As part of the thought leadership event facilitated by the Verasage Group in early 2011, I had the opportunity to present a 'TED' style presentation on the evolution of Australia's first virtual law firm platform which was the precursor to foundation in 2014 of View Legal.
A link to the presentation – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNnnbkfXY84&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Until next week.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Superannuation and binding death benefit nominations (BDBN)
A couple of weeks ago there was a post in relation to superannuation nominations.
As mentioned in that post, where there is a valid BDBN, the trustee has no discretion to pay death benefits other than in accordance with the notice.
Based on recent client situations we have seen, a few critical points to remember in this area include the following:
1. If a member’s circumstances change and they have failed to update their BDBN, it will, subject in some situations to automatic lapsing (for example, every three years), continue to be binding on the trustee.
2. The trust deed for the superannuation fund must allow for a BDBN to be given to the trustee of the fund – even some recently set up deeds do not always have such a provision.
3. Unless specifically provided for in the deed, a BDBN will often need to be ‘refreshed’ every three years. An alternate approach is to update the trust deed for the fund to ‘hardwire’ the nomination into the deed, avoiding the requirement to regularly refresh the nomination.
Until next week.
As mentioned in that post, where there is a valid BDBN, the trustee has no discretion to pay death benefits other than in accordance with the notice.
Based on recent client situations we have seen, a few critical points to remember in this area include the following:
1. If a member’s circumstances change and they have failed to update their BDBN, it will, subject in some situations to automatic lapsing (for example, every three years), continue to be binding on the trustee.
2. The trust deed for the superannuation fund must allow for a BDBN to be given to the trustee of the fund – even some recently set up deeds do not always have such a provision.
3. Unless specifically provided for in the deed, a BDBN will often need to be ‘refreshed’ every three years. An alternate approach is to update the trust deed for the fund to ‘hardwire’ the nomination into the deed, avoiding the requirement to regularly refresh the nomination.
Until next week.
Monday, February 6, 2012
What exactly is a firm of the future ?
Many regular readers will be aware that for around ten years now we have charged on the basis of scoping work up front and providing a set price – that is no time billing.
A large part of the inspiration for abandoning time billing came from the landmark publication ‘Firm of the Future’ by Ron Baker and Paul Dunn. That book describes a journey from the traditional (and largely archaic) professional service firm model to being a knowledge firm. Understanding the value that knowledge workers create and having the skills to price without any reference to time is the foundation of the journey.
While subsequent publications by Baker (in particular ‘Pricing on Purpose’ and the more recent ‘Implementing Value Pricing’) provide significant guidance, we have found that the ability to listen and interact with likeminded advisers who are wanting to consider (or have started) the journey to a life without timesheets is invaluable.
Over the coming weeks there is a special opportunity to participate in Firm of the Future seminars across the eastern seaboard that will be led by internationally renowned pricing expert Ron Baker and facilitated by leading Australian consultant in this area John Chisholm. To learn more, click on the following link:
http://firmofthefutureforum.com.au/
Until next week.
A large part of the inspiration for abandoning time billing came from the landmark publication ‘Firm of the Future’ by Ron Baker and Paul Dunn. That book describes a journey from the traditional (and largely archaic) professional service firm model to being a knowledge firm. Understanding the value that knowledge workers create and having the skills to price without any reference to time is the foundation of the journey.
While subsequent publications by Baker (in particular ‘Pricing on Purpose’ and the more recent ‘Implementing Value Pricing’) provide significant guidance, we have found that the ability to listen and interact with likeminded advisers who are wanting to consider (or have started) the journey to a life without timesheets is invaluable.
Over the coming weeks there is a special opportunity to participate in Firm of the Future seminars across the eastern seaboard that will be led by internationally renowned pricing expert Ron Baker and facilitated by leading Australian consultant in this area John Chisholm. To learn more, click on the following link:
http://firmofthefutureforum.com.au/
Until next week.
Topics:
Firm of the Future,
Paul Dunn,
Pricing,
Ron Baker,
Time billing
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Superannuation death benefits
The way in which members of a super fund can direct payment of benefits on death come up in virtually every estate planning exercise.
Essentially a member of a superannuation fund has three main choices for specifying what should happen in relation to their superannuation entitlements on death (assuming the proposed recipient is entitled at law), namely:
1. no nomination - the trustee is bound to deal with a member’s benefit in their best interests. The trustee will normally make enquiries as to the member’s family situation, who their dependants are, the provisions of their will and other relevant circumstances before making a decision;
2. a non-binding nomination - the trustee is not bound by a non binding notice and has an absolute discretion as to where the death benefit will be paid. Where a non binding notice is made, it should be taken into account as part of any decision by the trustee as to how to distribute the benefit; or
3. a binding nomination - the trustee is obliged to distribute a member’s death benefits in accordance with a valid binding notice.
Binding nominations have the potential to allow members to protect their death benefits from disputes, as where there is no nomination or a non binding one, a trustee's decison can be challeneged. Binding nominations can also be used as part of a member’s overall estate plan, including, for example, as part of a tax planning strategy for infant children or an asset protection strategy for adult children.
In future posts we will look at other aspects of binding nominations, including non lapsing nominations.
Until next week.
