Understanding the intricacies of income protection insurance within a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) is crucial to navigate the compliance requirements and taxation rules effectively. While income protection insurance is typically held outside of superannuation due to tax deduction advantages, some opt to include it in their SMSF for various reasons. However, doing so requires careful consideration of temporary incapacity benefit regulations.

Treasury has released exposure draft regulations and explanatory statement to make minor and technical changes that address unintended outcomes arising from the inability of recipients of certain non-capped defined benefit income streams (that were commenced on or after 1 July 2017) to address excess transfer balance amounts.

The Government introduced to the lower house on October 27, 2021, Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Superannuation Outcomes for Australians and Helping Australian Businesses Invest) Bill 2021 that includes six measures, of which five relate to superannuation.

Nearly two years since the ATO released their draft ruling LCR 2019/D3 to clarify how the 1 July 2018 amendments were to be applied in respect of NALE, we see the release of the final version of the ruling, as LCR 2020/2. The final version of the ruling was expected to address issues raised in many submissions by industry on the draft ruling and whilst it has addressed these issues, not all will be satisfied with the ATO’s responses. In particular, the ATO’s response to the issue of whether there is a nexus between expenditure that is general in nature and all of the fund’s income is not the outcome that industry has welcomed.

With the 15 May 2020 deadline fast approaching for the 2018-19 SMSF annual returns (SAR) lodgement for many SMSFs, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has recognised that some accountants and auditors may require more time due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

When an account-based income stream fails to meet the minimum pension standards required under Subregulation 1.06(9A) of Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (SISR) it will not have met the requirements of being a superannuation income stream in that year.

The original guidance in our view was relevant to both a new death benefit income stream taken by an eligible beneficiary and a reversionary income stream that is paid to a beneficiary upon death of the original pensioner.

Recently there has been some confusion around whether a death benefit income stream which failed to meet the minimum pension standards would be required to pay out the entire amount as a death benefit lump sum in order to meet the cashing requirements of paying a death benefit.