Accelerated superannuation contributions

There is nothing certain in life but death and taxes… and adjustments to the limits for superannuation contributions.

Again this week we have had an article featured in the Weekly Tax Bulletin. This time it is by fellow View Legal Director Tara Lucke and I and is extracted below for those who do not otherwise have easy access.

If is often said, there is nothing certain in life but death and taxes… and adjustments to the limits for superannuation contributions. In recent times, particularly given the ongoing adjustments to the limits for concessional superannuation contributions, the way in which to maximise contributions has been an area of focus.

Overview

As is well understood, concessional contributions to superannuation can generally be made by:

• an employer of a member;
• a member; and
• the spouse of the member.

The rules in relation to the quantum of permissible concessional contributions (historically referred to as deductible contributions) have been subject to regular change. The changes have primarily focused on the dollar limit for contributions made in each financial year.

Concessional contributions which currently count towards the annual concessional limit include:

• all employer contributions (eg super guarantee, salary sacrifice);
• member contributions which are claimed as a tax deduction; and
• in some situations, allocations from any fund reserves.

Concessional contribution limits

The maximum amount of concessional contributions that may be paid for the 2014-15 year of income without being subject to excess contributions tax were confirmed at 2014 WTB 9 [286] as follows:

• $30,000 per annum per person aged under 49 years on 30 June 2014;
• $35,000 per annum per person aged 49 years and over on 30 June 2014.

These limits have been increased, by way of "stepped" indexation, for the first time since the current contribution limit regime was introduced and are unlikely to be indexed again for at least 3 years.

Non-concessional contribution limits

Subject to potential variations by adopting one of the accelerated contribution approaches explained below, the maximum non concessional limits for the 2014-15 year of income (without being subject to excess contributions tax), have also been increased for indexation and are now as follows:

• $180,000 per annum per person (for contributions on or after 1 July 2014); and
• $540,000 per person averaged over three years (if a 3 year contribution was started before 1 July 2014, then the limit remains $450,000).

Accelerated contributions

Historically, when the per annum limit was capped at $150,000 (and the 3-year average at $450,000), the main strategies available in relation accelerating contributions have been best exemplified by the following table:

In relation to the above table (and the further table below), it is important to note the following assumptions:

1. contributions are made prior to member's 65th birthday; or
2. contributions are made after reaching age 65 and the member continues to satisfy the required gainful employment test.

With the changed superannuation thresholds commencing on 1 July 2014 (again as noted at 2014 WTB 9 [286]), it will be important to reference an updated version of the table, as set out below.

Critically, the updated table assumes that the first contribution is made after 1 July 2014.

As set out in the earlier article, if a combined contribution is commenced before 1 July 2014, the previous table continues to apply until the accelerated approach is completed.

As a comparison of the 2 tables clearly illustrates, in many client situations there will be a significant differential in delaying non concessional contributions until 1 July 2014 to take advantage of the increased thresholds.

Image credit: Tax Credits

Taxation consequences of testamentary trust distributions - Part II

Again for those that do not otherwise have easy access to the Weekly Tax Bulletin, Part II of the article by fellow View Legal Director Patrick Ellwood and I is extracted below.

Part I of this article (at 2014 WTB 19 [658]) considered a number of specific aspects of the transfer of assets under a deceased estate testamentary trust. Part II of the article now considers:

• distributions from testamentary trusts to beneficiaries;
• the proposed changes to CGT event K3; and
• the proposed changes where an intended beneficiary dies.

Distributions from testamentary trusts

In 2003, the ATO released PS LA 2003/12, which states that its purpose is to inform ATO staff that the Commissioner will not depart from the long-standing administrative practice of treating the trustee of a testamentary trust in the same way as a legal personal representative (LPR) is treated for the purposes of Div 128 of the ITAA 1997.

In the 2011-12 and 2012-13 Federal Budgets, it was proposed that the current ATO practice set out in PS LA 2003/12 of allowing a testamentary trust to distribute an asset of a deceased person without a capital gains tax (CGT) taxing point occurring would be codified.

While draft legislation to effect the change was prepared, the Federal Government announced that it was reviewing the progress of a large number of unenacted legislative announcements and ultimately confirmed on 14 December 2013 that the amendments would not be implemented - see 2013 WTB 53 [2270] and also 2014 WTB 12 [399].

As set out at 2014 WTB 16 [561], the ATO recently republished PS LA 2003/12 confirming that it intends to continue to consider itself bound by it. Despite the ATO apparently acknowledging that the Government will not proceed with any legislative changes, some amount of confusion has been caused by the ATO stating in updates on its website that it will "accept tax returns as lodged during the period up until the proposed law change is passed by Parliament". Those comments are contained in the ATO update entitled "Refinements to the income tax law in relation to deceased estates" (dated 22 April 2014). It is assumed these comments are simply an oversight by the ATO and that PS LA 2003/12 (as amended) will continue to be applied indefinitely into the future.

