that ATO and sections of the Government do not want SMSF’s. As if another example was needed. Does the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services & Financial Technology know about & support this nonsense?
WOW – These guys must have plenty of free time to come with this stuff…. What a joke
time for a clean out………………………of ATO staff! clearly an attack on accounting profession but for what benefit
What a ridiculous example.
If an accountant as trustee prepares the accounts on their private computer it is OK but if they use the office computer during their lunch break ALL income is now NALI.
Presumably if a financial planner uses the office phone to buy some shares then all their income is NALI as well but not if they use their personal phone.
The ATO has lost the plot. Instead of making absurd, pointless regulations that they should be focussing on people doing the wrong thing not creating this rubbish.
I saw a Jims Mowing owner mowing his own lawn … considering whether to inform the ATO to follow up…
Again, utterly ridiculous interpretation of rules and the common good. The public servants sit comfortably in their offices as they strangle the taxpaying population with drivel like this, and all the while steer the economy inexorably towards the precipice.
If the ATO has the time to sit around dreaming up scenarios like this, then the Government should be considering mass redundancies at the ATO and stop wasting our money!