Journal** entries

Recent posts have considered various aspects of the leading cases where two parties owe mutual liabilities or obligations, and the ability to set off the liabilities against each other through a book entry.

It is however important to note that generally, journal entries of themselves have no legal effect.

Arguably the leading case in this regard is Manzi v Smith [1975] HCA 35.

The key quote out of this decision is as follows -

‘We were referred to cases in which a payment of money was held to have been made by means of entries in books of account. But in those cases the entries represented the agreement of the appropriate parties….

These decisions, quite clearly, are not authority for the proposition for which they were advanced, namely, that a payment of money was made by the making by the company of a journal entry in the books of account without reference to, or without the agreement of, the persons said to be the recipients of the money. The company's assertions in its books of account did not establish the indebtedness of the appellants or any payment of money in discharge of that indebtedness.’

The Tax Office similarly has confirmed that while book entries record transactions having legal consequences, they do not of themselves constitute transactions. In other words, a unilateral action by one of the parties, such as a mere entry in its books of account, does not change the liabilities between the parties.

This means that in any transaction it is important that there is a valid binding agreement (or agreements) supporting the existence of the arrangements to which any journal entries purportedly relate.

As usual, please contact me if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Johnny Cash song 'The singing star’s queen'.

View here:

Walking the line** - understanding what does ‘cashed' means

Last week’s post focused on the issue surrounding ensuring an SMSF maintains compliance following the death of a member.

One issue raised following that post related to how the superannuation rules work in the context of the requirement that a member’s benefits must be ‘cashed as soon as practicable’ after the death of a member, which is set out under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations at regulation 6.21(1).

In particular, the question is whether a death benefit can be simply transferred to a surviving member’s account by way of journal entry.

In this regard, in most other areas of the law, where two parties owe mutual liabilities or obligations, they can be set off the liabilities against each other through a book entry (see our earlier post in relation to Spargo case).

The Tax Office has confirmed that the principle in Spargo’s case can also apply to SMSFs where there are mutual liabilities between the relevant fund and another party (see ATO ID 2015/2).

The Tax Office has confirmed in ATO ID 2015/3 however that a death benefit cannot be satisfied simply by way of journal entry, as death benefit dependants do not owe anything to the fund, that is there is no mutual liability to set off against the SMSF.

Therefore, death benefits must actually be paid to the death benefit dependant by the transfer of ownership of assets out of the SMSF.

The Tax Office also confirms that the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations do not allow for payments to be made to members by way of journal entry.

In particular, regulation 6.17(2) requires payments to be transferred out of the SMSF.

Unfortunately, this requirement for formal payment can in a practical sense trigger unnecessary transaction costs as well as complicating and delaying the death benefit payment process.

As usual, please contact me if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Johnny Cash song 'I walk the line'.

View here:

Birth, school, work, death** - SMSF trustee compliance on member death

Ensuring an SMSF continues to satisfy the rules in relation trusteeship following a member’s death can be problematic, particularly when specific strategies have not been implemented as part of a comprehensive estate plan.

As is well understood, a complying SMSF must have all individual trustees as members and vice versa.

Where an individual member dies the superannuation legislation allows 6 months for an SMSF to ensure compliance. Often, for funds that are established as 2 member funds, this is achieved via the appointment of a corporate trustee, with the remaining member as the sole director.

The superannuation rules also allow a grace period for non-compliance from the date of death until just before the death benefits commence to be paid, where the legal personal representative (LPR) can act as the replacement trustee.

Most modern SMSF trust deeds reflect the superannuation legislation and have a discretionary provision that automatically appoints the LPR as the trustee on the death of the member.

While there can be confusion about the way the rules work, the conservative position is that the 6 month grace period starts on the death of the member. Therefore, regardless of when the death benefit commences to be paid, the trusteeship must be valid no later than 6 months following the date of a member’s death.

Practically, as set out in earlier posts, these rules further highlight the benefits of having a corporate, as opposed to individual, trustee.

As usual, please contact me if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Godfathers song 'Birth, School, Work, Death'.

View here:

What is so special ** about 'vested' interests?

Following on from last week's post, a related issue often comes up in the context of how wills are crafted.

In particular, wills often provide that a gift to a beneficiary is subject to the person not having already 'died or dying before attaining a vested interest'.

The decision in Serwin v Dolso [2020] NSWSC 370 explores this phrase in some detail.

In the case the relevant beneficiary survived the willmaker by 30 days (as required under the various state based succession laws) and long enough to receive the distribution of some personal items, but not long enough to receive a physical distribution of the gift anticipated by the will. This was because at the time of the beneficiary's death most aspects of the administration process remained incomplete (for example there were outstanding debts, assets yet to be collected and tax affairs unresolved).

The court confirmed that the words ''attaining a vested interest'' could have one of 3 meanings, namely:

1. that they are tautologous and mean the same as 'if the beneficiary dies before, or does not survive the willmaker';
2. that they mean 'vested in possession'; or
3. that they mean 'before the estate is fully administered and available to be distributed'.

While confirming that the exact provisions of a will are also critical, here the 'vested interest' phrase was held to mean “before the estate is fully administered and available to be distributed”.

In other words, the addition of the words 'vested interest' meant that merely surviving the willmaker was insufficient.

That is, a reference in a will to attaining a vested interest will usually be held to mean something more than merely surviving the willmaker, even if the period of survivorship exceeds 30 days (see Arnott v Kiss [2014] NSWSC 1385 and Kinloch v Manzione [2022] ACTSC 76, a case where CGT Event K3 was also likely triggered, given the relevant beneficiaries appeared to be non-residents for Australian tax purposes).

Furthermore, it was confirmed that, similar to the situation of a beneficiary under a discretionary trust, a residuary beneficiary under a will has no equitable interest in the assets of a deceased estate.

Rather, the only right which a residuary beneficiary has is to compel the due administration of the deceased estate by the executor. The trust created by every will (regardless of whether testamentary trusts are created) is to preserve the assets, to deal properly with them, and to apply them, in the due course of administration, for the benefit of those interested.

Relevantly, the Tax Office adopts a similar approach, and generally only allows a maximum of 3 years for the administration of an estate to remain in place (during which time the concessional excepted trust income provisions can apply).

As explained in other View posts however, we are aware of situations where the Tax Office only allow a maximum of 12 months to administer an estate.

As usual, please contact me if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Garbage song 'Special'.

View here: