Does an SMSF loan to a property trust constitute an in-house asset transaction? According to Interpretive Decision ATO ID 2014/23, it cannot be termed as an in-house asset transaction as the property trust is not a related party because the SMSF does not own any units in the property trust, the loan is made through a commercial agreement and related parties to the SMSF own less than 10% of the units in the property trust.
What if your SMSF shares a bank account with various ‘related’ unit trusts? ATO guideline ‘ID 2014/7’ clearly marks out the course of action in such an event and talks about the regulations pertaining to keeping your SMSF money and assets segregated.
In an article for the SMSF Adviser, Shelley Banton discusses why trustees invest in risky assets despite the fact that the returns are meagre to reasonable in a high number of cases and many of them also record losses.
In what is a rarity, apparently at least, heads of the really big Super lobby groups have arrived at a consensus. And it is that the complexity caused by the continuous changes in Superannuation rules is forcing people to rethink retirement. The Federal government should act fast if it wants to dispel this trend as a myth.
Over the last 4 years or so, the number of Australians who have upped their Superannuation ante has grown leaps and bounds. Apart from their compulsory 9.5%, they are looking to put in as much voluntary contributions as they can. Imagine our countrymen pouring in $36.5 billion besides the compulsory 9.5% in 2013.
How much retirement budget is adequate? Are SMSFs pushing themselves in the right direction? In an article for the website SMSF Adviser, Katrina Brown throws light on these pertinent questions. Most of the SMSFs, according to recently analysed data (with a very large sample set) are moving in the right direction and they should have enough in their kitty to enjoy comfortable retirement.