SMSF Loans and Personal Guarantees

Definitely. I would refuse to set up a SMSF without a corporate trustee.

some reasons
1. asset protection
2. fines lesser (if non complying, breachese etc)
3. Administrative ease on admission of new members, death of existing member etc
4. distinguishes personal assets from trust assets
etc

Amazingly above 75% of the 500,000 SMSFs out there are individual trustee - I will have to check those figures but even the ATO is spruiking the benefits of corporate trustee these days. In my business, with 'many' funds under administration we only have one fund with individual trustee.

Cheers. Ivan
 
Amazingly above 75% of the 500,000 SMSFs out there are individual trustee - I will have to check those figures but even the ATO is spruiking the benefits of corporate trustee these days. In my business, with 'many' funds under administration we only have one fund with individual trustee.

Cheers. Ivan

Yes I have read similar statistics. Amazing isn't it!
 
From a recent enquiry I made with CBA, they indicated that at a LVR of <50% and where the rental will cover the interest payment personal guarantees may be waived.

I'm pursuing STG and La Trobe however as there are some other terms in the CBA agreement that are a little concerning (particularly the requirement to make additional repayments if the LVR falls as a result of the annual review process). STG and LT may have such terms as well but I haven't seen the detail yet.

Be aware of the proposed restoration of the prohibition of borrowing by SMSFs. I have 2 SMSF properties settling in 2015 and I'm now having to re-think my borrowing strategy as a result.
 
Be aware of the proposed restoration of the prohibition of borrowing by SMSFs. I have 2 SMSF properties settling in 2015 and I'm now having to re-think my borrowing strategy as a result.

Hi CT - re the two properties settling in 2015, the proposed ban will not be in place by then - seriously it will take 10 years for the ban to be implemented. The scare campaign against SMSF is out of control, i'm sure trustees will take a deep breath and remember that the Libs promised not to change Super - they surely will not risk another broken promise in the last two years of their term?

Don't worry mate - go full steam ahead!

IF you need help with LA Trobe - let me know- but they do have a personal guarantee.

Cheers Ivan
 
Hi CT - re the two properties settling in 2015, the proposed ban will not be in place by then - seriously it will take 10 years for the ban to be implemented. The scare campaign against SMSF is out of control, i'm sure trustees will take a deep breath and remember that the Libs promised not to change Super - they surely will not risk another broken promise in the last two years of their term?

Don't worry mate - go full steam ahead!

I am not so sure Ivan, no ABC cuts, $7 co payment back flip. I think the writing is on the wall for SMSF gearing.
 
I am not so sure Ivan, no ABC cuts, $7 co payment back flip. I think the writing is on the wall for SMSF gearing.

As far as I know we now enter the consultation period which runs until 31/3/15. This means IP#1 will be fine, but I now lean towards STG as I want to max out the loan and then use the 100% offset that unfortunately La Trobe don't offer.
. IP#2 is likely to be a Dec 2015 settlement, so there is a risk that things will change prior to then.

To cover this situation I think I basically have 2 options;
1) Related party loan into the fund soon, ensuring it is fully documented and on "commercial terms". Apparently the ATO will release some further guidance on this prior to Christmas.
2) Pay cash using either $ in the SMSF or by doing a chunky non-concessional contribution under "bring-forward" allowances. Problem with this is I think I will have to unwind the LRBA, execute a deed of recision and hope the vendor doesn't mind tearing up the existing contract and re-signing with the SMSF trustee as the purchaser.

Or I can just hope! I seriously hope they allow purchasers that have executed contracts with settlement dates in the future to keep their LRBAs as well as those with executed LRBAs.

Any thoughts from those facing the same circumstances?
Trev
 
As far as I know we now enter the consultation period which runs until 31/3/15. This means IP#1 will be fine, but I now lean towards STG as I want to max out the loan and then use the 100% offset that unfortunately La Trobe don't offer.
. IP#2 is likely to be a Dec 2015 settlement, so there is a risk that things will change prior to then.

To cover this situation I think I basically have 2 options;
1) Related party loan into the fund soon, ensuring it is fully documented and on "commercial terms". Apparently the ATO will release some further guidance on this prior to Christmas.
2) Pay cash using either $ in the SMSF or by doing a chunky non-concessional contribution under "bring-forward" allowances. Problem with this is I think I will have to unwind the LRBA, execute a deed of recision and hope the vendor doesn't mind tearing up the existing contract and re-signing with the SMSF trustee as the purchaser.

Or I can just hope! I seriously hope they allow purchasers that have executed contracts with settlement dates in the future to keep their LRBAs as well as those with executed LRBAs.

Any thoughts from those facing the same circumstances?
Trev

thats how I would do it - except for the cash part.
 
