The correct tax treatment of income from assets held by
the trustee of a trust for an SMSF under a limited recourse
borrowing arrangement (LRBA) has been unclear. Some years ago the
Government announced it would introduce legislation to provide a
'look through' approach for income tax purposes, and the
draft legislation was finally released in January 2015 (Tax and
Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 2) Bill 2015:
The draft legislation provides that, for income tax purposes, an
asset is treated as being the superannuation fund's asset, and
not an asset of the LRBA trust. This means the LRBA trust is
ignored for income tax purposes and all assessable income
(including capital gains) is included in the tax return for the
The proposed rules apply to bare trusts set up for SMSF
borrowing as well as some other arrangements, and clarify the
position that has been largely taken in the industry.
The legislation also specifically provides that the original
limited recourse borrowing arrangements established under the now
repealed section 67(4A) are to be taxed in the same way.
If you are looking to rely on the 'look through'
provisions, you must ensure that your LRBA complies with the
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act.
The proposed legislation is a step forward; however it fails to
deal with the treatment for GST purposes, which is a major area of
concern in a number of LRBA transactions. Unless this is
appropriately dealt with in the final legislation, extreme care
must be taken to ensure that GST is dealt with properly in an LRBA.
In particular, our concern is that GSTR 2008/3 is not wide enough
to apply to all LRBAs.
Winner – EOWA Employer of Choice for Women Citation 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012
Winner – ALB Gold Employer of Choice 2011 and 2012
Finalist – ALB Australasian Law Awards 2008, 2010, 2011 and
2012 (Best Brisbane Firm)
Winner – BRW Client Choice Awards 2009 and 2010 - Best
Australian Law Firm (revenue less than $50m)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The High Court considered whether credit card late payment fees charged by a bank were considered to be penalties.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).