A T O home
Legal Database
Search   
for 
 
Access the database 
Browse database
Searches  
View last document
Quick access 
View legislation
View a document
Email Cross Reference Material Previous/Next Section Contents Previous/Next Result
Printable version
Printable
version

ATO Interpretative Decision

ATO ID 2004/733 (Withdrawn)

Superannuation
Superannuation retirement & employment termination: definition of eligible non-resident non-complying superannuation fund

Attention This ATO Interpretative Decision is withdrawn from the database because it contains a view in respect of subsection 27A(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which does not apply after the 2006 - 2007 income year. Despite its withdrawal from the database, this ATO Interpretative Decision continues to be a precedential view in respect of decisions for income years up to, and including, the 2006 - 2007 income year.
Attention This document has changed over time. View its history.
FOI status: may be released
Status of this decision: Decision Withdrawn 19 June 2009

CautionCAUTION: This is an edited and summarised record of a Tax Office decision. This record is not published as a form of advice. It is being made available for your inspection to meet FOI requirements, because it may be used by an officer in making another decision.

This ATOID provides you with the following level of protection:

If you reasonably apply this decision in good faith to your own circumstances (which are not materially different from those described in the decision), and the decision is later found to be incorrect you will not be liable to pay any penalty or interest. However, you will be required to pay any underpaid tax (or repay any over-claimed credit, grant or benefit), provided the time limits under the law allow it. If you do intend to apply this decision to your own circumstances, you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed. You may wish to obtain further advice from the Tax Office or from a professional adviser.


Issue

Is the non-resident entity an eligible non-resident non-complying superannuation fund under subsection 27A(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936)?

Decision

No. The non-resident entity is not an eligible non-resident non-complying superannuation fund under subsection 27A(1) as it is not a superannuation fund under subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936.

Facts

The entity did not elect to be regulated under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SISA). The entity is not a complying superannuation fund.

The entity accepts contributions from the member and the member's employer. Contributions are invested and may be used to buy a home, pay insurance premiums, retirement, medical insurance, contingency purposes, educational expenses and other approved investments.

A member may obtain benefits from the entity once they have reached age 55, regardless of whether they have retired or not, provided that a certain minimum amount has been set aside.

Reasons for Decision

Subsection 27A(1) of the ITAA 1936 defines an eligible non-resident non-complying superannuation fund as:

   'means a non-resident superannuation fund that:

(a)
 is a continuously non-complying superannuation fund (as defined in subsection 267(1)); or
(b)
 is a non-complying superannuation fund that ceased, or last ceased, to be a complying superannuation fund on or after 1 July 1995'.

To establish whether the non-resident entity is a non-resident superannuation fund that is a non-complying superannuation fund or a continuously non-complying superannuation fund it must firstly be ascertained whether the non-resident entity is a superannuation fund.

A 'superannuation fund' is defined in subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936 to be:

'(a)
 a scheme for the payment of superannuation benefits upon retirement or death; or
(b)
 a superannuation fund within the definition of "superannuation fund" in section 10 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 ;'

In respect of paragraph (a) the scheme was not set up exclusively for the payment of superannuation benefits upon retirement or death.

In respect of paragraph (b), it is necessary to examine the meaning of the phrase 'provident, benefit, superannuation or retirement fund' as stated in the definition of 'superannuation fund' under the SISA.

There is no definition for the phrase 'provident, benefit, superannuation or retirement fund' in either the ITAA 1936 or the SISA. However, the phrase 'provident, benefit and superannuation fund established for the benefit of employees' was considered by Kitto J in Mahony v. FCT (1967) 14 ATD 519 (Mahony's Case). Kitto J referred to each of the 3 terms separately and said:

   'Since a fund, if its income was to be exempt under the provision, was separately required to be one established for the benefit of employees, each of the three descriptive words "provident", "benefit" and "superannuation" must be taken to have connoted a purpose narrower than the purpose of conferring benefits in a completely general sense, upon employees....All that need to be recognised is that just as "provident" and "superannuation" both referred to the provision of a particular kind of benefit.... so "benefit" must have meant a benefit, not in the general sense, but characterised by some specific future purpose.'

Kitto J in Mahony's case referred to 'superannuation' as the making of provision for financial support for an employee, or for the employee's estate or dependants, to arise on the employee's retirement, death or other cessation of employment (eg. termination or resignation).'

In Scott v FCT (No.2) (1966) 14 ATD 333, (1966) 10 AITR 290 ( Scott's Case ), Windeyer J said (at ATD 351; AITR 312):

   '... there is no essential single attribute of a superannuation fund established for the benefit of employees except that it must be a fund bona fide devoted as its sole purpose to providing for employees who are participants money benefits (or benefits having a monetary value) upon their reaching a prescribed age.'

The entity is not exclusively a provident, benefit or superannuation fund because it does not provide benefits for the specific future purpose of the individual's retirement ( Mahony's Case ). Members can obtain benefits for other purposes, such as private health cover and education. The entity as such, is not a bona fide superannuation fund because its sole purpose is not to provide monetary benefits upon retirement age ( Scott's Case ). Members can withdraw their savings before reaching retirement age provided a minimum sum has been set aside.

Therefore, the entity has not met the definition of a superannuation fund under subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936. As the entity is not a superannuation fund, it cannot meet the definition of an eligible non-resident non-complying superannuation fund under subsection 27A(1) of the ITAA 1936.

Date of decision: 23 August 2004

Year of income:Year ended 30 June 2002

Legislative References:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
   subsection 27A(1)
   subsection 6(1)

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
   section 10

Case References:
Mahony v. FCT
   (1967) 14 ATD 519

Scott v. FCT (No.2)
   (1966) 14 ATD 333
   (1966) 10 AITR 290

Keywords
Non complying superannuation funds
Part IX taxation of superannuation entities
Status of superannuation fund
Superannuation
Superannuation fund residency

Date of publication: 3 September 2004

ISSN: 1445-2782

ATO ID 2004/733 (Withdrawn) history   Top  
   Date   Version 
   23 August 2004   Original statement   
 You are here ®  19 June 2009   Withdrawn   


 


Top of page
More information on page