Rubbish Can you imagine the insurance premium on collectables..A Picasso,Rembrant,Albert Nat,Historical numi coins worth 250k Wouldn't be worth investing in REDBACK
says it right here... http://strongersuper.treasury.gov.a.../downloads/exposure_draft_sis_regulations.pdf Item must be insured in fund's name (5) Each trustee of a regulated superannuation fund that is a self managed superannuation fund commits an offence if: (a) the fund owns a section 62A item, other than a membership of a sporting or social club; and (b) it is more than 7 days since the fund acquired the item; and (c) the item is not insured in the name of the fund. Whats more disturbing however is this clause.. Item must not be stored in private residence of related party (3) Each trustee of a regulated superannuation fund that is a self managed superannuation fund commits an offence if: (a) the fund holds an investment involving a section 62A item; and (b) the item is stored in the private residence of a related party of the fund. If you disagree with these changes then I suggest you all go here... http://strongersuper.treasury.gov.a...perannuation_industry_supervision/default.htm And write an email to.. [email protected] Stronger super huh? maybe I should send an email to [email protected]
Thanks. Very interesting, good thing it's apparently a draft - time will tell if it gets through though.
Not bullion though. All right, from my very uber-limited knowledge of tax law and precedent - if something is not specifically addressed in a specific piece of legislation, then rulings are made with reference to other specific pieces of legislation. Now when it comes to the term "coin", the only bit of legislation which specifically clarifies what constitutes "precious metal" is the GST legislation. I don't know if "coin" is mentioned as I got very bored reading it. OK, now what constitutes a "precious metal" has been discussed at length and specifically (thankfully) in this thread http://forums.silverstackers.com/to...-tax-gst-on-precious-metals-in-australia.html So, in reference to your reference bbobkins, it appears all of the asset classes specifically mentioned in the draft legislation are "collectibles". Now, I have not got any problem with anyone buying a Picasso or a Whiteley as part of their SMSF. What I do have a problem with is if they hang it in their home or their grand-daughter's home. I am wiling to offer wallspace where I live if any members are considering such a purchase - as long as we are not related.
talked to an esuper consultant this morning about this. He said one of their consultants would not have given advice like that. From July 1, all collectibles (art, jewellery, numismatics) will not be able to be stored at the home of the owner (or I imagine a relative's). They (esuper) are still working through the legislation and the consultant was 99% sure the new legislation would not apply to bullion. Bullion (precious metals) of course has been defined elsewhere in threads on this forum. So not sure how you got conflicting advice srebro. Hope this clarifies matters.
Thanks for the clarification. Its probably a good idea not to store your SMSF PMs at home. Bank deposit boxes are cheap, and its a good way to get through audit. I know people are afraid of confiscation and such. Well you won't be able to spend your super anyway until retirement. If the government is that desperate for your bullion, I'm sure you can work out a deal where they pay you a pension for life (if one government has to resort to stealing from your super). Slam
Any body been stiffed with a higher SMSF audit fee to cover the physical inspection of the PM's held within SMSF? Our auditors are suggesting an additional $250pa to cover this exercise.
physical inspections?????.....i think someone is trying to slug you.......i just spoke with my auditor last week and asked them the exact same question about " physical inspections"....they said that that is NOT required.. a paper trail of purchasing within the SMSF is required....physical inspection is NOT. edit: if they say it IS....please ask them for the ACT or legislation that requires it....... 2nd edit - typos.....oops
Interesting post...I agree with the person who stated that "bullion" is not referenced - just coins. I'm glad I've made up my mind to keep storing at a private vault ... with a generous amount of insurance.
There is a difference between getting your super fund audited by an accountant so that you comply with SIS (as the trustee) and having the ATO come in and audit you. The first is a requirement and the later can lead to . . . unpleasantness, for want of a better word. You can choose any registered auditor to audit your fund so ask around and choose one who suits you (price and mentality) As an auditor I can see the argument for physical inspection. TBH if it was me I would want to see the bars to confirm that they are held (in the super fund) and haven't been sold and the cash taken by the members with the intention of replacing it later (don't get any ideas stackers). Some auditors are more thorough than others. If you were being audited by the ATO, they would probably want to see them and if you couldn't produce them you would be in serious trouble. In relation to some other stuff in this thread i.e. the holding of antiques and collectibles by a super fund it is a complicated matter. The defination can be found in ITAA 1997 Section 108 -10 (2) A collectable is: (a) * artwork, jewellery, an antique, or a coin or medallion; or (b) a rare folio, manuscript or book; or (c) a postage stamp or first day cover; that is used or kept mainly for your (or your * associate's) personal use or enjoyment. (3) These are also collectables : (a) an interest in any of the things covered by subsection (2); or (b) a debt that arises from any of those things; or (c) an option or right to * acquire any of those things. In relation to holding PMs in a superfund - specifically having regard to the draft legislation mentioned above (it is draft at this stage) my argument would be two fold. Firstly, PM's specifically those in bar form don't fit the definition and therefore would not be caught under the proposed legislation. You could make this argument for bullion coin but as coin has been descibed it may be more difficult for that argument to be sustained. My second argument would be that unlike a proof coin or piece of artwork on display, stacked bars, coins in tubes and other PMs that are stored locked away in a safe are not really being held for your personal "use and enjoyment". An antique chair could be sat on and artwork looked at but bars and coins in a safe - I would say no, there is no enjoyment to be had. At the end of the day - in regards to an ATO audit you need to have a defensible position based on some interpretation (and is possible - written advise by an accountant or lawyer who you could sue if they were wrong - which is expensive to obtain). The ATO would then have to counter your position and show you were intentionally not acting in the spirit of the legislation. If it was an honest mistake, misreading of the law which was backed up by an audit you would probably be ok. This is my 2 cents and my opinions in no way constitute advise.
