Phone: (03) 9563 4688

Email: office@aubreypaton.com.au

Address: 17D Chester Street, Oakleigh VIC 3166

find:
Hot Issues
ATO dispels top tax time myths to clients as clampdown rolls out
Tools for budgeting, cash flow, Super and more ….
Guidance for SMSFs on transfer balance reporting
ATO issues alert on super, tax scams
Salary sacrifice integrity
Understanding the evolution of blockchain and cryptocurrencies
Update to Australia's vital statistics
Tax Time Checklists- Individual, Company, Trust, Partnership and Super Funds
SMSFs - Our 'hardest' jobs
Tax Office reveals adventurous, dubious claims ahead of tax time
ATO reveals top tax time mistakes, set to contact 1 million taxpayers
Watch out for charges with incoming GST laws.
Super savings gap for women stuck at 30%
‘Wipe the slate clean’: Clients, accountants urged to use new amnesty period
Statistics for all Australians
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
Articles archive
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
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 3 July - September 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 1 January - March 2007
Quarter 4 October - December 2006
Quarter 3 July - September 2006
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 1 January - March 2006
Quarter 4 October - December 2005
Quarter 3 July - September 2005
Quarter 2 April - June 2005
Quarter 1 January - March 2005
Quarter 4 October - December 2004
Quarter 3 July - September 2004
Quarter 2 April - June 2004
Quarter 1 January - March 2004
Quarter 4 October - December 2003
Quarter 3 July - September 2003
Quarter 2 April - June 2003
Quarter 1 January - March 2003
Quarter 4 October - December 2002
Quarter 3 July - September 2002
Quarter 2 April - June 2002
Quarter 1 January - March 2002
Quarter 4 October - December 2001
No Special Circumstances to allow Excess Super Contributions

Another case confirms that taxpayers making large superannuation contributions need to be diligent.



       


 


The Administrative Appeals Tribunal denied a taxpayers request to ignore excess contributions tax.


The taxpayer claimed that her situation and the complexity of her superannuation arrangements, meant that special circumstances should allow the Commissioner to overlook her excess contributions.


She had contributed what she thought was the maximum in year one and used the bring forward rule to contribute $450,000 in the year two.  She argued that part of the complexity was an industry fund, a defined benefit fund and her SMSF.  Having exceeded the maximum concessional contributions in year one, the bring forward rule was not available in the year two.  


The tribunal considered that her superannuation arrangements were not out of the ordinary and emphasised her failure to seek advice and disregard reports from her superannuation fund, in favour of spreadsheets prepared by her husband.


The decision is quite predictable, again emphasising great care when endeavouring to take maximum advantage of tax concessions.


 


 


AcctWeb




26th-October-2017