By Mark Ellem
The ATO has extended the 30 June 2016 deadline for SMSF trustees that have a related party loan under an LRBA to ensure that the related party loan is on commercial terms or complies with the safe harbour guidelines. The deadline has been extended to 31 January 2017.
This extended deadline means that the ATO will not select an SMSF for a review purely based on it having an LRBA for the 2014/15 or earlier year, provided the related party loan is on commercial terms or the LRBA is brought to an end, by 31 January 2017. It also requires the SMSF to make loan repayments of principal and interest for the year ended 30 June 2016, based on commercial terms, by 31 January 2017.
You are no doubt aware of the ATO’s recently released Practical Compliance Guidelines on how to ensure a related party loan in a Limited Recourse Borrowing Arrangement (LRBA) is treated as commercial, known as the ‘safe harbour guidelines’ (PCG 2016/5). Given that these types of loans must be made commercial for the 2015/16 financial year to ensure no compliance action by the ATO, it is urgent that you review any of your SMSF clients that have these arrangements and take appropriate action by 30 June 2016.
These guidelines come after several months of consultation with the SMSF industry to create a practical solution to ATO interpretive decisions raised in December 2014 that result in non-arm’s length income (NALI) tax rates (currently 47%) being applied to earnings if the loan terms are not commercial.
The urgency on this matter is due to the ATO announcement in October 2015 that no action will be taken in respect of related party loans that were not commercial if they are made commercial for the 2015/16 financial year.
Under these guidelines there are two methods for meeting these requirements:
The ‘safe harbour’ guidelines do have different terms depending on the nature of the asset being acquired under the LRBA. It is interesting to note that the guidelines only deal with real property and listed shares or listed units in a unit trust and no other type of asset. This would mean that for an LRBA, where the underlying asset was, for example, shares/units held in a non-geared company/unit trust, (also known as a SIS regulation 13.22C entity), the ‘safe harbour’ guidelines could not be used. Further, these terms, outlined below, must be contained in a written executed loan agreement.
Loan condition |
Real Property LRBA |
Listed shares or units LRBA |
Interest rate |
RBA standard variable housing loan for investors 5.75% for 2015/16 |
RBA standard variable housing loans for investors + 2% 7.75% for 2015/16 |
Term of loan |
Maximum 15 years (including expired periods) |
Maximum 7 years (including expired periods) |
LVR |
Maximum 70% (aggregate of all loans) |
Maximum 50% (aggregate of all loans) |
Security |
Registered mortgage |
Registered charge |
Personal Guarantees |
Not required |
Not required |
Type of repayment |
Principal & interest |
Principal & interest |
Frequency of repayment |
Monthly |
Monthly |
Some key factors from the above table are:
It is also worthwhile to note that compliance with the ‘safe harbour’ guidelines is not mandatory. If the trustee(s) of an SMSF decide not to comply with these guidelines it does not mean that the LRBA will be subject to the NALI rules. However, to demonstrate your arrangement is commercial and consequently the income from the LRBA not treated as NALI, what you will need to have is documentary evidence that related party loan’s terms and conditions are the same as those available from a commercial financier.
It was reported in SMSF Adviser online (Friday, 22 April 2016 “ATO sets record straight on LRBA panic”) that Kasey Macfarlane, ATO assistant commissioner, said, on this particular issue:
“The safe harbours and the PCG itself… don’t set a minimum benchmark that all LRBAs have to comply with,” she told SMSF Adviser.
“It is a safety net, if you like, so if SMSF trustees choose to apply it they can have certainty that the non-arm’s length income (NALI) provisions won’t apply to their particular arrangement if the structure is within those parameters.
If they choose not to apply the guidelines, and they have an arrangement that is structured outside of the parameters of the guideline – that doesn’t mean that automatically the NALI provisions apply. It just means that they don’t have the certainty of that safety net… and they just need to be able to demonstrate that their arrangement nevertheless is consistent with a commercial dealing.”
