superstream - major problem for SMSFs

Slam said:
Ok, if I reading this correctly.

In order for a fund to receive rollover or contributions. It must be electronic and adhere to the form of transfer set out in the reform.
Click to expand...

As actually implemented in the amending legislation, in the case of SMSFs the requirement to send information electronically using SOAP messages only applies to employer contributions and not to rollovers.

So only those members of SMSFs who currently receive their employer contributions directly into their SMSF will have a problem.

A practical solution to that problem would be to nominate an industry fund to receive the employer contributions instead, and then (if permitted) periodically rollover the money into the SMSF.
 
Jorgon, I fear that for SMSF working self employed or for small businesses this may be simplest solution until something better comes along, I'd imagine payroll software will be updated to account for this in the future?
 
jorgon said:
A practical solution to that problem would be to nominate an industry fund to receive the employer contributions instead, and then (if permitted) periodically rollover the money into the SMSF.
Click to expand...


Pratical yes, but the fees charged by the industry funds to keep the minimum balance for the account to remain open between rollovers makes it a very expensive solution for SMSF members.
 
Caput Lupinum said:
jorgon said:
A practical solution to that problem would be to nominate an industry fund to receive the employer contributions instead, and then (if permitted) periodically rollover the money into the SMSF.
Click to expand...


Pratical yes, but the fees charged by the industry funds to keep the minimum balance for the account to remain open between rollovers makes it a very expensive solution for SMSF members.
Click to expand...

For sure! This is the situation I am in.

The University will only pay into UniSuper, not my SMSF. If I make any contributions into my own SMSF the employer does not make any contributions. in order to get additional employer contributions I have to pay them into my industry super. So I have to transfer everything out of my UniSuper into my SMSF, however, some new rule has just come out (according to UniSuper) which states that the Industry fund can chose to withhold up to $5000 when you ask for a portability transfer. They also only let me do a portability transfer once a year as well, and they charge for it, about $30 I think.

I look at it as a cost of doing business, they are all crooks after my money and they can make legislation to steal it or make it harder for me to get at it. They also charge me for Life Insurance and other things I don't charge myself for so I guess I am covered in that regard.
 
Finally having the time to read through this. It looks like an effort to streamline the process of people consolidating their superannuation accounts, including stopping rollovers being done by cheque payments. There are a lot of references when you read through everything about lost money and data causing the ATO and super fund members headaches.

A lot of the explanatory references are pretty old, the legal firms' explanatory page is from 2011. Their timelines and the recent ATO .pdf documents talk about things being brought in in 2012 and early 2013.

I started my SMSF in the last financial year. Most of the rollovers from various funds were by cheque, including cheques after a time you'd expect, looking at the links in this discussion, that this could not happen. For reference I'm looking at the timeline of this ATO .pdf: http://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Content/SPR/downloads/SPR00305619channel.pdf

I'm not familiar with this XBRL standard. Surely a simpler way to do what is planned is to mandate bank transfers and no cheques. How simple is that? In regards to always being in contact with the ATO, surely an interface for funds directly on the ATO website would do what has discussed in 2011.

One of the ATO web page links is not current - you're redirected to a Home page. The ATO site that is still up has last been updated 7/9/2013 and prominently says this at the bottom:

This information is based on government policy announcements, recent legislative changes and consultative discussions with the super industry about the various changes to the super system. These policies continue to be subject to change until confirmed through the passage of legislation. We are regularly updating the information about these changes and how it is planned to implement them.
Click to expand...

Which says to me this effort has run out of steam well before the changes/taxes to Super that were brought in by Gillard in 2012/2013, and has anyone noticed this being part of any recent legislative agenda? This has the look of something a lot of government time and money has gone into, for no output. Much like all the money governments spend on studies about roads where nothing is ever built. I imagine the Libs don't have the same changes in mind as Labor to super. Like so many government plans I wonder if this will just go away.
 
Well, Superstream hasn't gone away. Despite previously providing the electronic service address we're required to have, to the employers sending SGC to our SMSF, they keep asking for our ESA. They then query why the ESA is just one word. A few months later they ask for it again.

The more I look at this, I think that it just as a protocol for data and digital-only currency transfers. The ATO notes on it and the regulations though, they don't explain anything. HR departments cannot understand what superstream is or does, but they are seriously worried that they won't meet the regulatory/reporting requirements and will fall foul of the ATO. If they can't understand how to interface with the ESA I'm worried they will get shirty and put pressure on myself and other members to go back to their crappy default industry funds.

Again, the whole thing has been terribly implemented.
 
Superstream has been incredibly poorly implemented - whether it is an employer or a trustee/ member - no one has a clue. No HR/ Payroll knows what a ESA is - absolutely awful to date.

Cheers, Ivan
 
Results not typical said:
Big A.D. said:
Is there an organized SMSF "lobby group" that advocates specifically for people with SMSFs?
Click to expand...

The Australian public need to hire a Canberra lobbyist so that there is at least one person in Parliament house that is attempting to represent us. No-one there is. :)
Click to expand...
You already have one and they're called your local Member of Parliament. :( :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top