feedSubscribe to our news feeds
Archived Posts Lists

Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre

Resources

Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links

July 8, 2009

SMSF borrowing: risks in member giving guarantee for loan

The ATO's Taxpayer Alert TA 2008/05 "Certain borrowings by self managed superannuation funds ", discussed arrangements under which the trustee of a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) enters into certain limited-recourse borrowings, which may not meet the conditions in subsection 67(4A) and/or breach other provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), as well as related superannuation rules.

The ATO identified 5 features of such arrangements which may give rise to taxation and superannuation regulatory issues.

One of those features (relevant to whether the loan was limited recourse) was whether a personal guarantee for the borrowing is given by a third party, particularly when the guarantee is given by a member or a related party of the SMSF.

In draft taxation ruling TR2009/D3 the ATO has now advanced the risk of a SMSF Member in providing a personal guarantee for a loan to the fund by stating that:

A payment pursuant to that guarantee will constitute a contribution to the fund if the guarantor has no right of indemnity against the fund. A contribution will be made by a guarantor who has a right of indemnity only if the guarantor subsequently forgoes that right or is prevented from enforcing that right (for example by the statute of limitations).

Such a payment may breach the superannuation contribution limit.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 8th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Financial Services, Superannuation

Reasons for tax bonus decision (Pape v Commissioner of Taxation)

The High Court has published its reasons for its decision in April in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] HCA 23 that the tax bonus was constitutional.


It is a long decision (614 paragraphs) split 6-1 in favour in 4 separate sets of reasons.


The court acknowledged the need for the government to respond to the global financial crisis but did not go so far as to authorise any government to appropriate money and spend it for any purpose determined by parliament.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 8th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Tax

July 6, 2009

Revised ACCC immunity policy for cartel conduct

Following the introduction of criminal penalties for cartels, the ACCC has released its revised policy for the application of immunity in relation to cartel conduct.

The immunity policy applies to civil proceedings instituted by the ACCC.

Immunity from criminal prosecution will be determined by the Commonwealth DPP in accordance with the same principles that determine immunity under the ACCC’s immunity policy.

UPDATE: Here's the Trade Practices Amendment Act containing the anti-cartel amendments.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 6th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Trade Practices

ASIC consults on securities lending

ASIC has released a consultation paper on disclosure of substantial holdings arising from securities lending or prime broking.

The consultation paper, Securities lending and substantial holding disclosure, seeks to improve disclosure of substantial holdings in practice and makes it clear that securities lending transactions and prime broking arrangements need to be taken into account in calculating a substantial holding.

Submissions on the proposals contained in the Consultation Paper close on 7 August 2009.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 6th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Corporations Act, Financial Services

COAG Communique 2 July 2009

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting on 2 July 2009 focussed on further measures to overcome Indigenous disadvantage and
the importance against the background of the global economic and
financial crises of bolstering education, training and re-training
efforts and securing further microeconomic and regulatory reform to
enhance the economy’s future productive potential.

On the regulation front, COAG signed an Intergovernmental Agreement to underpin the establishment of national Australian Consumer Law, based on existing consumer protection provisions and new product safety regulation and enforcement regime, and a further IGA covering national business names registration.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 6th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Business Planning, Financial Services

July 5, 2009

Superannuation industry overview

APRA's latest Insight magazine contains an overview of the superannuation industry since 2007.

It is a useful summary of the impact of the economy on superannuation funds as well as regulatory developments.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 5th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Superannuation

July 2, 2009

Austrac enforceable undertakings

AUSTRAC has commenced a new enforceable undertakings regime.

An enforceable
undertaking is a written undertaking that is enforceable in a court,
given to and accepted by the AUSTRAC CEO. They are generally an
alternative to civil or administrative action where there has been a
contravention of the AML/CTF Act, the regulations or the AML/CTF Rules.

Austrac’s first acceptance of enforceable undertakings are from
Barclays Bank PLC and Mega International Commercial Bank
Co,. Ltd
, following a number of deficiencies and breaches, including reporting breaches,of Australia’s anti-money
laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) laws.

Barclay’s breaches were identified following an on-site assessment.

