Phone: (03) 9563 4688

Email: office@aubreypaton.com.au

Address: 17D Chester Street, Oakleigh VIC 3166

Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
Touch Payroll (STP)
‘Calm before the storm’: Government proposes 12-month SG amnesty
Government intensifies cash payments crackdown - Kelly O'Dwyer
Passive investment companies tax rate still 30%
Cryptocurrency audits tipped to increase this EOFY
Australia by numbers – Update
$2.4m lost to tax scams, ACCC reports
No GST on digital currency
Federal Budget 2018 - Overview
Your Budget
4 components of our 2018 Federal Budget
Resources to help understand and implement Single Touch Payroll (STP)
New rules capture SMSFs trading big with cryptocurrency
New passive income test for lower corporate tax rate
Tools to help you manage your financial position are available on our site.
‘A simple mistake can attract our attention’: ATO reminder about FBT slips-ups
Australia by numbers – Update
Beware residency rules if moving overseas
Meaningful tax reform in high demand
Working holidaymakers and tax returns
Single Touch Payroll – 1 April 2018 Action
Property investors on notice after ATO spots false claims
ATO issues update on cryptocurrency compliance traps
Australia's vital statistics
Accountants spy elder abuse spike as mortgage stress sets in
Tax office releases fresh guidance on SMSFs
Labor's tax plans could favour the rich, analysis shows
FBT Reminder – Odometer Reading
Our website is really our digital office.
Articles archive
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 4 October - December 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 1 January - March 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 1 January - March 2006
Quarter 4 October - December 2005
Quarter 3 July - September 2005
Quarter 2 of 2014
Articles
Help investor's to save $82 per week
Postage Stamp Increase
eBay Fees
Federal Budget 2014-15 - Overview
Federal Budget 2014-15 - Overview of main responsibilities
Federal Budget Papers 2014-15
Deadlines for Superannuation Contributions
Three property depreciation tips
Case for corporate trustee strengthens
Superannuation Death Benefits
Credit Card Users - Do you have monthly fees?
Credit Rating
Credit Card Tips
Case for corporate trustee strengthens

 

The new ATO penalty powers have strengthened the argument for the use of corporate trustees as opposed to individual trustees in SMSFs.


 


Under the ATO’s new regime, penalties are imposed on the SMSF trustee, meaning each individual trustee will be liable for the penalty in most circumstances, SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia senior manager, technical and policy Jordan George told SMSF Adviser.



 

     


If you have a corporate trustee for an SMSF, however, it will only be the corporate trustee that receives the penalty and the fine, Mr George said.


“I do think there is a possibility, if you did have a situation where a fund had a couple of individual trustees that each received a $10,000 fine, that we may see this as an incentive for people to have a corporate trustee – and for advisers to recommend the corporate trustee as the appropriate trustee for an SMSF,” he stated.


“It is just another reason, on top of the many already good reasons, to have a corporate trustee – the penalty provisions do apply better if you have a corporate trustee rather than individual trustees,” he added.


Heffron’s head of customer Meg Heffron similarly said corporate trustees are generally the “way to go”.


“It is a far more resilient structure; if you have individual trustees and someone dies or someone leaves or someone new joins, you have got to go and change all the names on the assets, and people never do it right and they end up with an ongoing breach for years and years,” she told SMSF Adviser.


The SMSF Academy’s managing director Aaron Dunn told SMSF Adviser the individual versus corporate trustee debate will be “fascinating” in regards to the new ATO penalty powers.


“When you are looking at penalties potentially at $10,200 per individual trustee when they could have capped it at $10,200 with a corporate trustee… you could be looking at the difference between $40,400 and $10,200,” he said.


“Given that approximately nine in every 10 SMSFs are being set up with an individual trustee, this will now be exposing each individual to all of the risks. You will get a whole range of combinations that could be exposing relatives, family members, friends, professionals to these unintended outcomes,” he added


 


Written by Elyse Perrau
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
www.smsfadviseronline.com.au




13th-May-2014