As far as I know we now enter the consultation period which runs until 31/3/15. This means IP#1 will be fine, but I now lean towards STG as I want to max out the loan and then use the 100% offset that unfortunately La Trobe don't offer.
. IP#2 is likely to be a Dec 2015 settlement, so there is a risk that things will change prior to then.

To cover this situation I think I basically have 2 options;
1) Related party loan into the fund soon, ensuring it is fully documented and on "commercial terms". Apparently the ATO will release some further guidance on this prior to Christmas.
2) Pay cash using either $ in the SMSF or by doing a chunky non-concessional contribution under "bring-forward" allowances. Problem with this is I think I will have to unwind the LRBA, execute a deed of recision and hope the vendor doesn't mind tearing up the existing contract and re-signing with the SMSF trustee as the purchaser.

Or I can just hope! I seriously hope they allow purchasers that have executed contracts with settlement dates in the future to keep their LRBAs as well as those with executed LRBAs.

Any thoughts from those facing the same circumstances?
Trev

Hi Trev,

Its an interesting one - I have a strong belief it will not happen, personally I don't see it coming in before the end of next year - if at all- and addressing the issue you have described is paramount. After all there are 44 recommendations....

I have a heap of clients impacted and a number of people holding off on potential purchases as a result of the announcement on Sunday. This will take time to implement and as I say - if at all.

For those interested here is a good article from Gadens - a leading SMSF lawyer on the topic of why the ban should not happen
http://www.gadens.com/publications/Pages/Direct-borrowing-by-SMSFs-should-not-be-banned.aspx

Cheers, Ivan
 
Even if they do bring it in I'm sure existing exchanged contracts would be exempt however you then have the lenders who may not feel that obliged.
 
Terry is spot on, here are the main benefits:

1. The most important point is for asset protection

If individual members were the trustees of your self managed super fund, the legal ownership of the assets are the members. This can create some problems. How? Well let?s say that you buy a residential or commercial property inside your super fund and one of your tenants falls over and injures themselves. The tenant can turn around and sue the legal owner of the property which would be the individuals as trustees. And as individuals your personal assets, being your family home and other assets are at risk of being taken away from you. However, if you had a company acting as the trustee, the legal ownership is that of the company not the individual members. The tenant can?t sue you as a director of a trustee company.

2. Individual trustees can only pay out retirement pensions

If you have individual trustees, you can only pay out retirement pensions. If you?re intending to point pay out lump sum benefits, death benefits, disability benefits or transition to retirement pensions, which are stand out features of a self managed super fund, you?re limited as to how you can pay these benefits out to members and beneficiaries of all members which can be very costly. You must have a corporate trustee to be able to pay out these benefits.

3. Increase individual land tax liabilities

With self managed super funds now able to borrow money to buy residential and commercial properties, property investing inside super has seen a dramatic increase. If you have individual trustees who are then the legal owners of the property, this will increase the amounts counted towards their personal land tax threshold, where as if the trustee was a company, the land tax is applied to the super fund.

4. Lower loan to value ratio?s

Whilst we?re on the topic of borrowing money to buy property in a self managed super fund, banks will lend more money to super funds with company trustees than they would to super funds with individual trustees, which means that your fund can leverage higher priced properties or require less money to invest in property.

5. Longevity

A self managed super fund is designed to allow it to run forever, unlike other trusts such as family trusts that have a life span of 80 years. In order for your fund to last and be passed down from one generation to another, you need a trustee that doesn?t die. The only structure that can do this is a company, so if you want your self managed super fund to last forever and to get passed down tax effectively from generation to generation, you must have a company trustee.

6. Administrative ease

All assets purchased in a self managed super fund must be purchase in the name of the trustees. The problem here is that if you have a family super fund, members come in and out of the fund. For example members die, they get married, divorced, children can come in and out of funds depending on their life stage. Every time a member enters or leaves the fund, if you have individual trustees you have to continuously change the name of the bank account, asset registers and so on. It can be extremely frustrating, time consuming and a very costly exercise. Can you imagine if your fund had 50 direct shares, exchange traded funds and property? However, if you had a company trustee you don?t have to change anything because the owner will always be the trustee company. All you have to do is add or remove directors, which is a lot less painful.

7. Estate planning

Lastly, if a member dies or becomes mentally incapacitated and the trustee is an individual, this can cause significant issues for the fund. The fund can be put in a situation where it can?t continue to operate without a trustee or pay out certain benefits if the member was as individual trustee. If you had a company trustee with multiple members you can simply remove the member as a director of the company, you can have the executor of the deceased member or a power of attorney immediately become the director and the company carries on. These are absolutely crucial factors when someone dies or loses mental capacity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top