The undertakings require the companies to:

  • review transactions for a period of seven years and provide AUSTRAC any outstanding reports required by law;
  • develop and implement proper systems and controls to ensure
    that the company complies in the future with its reporting and AML/CTF
    program obligations;
  • submit to AUSTRAC an independent expert report detailing
    the company’s compliance with the AML/CTF laws. The companies will also be
    required to submit similar reports in 2010 and 2011.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 2nd July 2009 by David Jacobson in Anti-money laundering

Final decision on taxation of employee share schemes

The Assistant Treasurer, Senator Nick Sherry, has released a
Policy Statement setting out the final taxation treatment of shares and rights acquired under employee share schemes, effective from 1 July 2009.

Under the arrangements outlined on
Budget night in May, all discounts on shares and rights provided under an
employee share scheme would be assessed in the income year in which the
shares and rights are acquired.

Under the final framework for employee
share schemes, the taxation of discounts on shares and rights acquired
under an employee share scheme will remain the starting principle of
the regime, with concessional treatment available for particular
schemes.

The upfront tax exemption will be means tested
and tax deferral will only be accessible where there is a real risk
that the shares or rights may be forfeited, such as due to performance
hurdles or employment conditions. The pre-Budget use of cessation of
employment as a taxing point will be retained and the maximum 10 year
deferral period will be reduced to seven years.

Modifications to the original announcement are:

  • increasing the income tax threshold for eligibility for the upfront tax
    concessions to $180,000, to align it with the top
    marginal tax rate threshold;
  • providing further clarity
    on the meaning of “real risk of forfeiture” via the use of explanatory
    materials and Tax Office materials, including through the use of a
    range of example cameos to assist industry;
    • Employees receiving benefits under these schemes will not be able to
      pay tax upfront and the scheme’s governing rules must clearly
      distinguish these schemes from those eligible for the upfront tax
      exemption.
  • moving the deferred taxing point
    from a point at which the taxpayer will no longer have a real risk of
    losing the share or right to a point at which:
    • in the case of shares, there is both no longer a real risk of the
      taxpayer losing the share and no restriction (present at acquisition)
      preventing the taxpayer from disposing of the share; and
    • in the case of rights to shares (options), there is both no longer a
      real risk of the taxpayer losing the right and no restriction (present
      at acquisition) preventing the taxpayer from either disposing or
      exercising of the right, however, if after exercising the right, the
      underlying share is subject to forfeiture and restrictions preventing
      the taxpayer from disposing of the underlying share, it is the point at
      which there is both no longer a real risk of the taxpayer losing the
      share and no restriction (present at acquisition) preventing the
      taxpayer from disposing of the share.
  • allowing the deferral of tax in relation to up to $5,000 worth of
    shares under particular salary sacrifice based employee share schemes,
    where there is no real risk of forfeiture.
  • removing
    the reporting requirement for employers to report the market value of
    employee share scheme benefits in the year of grant, if this is not the
    year in which the employee is taxed; and
  • establishing a three part forward plan of consultation with industry by:
    • asking the Board of Taxation to examine two remaining issues (a) how
      best to determine the market value of employee share scheme benefits;
      and, (b) whether shares and rights under an employee share scheme that
      are provided by start-up, research and development and speculative-type
      companies should be subject to a tax deferral arrangement, despite not
      being subject to a real risk of forfeiture;
    • commit to
      an Exposure Draft process of the Bill to ensure the policy is
      accurately reflected in the application of the law, including
      consultation on a range of technical issues raised in submissions that
      will be contained in the Exposure Draft Bill; and
    • supplementing this process by asking the Board of Taxation to consult
      with stakeholders  to examine technical matters associated with the
      implementation of these reforms, and to report to Government in time to
      allow the Board’s views to be taken into account in the draft
      legislation.

A full reporting regime will also be introduced to significantly boost the integrity of the taxation of share schemes.

The combination of these final reforms and the measures out in the 5
June, 2009 consultation paper are set out in the attached Policy
Statement.

As previously announced, the existing law will
apply to all shares and rights acquired before 1 July 2009. The
Government will introduce the legislation during the Spring Sittings of
Parliament.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 2nd July 2009 by David Jacobson in Tax

July 1, 2009

ASIC identifies financial report focus areas

ASIC has highlighted a number of areas on
which company Boards and those responsible for the preparation of
financial reports should focus in the upcoming reporting period.

It has identified going concern (solvency), valuation of assets and off-balance sheet arrangements as issues for concern.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 1st July 2009 by David Jacobson in Corporations Act
« Newer Posts