Essentially a member of a superannuation fund has three main choices for specifying what should happen in relation to their superannuation entitlements on death (assuming the proposed recipient is entitled at law), namely:
1. no nomination - the trustee is bound to deal with a member’s benefit in their best interests. The trustee will normally make enquiries as to the member’s family situation, who their dependants are, the provisions of their will and other relevant circumstances before making a decision;
2. a non-binding nomination - the trustee is not bound by a non binding notice and has an absolute discretion as to where the death benefit will be paid. Where a non binding notice is made, it should be taken into account as part of any decision by the trustee as to how to distribute the benefit; or
3. a binding nomination - the trustee is obliged to distribute a member’s death benefits in accordance with a valid binding notice.
Binding nominations have the potential to allow members to protect their death benefits from disputes, as where there is no nomination or a non binding one, a trustee's decison can be challeneged. Binding nominations can also be used as part of a member’s overall estate plan, including, for example, as part of a tax planning strategy for infant children or an asset protection strategy for adult children.
In future posts we will look at other aspects of binding nominations, including non lapsing nominations.
Until next week.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
No removal of business duty in Queensland
Today's post summarises an important issue for anyone conducting business in Queensland.
In particular, the Queensland government has announced in its January 2012 interim budget, the deferral of its plan to abolish transfer duty on non-land Queensland business assets.
Broadly, business assets include goodwill, valuable contractual rights, trade debtors, plant and equipment.
The deferral is 'until the budget can accommodate the abolition' - which many commentators are assuming will be indefinitely.
The abolition had been scheduled from 1 July 2013, following the original aim to see it removed on the introduction of GST in July 2000.
As many readers will be aware, other jurisdictions have either abolished duty on non-land business assets (e.g. Victoria, Tasmania and ACT) or have scheduled to abolish it (e.g. New South Wales and South Australia from 1 July 2012 and Western Australia from 1 July 2013).
Until next week.
In particular, the Queensland government has announced in its January 2012 interim budget, the deferral of its plan to abolish transfer duty on non-land Queensland business assets.
Broadly, business assets include goodwill, valuable contractual rights, trade debtors, plant and equipment.
The deferral is 'until the budget can accommodate the abolition' - which many commentators are assuming will be indefinitely.
The abolition had been scheduled from 1 July 2013, following the original aim to see it removed on the introduction of GST in July 2000.
As many readers will be aware, other jurisdictions have either abolished duty on non-land business assets (e.g. Victoria, Tasmania and ACT) or have scheduled to abolish it (e.g. New South Wales and South Australia from 1 July 2012 and Western Australia from 1 July 2013).
Until next week.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Final post for 2011
With the annual leave season starting in earnest over the next couple of weeks and many advisers taking either extended leave or alternatively taking the opportunity to catch up on things not progressed during the calendar year, last week’s post will be the final one until early 2012.
Similarly, the Twitter postings will also take a hiatus until the New Year as from today.
Very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year period and thank you to all of those advisers who have read, and particularly those that have taken the time to provide feedback in relation to, the various posts.
Until the new year.
Similarly, the Twitter postings will also take a hiatus until the New Year as from today.
Very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year period and thank you to all of those advisers who have read, and particularly those that have taken the time to provide feedback in relation to, the various posts.
Until the new year.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Statement of principles to be (finally) amended (?)
Many readers will be aware of the full Federal Court decision earlier this year of Clark.
In that case, the Court largely reiterated the decision from 10 years ago in Commercial Nominees that, generally speaking, a resettlement of a trust for tax purposes can only happen in a very limited range of circumstances.
At the end of last week, the Tax Office released a decision impact statement in relation to the Clark decision and has, finally, accepted that the position set out in the case may mean that the 'Creation of a New Trust – Statement of Principles' last updated in August 2001, may need to be changed.
A previous post links the Statement of Principles for those that have not seen it, and in that document, the Tax Office suggests that there are in fact quite a large range of situations where a trust may be resettled for tax purposes.
It is hoped that the Tax Office can prioritise providing some clarity around their position on trust resettlements, particularly given that most specialist advisers in this area believe that, in accordance with Commercial Nominees and Clark, significant changes should be able to be made to trust deeds without triggering a resettlement.
For those interested in reviewing the complete decision impact statement, the relevant link is as follows – http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=%22LIT%2FICD%2FQUD1of2010%2F00001%22
Until next week.
In that case, the Court largely reiterated the decision from 10 years ago in Commercial Nominees that, generally speaking, a resettlement of a trust for tax purposes can only happen in a very limited range of circumstances.
At the end of last week, the Tax Office released a decision impact statement in relation to the Clark decision and has, finally, accepted that the position set out in the case may mean that the 'Creation of a New Trust – Statement of Principles' last updated in August 2001, may need to be changed.
A previous post links the Statement of Principles for those that have not seen it, and in that document, the Tax Office suggests that there are in fact quite a large range of situations where a trust may be resettled for tax purposes.
It is hoped that the Tax Office can prioritise providing some clarity around their position on trust resettlements, particularly given that most specialist advisers in this area believe that, in accordance with Commercial Nominees and Clark, significant changes should be able to be made to trust deeds without triggering a resettlement.
For those interested in reviewing the complete decision impact statement, the relevant link is as follows – http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=%22LIT%2FICD%2FQUD1of2010%2F00001%22
Until next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)