The position therefore appears to remain that there is exemption roll-over from CGT covering the "transfer" of assets from the LPR to the trustee of the testamentary trust in the first instance and the subsequent transfer by the trustee to an eventual beneficiary of the testamentary trust. The subsequent transfer may either involve a capital distribution being made by the trustee of the trust to a beneficiary during the lifetime of the trust, or a payment of capital upon vesting of the trust.

The result of PS LA 2003/12 is that, on the subsequent disposal of a CGT asset from a testamentary trust trustee to a beneficiary of the testamentary trust:

• any capital gain or loss that the testamentary trust trustee makes is disregarded under s 128-15(3); and
• the beneficiary will be taken to have acquired the CGT assets of the deceased at the date of the deceased's death (rather than on the date they were distributed by the LPR) and the first element of the cost base and reduced cost base for the beneficiary will be:
• for pre-CGT assets in the hands of the deceased - the market value of the asset on the day the deceased died; and
• for post-CGT assets in the hands of the deceased - the deceased's cost base (or reduced cost base) at the date of their death.

Ultimately under PS LA 2003/12, Div 128 (in particular ss 128(2), (3) and (4)) effectively applies twice:

• initially, when the LPR is the "LPR" for the purposes of Div 128 and the testamentary trust trustee is the "beneficiary"; and
• subsequently, when the testamentary trust trustee is treated as an "LPR" for the purposes of Div 128 and the beneficiaries of the testamentary trust are treated as the "beneficiaries".

CGT event K3

The ATO has indicated that the position in PS LA 2003/12 is subject to CGT event K3, which covers assets passing to tax-advantaged entities.

CGT event K3 operates to ensure that, where assets pass to concessionally taxed entities from a deceased estate, a capital gain or loss is recognised in the deceased's final tax return. This prevents assets with embedded capital gains from avoiding capital gains when they are later disposed of by the concessionally taxed entity. CGT event K3 has, in the past, been avoided by ensuring an asset does not pass to a concessionally taxed entity until after the deceased's standard amendment period (generally 4 years after the assessment) has expired.

As part of the 2011-12 Budget measures, it was announced that amendments would be made to ensure that where CGT event K3 happened outside of the deceased's standard amendment period, a CGT liability still arose in the deceased's tax return. It was proposed this could be achieved by excluding CGT event K3 from the standard amendment period.

In particular, the CGT event would have been deemed to happen to the relevant entity that passed the asset to the concessionally taxed entity (rather than with the beneficiary), avoiding the need to amend the deceased's tax return. This change would have allowed the entity to which CGT event K3 applied to be able to utilise its realised capital losses against CGT event K3, instead of the deceased utilising their capital losses against their capital gain from CGT event K3.

The change would have been consistent with how Div 128 operates under PS LA 2003/12 where an LPR or testamentary trust trustee sells an asset to a third party, rather than passing the asset to the intended beneficiary of the estate.

However, as with other proposed changes mentioned below, the announced changes to CGT event K3 were abandoned in late 2013.

Where an intended beneficiary dies before administration is completed

The Federal Government released a proposal paper "Minor amendments to the capital gains tax law" in June 2012 which specifically addressed the circumstance where an intended beneficiary dies before administration of an estate is completed. Generally, in that situation, s 128-15 provides a CGT roll-over provided that the asset passes from the first deceased's LPR to the beneficiary's LPR.

However, no CGT roll-over exists where the asset passes (ultimately) from the first deceased's LPR via the second deceased's LPR to the trustee of a testamentary trust or a beneficiary of the intended beneficiary's (ie the second deceased) estate because the asset was not one which the intended beneficiary owned when they died.

The former Labor Federal Government proposed to introduce measures to allow the intended beneficiary's LPR to access the roll-over where the intended beneficiary died before an asset that the first deceased owned passed to them, regardless of whether it passed first to a testamentary trust trustee. Again, however, the Coalition Government confirmed the amendments would not be implemented.

Arguably, PS LA 2003/12 can be relied on to provide relief in this type of situation.

Image credit: Alan Cleaver cc

Taxation consequences of testamentary trust distributions - Part I

There has been a refocus on what is likely to be the approach of the ATO in this area.

For those that do not otherwise have access to the Weekly Tax Bulletin, the article from last week by fellow View Legal Director Patrick Ellwood and I is extracted below.

In December 2013, the Federal Government announced its decision to abandon a number of proposed legislative changes in relation to various aspects of the taxation of testamentary trusts - see 2013 WTB 53 [2270] and also 2014 WTB 12 [399]. As a result, there has been a refocus on what is likely to be the approach of the ATO in this area.

