IT IS generally accepted that the Cooper review of superannuation in general, and self-managed super funds in particular, produced valuable recommendations.
But one relating to SMSFs has hit a legal hurdle, and its introduction will now at least be delayed.
The recommendation accepted by the federal Labor government was to ban off-market transfers of investments between members and their SMSF.
Under superannuation law there are very few investments that can be bought by a super fund from its members. The two main exceptions are business real property, such as factories and offices, and publicly listed investments, such as shares.
When members want to transfer shares held in personal names into their SMSF this can be done by an off-market transfer. This involves assessing the market value of the shares at the date of the transfer.
A share transfer form is then lodged with the company's share registry, requesting ownership be transferred from the individuals to the SMSF.
These off-market transfers are subject to verification by the super fund's auditor, and any capital gain made by members, on the basis of the market value at the date of the transfer, is taxable in their hands.
Members wanting to save on brokerage fees have found this preferable to selling and buying shares on the stock exchange. Originally the government was going to ban off-market transfers between members and their SMSF from July 1, 2012, but this has now been delayed until at least July 1, 2013.
The reason for the delay is if the shares were sold on the market and then the SMSF buys the same shares immediately, it exposes the SMSF members to severe penalties as a result of them breaching rules under the Corporations Act.
Peter Burgess, technical director with the SMSF Professionals Association Australia, said: "These rules are there to prevent market rigging and the false or misleading appearance of active trading of the security, which clearly is not the intention or motive of an SMSF investor." This problem arose as part of the legislative process when formulating the amendments to the relevant section of the Superannuation Industry Supervision act.
Mr Burgess said: "This section of the act allows fund trustees to acquire listed securities from a related party without breaching the general prohibition on acquiring assets from a related party." Related parties include members and also associates of members such as relatives.
If Treasury cannot come up with a way of ensuring that members of an SMSF will not be subject to the penalties under the Corporations Act, and the SIS section was amended to ban off-market transfers, anyway, this would result in the banning of members transferring ownership of any listed securities to an SMSF. This would mean the changes would go far beyond what was originally proposed by the Cooper review.
With the banning of off-market transfers having originally been thought to be a simple change needing to be made to the SIS act, now bordering on a legislative nightmare that includes the Corporations Act, hopefully the Gillard government will see that this recommendation of the Cooper review is more trouble than it's worth.
Given that transfers by members of investments to SMSFs is so tightly regulated, and auditors of SMSF's check that off-market transfers are done at the correct values, banning them was more about a perceived problem, than fixing an area of SMSF administration that was actually being abused.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What is an off-market transfer for SMSFs and how does it work when transferring shares?
An off-market transfer lets an SMSF member move shares held in their personal name into the SMSF without selling on the exchange. The transfer requires assessing the market value on the date of transfer, lodging a share transfer form with the company’s share registry to change ownership to the SMSF, and verification by the SMSF’s auditor. Any capital gain based on that market value is taxable in the member’s hands.
Why did the Cooper review recommend banning off-market transfers to SMSFs?
The Cooper review recommended banning off-market transfers between members and their SMSF, a change the federal Labor government accepted. The article notes the ban was intended to address perceived problems with member-to-fund transfers, although critics say transfers are already tightly regulated and audited and that banning them may be addressing a problem that isn’t widespread.
Has the ban on SMSF off-market transfers been implemented and why was it delayed?
No. The planned ban was originally due from July 1, 2012 but has been delayed until at least July 1, 2013. The delay arose because reform drafters discovered a legal hurdle: if a member sold shares on-market and the SMSF immediately bought the same shares, members could be exposed to severe penalties under the Corporations Act for conduct that might appear like market rigging.
What legal penalties could SMSF members face under the Corporations Act related to share transfers?
If a transaction creates the false or misleading appearance of active trading or market rigging—for example, a member sells shares on-market and the SMSF immediately buys them—members could face severe penalties under the Corporations Act. Industry experts say the rules are designed to prevent market manipulation or the misleading appearance of active trading.
Are there exceptions that allow a super fund to buy assets from members?
Yes. Under superannuation law there are very few exceptions to the prohibition on buying assets from members. The two main exceptions mentioned are business real property (such as factories and offices) and publicly listed investments (shares). A section of the SIS Act also allows trustees to acquire listed securities from a related party without breaching the general prohibition; related parties include members and associates such as relatives.
Why do some SMSF members prefer off-market transfers instead of selling and rebuying shares on the exchange?
Many members prefer off-market transfers to save on brokerage fees that would arise from selling on the stock exchange and repurchasing the same shares. The process also involves auditor verification and uses the market value at the date of transfer to determine tax outcomes, which some see as a secure alternative to trading on-market.
What could happen if Treasury cannot resolve the conflict between the SIS changes and the Corporations Act?
If Treasury can’t find a way to ensure members aren’t exposed to Corporations Act penalties and the SIS Act is amended to ban off-market transfers anyway, the practical result could be a far broader prohibition—preventing members from transferring ownership of listed securities to their SMSF. The article warns this would go well beyond the original Cooper review recommendation and create a complex legislative problem.
What should SMSF members know while the off-market transfer ban issue is being resolved?
SMSF members should be aware that off-market transfers are currently tightly regulated, that auditors verify correct market values, and that the government has delayed implementing the ban because of potential Corporations Act consequences. Until Treasury and legislators resolve the conflict, members should take care that any transfers don’t create the appearance of market rigging and watch for official updates on the proposed changes.