If an SMSF with a related party loan under an LRBA wishes to be protected by the ‘safe harbour’ guidelines, then the two requirements which will be most difficult to comply with, given the short time remaining, will be:
By 30 June 2016 the LVR must be no more than 70% where the assets held under the LRBA is property and 50% where the asset is listed shares or units in a fixed trust. This may require a large amount of the loan to be paid by 30 June 2016. Consider an LRBA, acquiring a real property asset on 1 July 2011 for $700,000 with a related party (non-recourse) loan of $700,000, that is, a 100% LVR. Let’s say that the property is now valued at $750,000. Under the ‘safe harbour’ guidelines the LVR can be no more than 70%, meaning the loan must be no more than $525,000 and the SMSF must repay $175,000 on the loan by 30 June 2016. Does the SMSF have the cash to do this? If not, are the members of the SMSF in a position to make sufficient contributions so the SMSF can make the repayment? An alternative would be for there to be a debt forgiveness of $175,000, which would be treated as a contribution, per the ATO’s tax ruling TR 2010/1. You would need to ensure that the debt forgiveness did not exceed the relevant contribution caps (where the lender to the SMSF is a member of the fund, then the non-concessional caps and even the bring forward rule could be utilised).
However, this is on the assumption that the lender to the SMSF is a member of the fund. What if the lender was a related entity? A debt forgiveness would still be treated as a contribution, however, as it would not be by an individual, would most likely be regarded as a concessional contribution and not only come under the much lower concessional contribution cap, but also be treated as an assessable contribution.
Even where the lender to the SMSF is a member of the fund, if they are over 65 and do not meet the ‘work test’ or are over age 75, a debt forgiveness strategy would simply not work.
Not only do the terms of the loan have to comply with the ‘safe harbour’ guidelines by 30 June 2016, but the repayments made for the entire 2015/16 income year must be commercial. Calculation will need to be done to determine what loan repayments should have been made in 2015/16, what actually has been made and the shortfall paid by 30 June 2016. Another strain on the SMSF’s cash flow or on the members’ contribution caps.
A complying SMSF borrowed money under an LRBA on terms consistent with section 67A of SISA. It used the funds to acquire commercial property valued at $500,000 on 1 July 2011.
The following table shows the original LRBA and loan as compared to the details of the loan and “catch up” payments required to comply with the ‘safe harbour’ provisions.
LRBA/Loan condition |
Original @ 1 July 2011 |
Safe Harbour for 2015/16 |
Value of real property |
$500,000 |
$643,0001 |
Loan |
$500,000 |
$450,1002 |
LVR |
100% |
70% |
Interest rate 2015/16 |
0% |
5.75% |
Term |
25 years |
11 years3 |
Security |
None |
Registered Mortgage |
Loan payments made 2015/16 |
Nil |
$61,4404 |
Notes:
Further, in addition to the payment of $49,900 (LVR capital repayment) and $61,440 (P&I loan repayments) to be made by 30 June 2016, the following actions are required to satisfy the ‘safe harbour’ provisions:
All existing LRBAs with a related party loan should be reviewed and either:
Option 1 – Comply with the ATO’s ‘safe harbour‘ guidelines for the 2015/16 financial year. Compliance will ensure that previous years will not be assessed as NALI;
Option 2 – Ensure 2015/16 repayments meet the ATO’s ‘safe harbour’ guidelines and refinance with a commercial lender;
Option 3 – Repay the related party loan in full. However, this will still require that 2015/16 repayments meet the ATO’s ‘safe harbour’ guidelines
Option 4 – Have documentary evidence that the LRBA related party loan terms are equivalent to a commercial lender’s terms. However, this option will not result in automatic compliance and protection from the NALI rules.
The ATO will only have to wait for the 2015/16 SMSF annual returns to be lodged to be able to monitor and determine if an SMSF has a related party loan under an LRBA with non-commercial terms. The labels within the SMSF annual return will provide a good indicator as to whether the loan terms are commercial, specifically:
Section C 12 – Labels A1 & A2 – Interest expenses within Australia
Section C 12 – Labels B1 & B2 – Interest expenses overseas
Section H 15b – Labels J1 – J6 – Asset types bought under LRBAs
Section H 16 – Label V – Amount of borrowings
This data will allow the ATO to measure the LVR and estimate the interest rate and based on these calculations, additional information may be sought from the SMSF to verify commercial terms.