Part I of this 2-part article considers the taxation aspects of:

• the transfer of assets under a deceased estate;
• distributions from a will maker to a legal personal representative (LPR);
• distributions from a LPR to a testamentary trust.

Part II of this article will focus on distributions from testamentary trusts to beneficiaries and the abandonment of the previously announced legislative changes.

Transfer of assets

On the death of a will maker, each asset of the estate will potentially be transferred 3 times:

• from the will maker to the LPR;
• from the LPR to the beneficiary of the estate, which may be the trustee of a testamentary trust; and
• where the recipient was the trustee of a testamentary trust, from that trustee to a beneficiary either as a capital distribution during the lifetime of the trust or as a distribution of corpus upon vesting.

The CGT consequences of each of the abovementioned transfers must be separately considered.

Distributions from will maker to LPR

The first roll-over to examine is the initial transfer of a deceased's assets from the deceased person to their LPR for distribution under the terms of the deceased's will.

As a starting point, the general position is that, when a taxpayer dies, any capital gain or loss from any event relating to a CGT asset owned by the deceased is disregarded under s 128-10 of the ITAA 1997. This means that the distribution from the deceased to their LPR does not result in a CGT liability for the deceased.

As to the consequences for the LPR, the CGT assets are taken, under s 128-15 to have been acquired by the LPR on the date the deceased died. The cost base of each CGT asset (other than for a property which was a main residence for the deceased immediately before they died) for the LPR is modified under s 128-15(4) so that:

• for pre-CGT assets in the hands of the deceased - the first element of the LPR's cost base (and reduced cost base) is the market value of the asset on the day the deceased died (meaning that pre-CGT assets in the hands of the deceased become post-CGT assets in the hands of the LPR); and
• for post-CGT assets in the hands of the deceased - the first element of the LPR's cost base (and reduced cost base) is the deceased's cost base (or reduced cost base) at the date of their death (i.e. the deceased effectively passes their cost base and reduced cost base to the LPR).

Distributions from LPR to testamentary trust

From a CGT perspective, a testamentary trust is treated much the same as other trusts. However, it should be noted that CGT event E1 does not apply to the creation of a testamentary trust since that event only applies to the creation of a trust "by declaration or settlement".

In the testamentary trust scenario, there is no such declaration of trust and there is no initial settlement sum.

The CGT rules which apply to the distribution from the deceased to the LPR apply in the same manner to subsequent distributions from the LPR to a "beneficiary" of the estate.

It would appear that "beneficiary" for the purposes of the ITAA 1997 includes the trustee of a testamentary trust (however, as will be explained in Part II of this article, for the purpose of Div 128, the trustee of a testamentary trust is also treated the same as an LPR by the ATO), meaning that distributions from an LPR to the trustee of a testamentary trust are treated in the same manner as distributions from an LPR to an individual beneficiary.

A CGT asset is taken to have passed to a beneficiary of a deceased's estate if the beneficiary (or in this case, the trustee of the testamentary trust) becomes the owner of the asset whether under the terms of:

• the deceased's will;
• under the intestacy laws; or
• under a deed of arrangement.

Section 128-15(3) provides that on a subsequent distribution from the LPR to a beneficiary (including the trustee of a testamentary trust), any capital gain or loss that the LPR makes is disregarded.

Again, the trustee of the testamentary trust is taken to have acquired the CGT assets of the deceased at the date of the deceased's death (rather than on the date they were distributed by the LPR) and the first element of the cost base (and reduced cost base) for the testamentary trust trustee will be:

• for pre-CGT assets in the hands of the deceased - the market value of the asset on the day the deceased died; and
• for post-CGT assets in the hands of the deceased - the deceased's costs base (or reduced cost base) at the date of their death.

The testamentary trust trustee is also able include in its cost base any expenditure the LPR has incurred, up to the time of the disposal by the LPR, that the LPR would have been entitled to include in its cost base had it retained the asset.

Until next week.

Image credit: Barbara Agnew cc

EPAs and gift and loan back arrangements

Two possible solutions.

Following the recent post about conflict of interest provisions under an enduring power of attorney (EPA) a question came up as to whether a gift and loan back arrangement would have provided another solution. 

A summary of the general way in which a gift and loan back arrangement would work is set out in recent posts (http://mwbmcr.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-gift-and-loan-back-arrangements-work.html).

The concept raised in the scenario touched on in the recent post was as follows:

1. The attorney could arrange for a cash gift equal to the value of the husband’s interest in the home to a discretionary trust that would ultimately pass to the control of the children of the marriage. 
2. That trust would then lend the amount back to the husband (via his wife as the attorney). 
3. The husband’s estate (following his death) would then be required to repay the debt to the trust effectively ensuring that only nominal assets would pass under the husband’s will and the main value of the estate would in turn be held via a more robust structure, being the previously established trust. 

