Thank you for all of your help. The service was outstanding - all of my questions were answered promptly, everything ran smoothly

M. Elliot
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas

Self Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSF) - Early Release Schemes

Date: November 25, 2011

Authors: Jonathan Lim B.A., LL.B. (Hons)

For several years now, the Commissioner of Taxation has been making public his disapproval of schemes that illegally promise the early release of self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) benefits.

These types of scheme apparently have not disappeared, for the Commissioner has once more targeted them in his 2011-12 compliance program for SMSFs. Indeed, this year it would be wise for all SMSF trustees to familiarise themselves with the nature of this common and potentially disastrous form of illegal scheme.

Preservation requirement

Ordinarily, an SMSF is required to preserve superannuation benefits on behalf of its members until they meet a condition of release such as reaching a certain age. Only then can benefits be released.

However, because SMSF benefits are concessionally taxed upon release, there is naturally some temptation for members to obtain the early release of SMSF benefits for present enjoyment. Indeed, the Commissioner seems to be of the opinion that some SMSFs are presently being created and registered specifically to allow illegal early release of super benefits.

Severe financial hardship

The usual way in which illegal early release is secured, is by the severe financial hardship rule. Briefly, one of the conditions permitting early withdrawal is that the individual seeking payment is in “severe financial hardship.” Ordinarily the person would need to be receiving Commonwealth unemployment benefits, as well as satisfying other requirements, to qualify.

However, the discretion to decide whether the individual is actually in severe financial hardship rests with the trustee of the fund. There is no need for outside scrutiny before release is secured.

Unfortunately, because the Commissioner is targeting illegal early release of benefits, the SMSF will likely sooner or later be scrutinised and the early release discovered.

Consequences of illegal access to benefits

Many SMSFs that illegally release benefits early, do so because their members have been advised to do so by promoters. Such promoters can draw in unwitting victims by promising early release of such benefits, while representing that what they are advising is quite legal.

At any rate, whether or not a promoter is involved, the consequences of early release can be harsh for the SMSF’s members. Such consequences can include:

  • assessment of released benefits at the individual’s marginal tax rate, losing the tax concession;
  • consequent tax shortfall penalties and general interest charge, depending on how long it takes before the scheme is discovered;
  • the trustee and/or promoter may face imprisonment; and
  • in some cases the promoter has even absconded with money from the SMSF.

Example: Early release of benefits

M and N are husband and wife and sole members and trustees of their SMSF. Their SMSF has over $500,000 in preserved benefits, which will be released upon M or N satisfying a condition of release. They have not yet satisfied any condition of release, nor are they in any particular financial trouble.

M and N are approached by X. For a fee, X promises to assist M and N to access the $500,000 early. X expresses astonishment at the fact that M and N have over $500,000 of their own money locked away in their SMSF, whereas its early release would be taxed at only 15%, much lower than their marginal tax rate.

X says that he has a way of legally accessing this money. For a fee, he will do everything needed. M and N persistently ask X whether the scheme is illegal; he keeps saying that it is totally legal. Indeed, he has helped twelve other SMSFs in a similar situation.

M and N pay X $5,000 in fees. They sign all documents that X shows them. They obtain the release of $200,000 from their SMSF, an amount that is taxed at a very low rate.

Unfortunately, the Commissioner scrutinises the SMSF two years later. The following consequences occur:

  • it is revealed that X has absconded with $100,000 of the SMSF’s monies;
  • M and N are taxed at their marginal rates on the $200,000;
  • M and N are liable to shortfall penalties and general interest charge on the unpaid tax, since 2 years have passed;
  • M and N are retrospectively denied a deduction for the $5,000 in fees they paid to X;
  • the SMSF is declared to be non-compliant;
  • X is arrested and sent to prison; and
  • M and N as trustees of the SMSF are fined a substantial amount.

Conclusion

If you have concerns about possible schemes for illegal early release of SMSF benefits, call LAC Lawyers and we can provide advice and assistance.  

  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas