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) - Partial Lease by an SMSF of an In-house Asset

Date: December 02, 2011

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

It is well-known that an exception to the restriction on in-house assets held by a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) is the real property exception, under which the property is leased to a member or related entity for business purposes.

One issue that has arisen recently is what happens when the in-house asset is only partially leased.

Business real property exception

An SMSF is restricted from having in-house assets constituting more than 5% of its assets except to the extent that they are business real property. “In-house assets” includes property subject to a lease or lease arrangement to a related entity, while “business real property” must be leased to members or a related entity to be used wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Partial lease?

The issue is whether the “property” being considered (which must be used “wholly and exclusively” for business purposes) must always constitute the entire asset.

The ATO already accepts that a lease of part of a property to a related entity can constitute an in-house asset. Logically, it could follow that the business real property exception can also apply to only a part of a property, if the lease is only over that part of the property.

ATO’s approach

In a recent discussion, the ATO stated clearly that it does not use this approach. Although an in-house asset can be part of a property, the business real property exception must always apply to the entire property.

The ATO does not appear to intend to formalise this view; nevertheless, it has clear consequences for SMSFs who may formerly have thought the business real property exception could apply to part of a block of land.

Example: Partial lease

A certain SMSF purchases a block of land located in Manly NSW. Its market value is $900,000. It consists of a commercial premises, made up of a liquor store, a restaurant and a disused office.

M is a member of the SMSF. She decides that she wants to use the liquor store part of the property, worth $300,000, for her existing liquor sales business. She does not want to use or lease the other two parts of the property.

M enters a lease arrangement with the SMSF for the liquor store. The SMSF then leases the other two parts of the property to other unrelated entities.

M uses the liquor store wholly and exclusively in her business. The SMSF is confident that, although the liquor store is an in-house asset, it will fall within the business real property exception. The total value of the SMSF’s assets is $1,200,000.

In this case:

  • the asset in question is the entire property;
  • although the entire property is not an in-house asset, M is a related entity of the SMSF and has a lease arrangement in respect of one third of it;
  • therefore, the $300,000 part of the property counts as an in-house asset; and
  • although the in-house asset is being used wholly and exclusively in M’s business, the business real property exception does not apply at all, since the entire property is not being used wholly and exclusively in her business.

Conclusion

If you have concerns about the business real property exception, call LAC Lawyers and we can provide advice and assistance. 

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