Obviously the ability to implement this approach would depend entirely on whether the appropriate conflict of interest provision existed under the EPA and whether the attorney could satisfy themselves that they would not be breaching their fiduciary duties to the principal by undertaking the arrangement.

There would also be a range of commercial issues that would need to be considered, not least of which the fact that the trust involved would not be a testamentary trust and therefore would not enjoy the various advantages that testamentary trusts have as compared to standard discretionary trusts.

Until next week.

Image credit: Jens Wessling cc

EPAs and conflicts of interest

With the aging population, conflicts of interest arising particularly in relation to the use of an enduring power of attorney (EPA) are becoming far more prevalent.

Previous posts have looked at cases like Stanford. Recently we had a client situation that underlined how critical it is to include a conflict of interest provision in an EPA. This style of provision is not standard in any government form and indeed many lawyers do not choose to include such a provision.

The situation the client faced was as follows:

1. The main asset in the estate was a family home which was owned as joint tenants. 
2. The husband lacked capacity due to advanced dementia, although was otherwise in good health. 
3. Our client (the wife) wanted to include testamentary discretionary trusts under her will to provide for the children of the relationship. 
4. The husband’s will was a very basic document and did not allow for testamentary discretionary trusts. 
5. To ensure that half the value of the house would pass into an appropriate structure if the wife predeceased the husband she was wanting to rely on her appointment as the husband’s EPA to sever the joint tenancy (for a summary of the distinction between owning assets as joint tenants and tenants in common see http://mwbmcr.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-exactly-does-jointly-mean.html). 
6. Due to an appropriately crafted conflict of interest clause in the EPA, the wife was able to quickly and easily implement the severance and avoid some of the more complex solutions that might also have been available such as the unilateral severance of the tenancy or applying for a court ordered will (the court ordered will process is featured in previous posts: http://mwbmcr.blogspot.com/2013/08/court-drafted-wills.html and http://mwbmcr.blogspot.com.ar/2013/09/using-court-drafted-wills-to-achieve.html). 

Until next week.

Image credit: Schnaars cc

Bankruptcy clawback - a leading case

In any asset protection exercise, the impact of the 'clawback' rules under the bankruptcy legislation needs to be carefully considered. 

One key aspect in this regard is whether a decision by a person to divest themselves of assets was done for the main purpose of defeating creditors.

Recently, I was reminded of arguably the leading case in this area, which is now over 80 years old, namely Williams v Lloyd [1934] HCA1. As usual, a link to the full copy of the decision is as follows - http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1934/1.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Williams%20and%20Lloyd%20).

In this case, a bankrupt transferred assets to family members while he was solvent, but knowing that he was likely to start engaging in a 'risky' business activity in the future.

The court held that the transfers could not be clawed back and the key aspect of the decision was as follows –

‘Once it is acknowledged, as upon the evidence I think it must be, that in 1926 the bankrupt was in a perfectly sound financial position and had nothing to fear, subsequent conduct and events form an insufficient basis for a finding that the documents were shams, or that he had an intent to defraud his creditors, or that they were made subject to a suspensory condition allowing them to take effect only in case of attack by creditors.’.

Until next week.

Image credit: EJP Photo cc

Gift and loan back arrangements - some frequently asked questions

Recent posts have looked at various aspects of the 'gift and loan back' strategy (see http://mwbmcr.blogspot.com.ar/2014/03/leading-gift-and-loan-back-case.html and http://mwbmcr.blogspot.com/2014/04/subdivision-ea-giftloan-back.html) 

While there are a myriad of potential issues that always need to be considered, some of the key aspects include:

1. care should always be taken to ensure that the trust which will make the secured loan does not itself conduct risky activities (for example, run a business). 
2. while the arrangement can be entered into without registering a mortgage, if this step is not taken, the trust that has made the loan will simply be an unsecured creditor. 
3. the impact of the arrangement in relation to potentially accessing the small business tax concessions should always be carefully considered, because while a family home will generally be excluded from the $6 million test, a secured loan will generally be included if the trust is an affiliate or ‘connected entity’ under the Tax Act (which will typically be the case). 
4. to the extent that a third party financier already has a mortgage over the property, they will generally require a deed of priority securing their lendings (to whatever level they may be from time to time) as a first priority before the trust's second mortgage. 
5. As flagged in previous posts (http://mwbmcr.blogspot.com/2013/10/one-remedy-where-trust-distributions.html) if no real property is available for registering security over, personal property can be used via the Personal Property Security Register. 

Until next week.

Image credit: Alexander Henning Drachmann via Flickr