The closest example, he said, is example 8 where an SMSF acquires units in a unit trust under a lower interest rate LRBA.

“Provided the units were acquired at market value, the Tax Institute submitted that this should not be NALI. It should not be NALI because there is no sufficient and necessary nexus to the low interest in the appreciation of the underlying investments in that unit trust which increase the value of the units via net tangible assets reflected in the value of those units,” Mr Butler explained at the CA ANZ National SMSF Conference.

Where SMSF trustees or directors provide services to the unit trust, Mr Butler questioned whether this will be treated in a similar manner to SMSF services.

“Are they a trustee activity or are they an individual activity? For example, where the SMSF invests in a unit trust and the members assist in managing the real estate, should the trustee remunerate the members?” he questioned.

“Should they pay the members for their activities? And if they do, what amount do they pay them? How do you make an arm’s length payment with them? Do you go for what a real estate agent would charge or do you pay what a trades person would charge?”

These types of questions, he said, become quite difficult in a practical sense to apply to a unit trust.

“Would you be better off having a service agreement so that there’s already an entity that engages labour so that the unit trust does not have to go through engaging labour and paying ‘pay as you go’ and making super contributions etc to engage labor to pay for those services?” he added.

“Or should the unit trust simply outsource those activities to a real estate agent and be done with it? That is, the members no longer provide those activities because they outsource them to a real estate agent in order to minimise the risk of NALI.”

“Those are issues we are hoping that the ATO will be able to confirm or clarify in their final position.”