Practice Update April 2018

Ian Campbell • 30 March 2018

April 2018

 

New superannuation rates and thresholds released

The ATO has published the key superannuation rates and thresholds for the 2018/19 income year.

 The Non-Concessional Contributions cap will remain at $100,000 (although transitional arrangements may apply), and the Concessional Contributions cap will remain at $25,000.

 The CGT cap amount will be   $1,480,000.

 The Division 293 tax threshold will be $250,000.

 The maximum super contribution base for superannuation guarantee purposes will be $54,030 per quarter.

 The maximum superannuation co-contribution entitlement for the 2018/19 income year will remain at $500 (with the lower income threshold increasing to $37,697 and the higher income threshold increasing to $52,697).

The superannuation benefit caps for the 2018/19 income year include:

 a low rate cap amount of $205,000;

 an untaxed plan cap amount of $1,480,000;

 a general transfer balance cap of $1.6m;

 a defined benefit income cap of $100,000;

 an ETP cap amount for life benefit termination payments and death benefit termination payments of $205,000; and

 the tax-free part of genuine redundancy payments and early retirement scheme payments comprising a base limit of $10,399 and for each complete year of service an additional $5,200.

Super guarantee payable on 'public holidays' and 'additional hours'!

The Federal Court has held that superannuation guarantee contributions were payable with respect to the 'additional hours' and 'public holidays' component of annualised salaries paid by BlueScope Steel, on the basis that these particular components formed part of ordinary time earnings ('OTE').

Under an enterprise agreement, primarily due to the specific working environment, the employees in question were required to be available (at short notice) 365 days per year and 24 hours per day, including a requirement to work additional hours and public holidays.

As such, the employees were paid an annualised salary, which was made up of a base rate, as well as a component which absorbed all additional payments, such as penalty rates, allowances, public holiday loadings and pay-outs, and payment for additional hours worked outside the normal rostered hours.

However, when paying superannuation, adjustments were made to the annualised salary, so that the additional hours and public holiday components were not included by BlueScope Steel as OTE for superannuation guarantee purposes.

Decision

The Federal Court did not agree with the employer's adjustments, instead finding that, under the circumstances, the 'additional hours' and 'public holidays' formed part of an employee's 'ordinary hours of work' and, therefore, were considered OTE for superannuation guarantee purposes.

This remained the case whether or not the employee actually worked the additional hours or the public holidays.

That is, the ordinary conditions of the employee's work required them to be available outside their rostered shifts and on public holidays (on short notice) and, as this was factored into their annual salary, they were considered ordinary hours for these particular employees .

Inactive ABNs will be cancelled by the ATO

The ATO has recently advised that, in an effort to maintain accurate data, the Australian Business Register (or 'ABR') periodically checks its records for Australian Business Numbers ('ABNs') and automatically cancels those that appear inactive.

Ultimately, a taxpayer's ABN may be cancelled if they:

u have told the ATO they stopped their business activity;

u declared no business income in the last two years; or

u have not lodged a BAS or an income tax return in more than two years.

To avoid cancellation, the ATO has reminded taxpayers that they need to bring their lodgments up to date, and have reminded sole traders that, regardless of their income, they need to lodge the individual tax return with the supplementary section, as well as the business and professional items schedule.

Commissioner's speech highlights ATO's focus areas

Recently, the Commissioner of Taxation highlighted the areas in which the ATO has recently increased its focus, including:

 undeclared income;

 individuals' unexplained wealth or lifestyle;

 incorrectly claimed private expenses;

 unpaid superannuation guarantee; and

 cash-only businesses and those with low usage of merchant banking facilities, with black economy visits to over 2,600 businesses across 8 locations in 2017.

The Commissioner also highlighted ongoing ATO concern with respect to the predicted 'work-related expense claim gap', which (at least by the ATO's estimates) could amount to being greater than the 'large corporate tax gap' of $2.5 billion of lost revenue.

No need to actually 'downsize' for 'downsizer contributions'

From 1 July 2018 , individuals aged 65 or over may use the proceeds from the sale of an eligible dwelling that was their main residence to make superannuation contributions (referred to as 'downsizer contributions' ), up to a maximum of $300,000 per person (i.e., up to $600,000 per couple), without having to satisfy the age or gainful employment tests that usually apply.

This measure was announced in the 2017/18 Federal Budget, and aims to provide an incentive for older Australians to 'downsize' their home.

This, in turn, is expected to reduce pressure on housing affordability by freeing up stocks of larger homes for growing families.

Importantly, it should be noted that there is no requirement for an individual to actually 'downsize' by acquiring a smaller property, or to even acquire another property at all.

In this regard, all that is required is that the individual (or their spouse) 'downsizes' by selling their 'main residence'.

The individual can then move into any living situation that suits them, such as aged care, a retirement village, a bigger or smaller dwelling than the one sold, a rental property, or living with family.

Also, the property sold does not need to have been the individual's (or their spouse's) main residence during their entire ownership of it, provided the property was owned for at least 10 years and was their main residence at some time during the ownership period. Therefore, the sale of an investment property that at one stage was their main residence may enable an individual (or their spouse) to make downsizer contributions.

Please Note: Many of the comments in this publication are general in nature and anyone intending to apply the information to practical circumstances should seek professional advice to independently verify their interpretation and the information's applicability to their particular circumstances.

20 January 2026
A real-world case study on trust distributions Mark and Lisa had what most people would describe as a “pretty standard” setup. They ran a successful family business through a discretionary trust. The trust had been in place for years, established when the business was small and cash was tight. Over time, the business grew, profits improved, and the trust started distributing decent amounts of income each year. The tax returns were lodged. Nobody had ever had a problem with the ATO. So naturally, they assumed everything was fine. This is where the story starts to get interesting. Year one: the harmless decision In a good year, the business made about $280,000. It was suggested that some income be distributed to Mark and Lisa’s two adult children, Josh and Emily. Both were over 18, both were studying, and neither earned much income. On paper, it made sense. Josh received $40,000. Emily received $40,000. The rest was split between Mark, Lisa, and a company beneficiary. The tax bill went down. Everyone was happy. But here’s the first quiet detail that mattered later. Josh and Emily never actually received the money. No bank transfer. No separate accounts. No conversations about what they wanted to do with it. The trust kept the funds in its main business account and used them to pay suppliers and reduce debt. At the time, nobody thought twice. “It’s still family money.” “They can access it if they need it.” “We’ll square it up later.” These are very common thoughts. And this is exactly where risk quietly begins. Year two: things get a little more complicated The next year was even better. They used a bucket company to cap tax at the company rate. Again, a common and legitimate strategy when used properly. So the trust distributed $200,000 to the company. No cash moved. It was recorded as an unpaid present entitlement. The idea was that the company would get paid later, when cash flow allowed. Meanwhile, the trust needed funds to buy new equipment and cover a short-term cash squeeze. The trust borrowed money from the company. There was a loan agreement. Interest was charged. Everything looked tidy on paper. From the outside, it all seemed sensible. But economically, nothing really changed. The trust made money. The trust kept using the money. The same people controlled everything. The bucket company never actually used the funds for its own business or investments. This detail becomes important later. Year three: circular money without anyone realising By year three, things had become routine. Distributions were made to the kids again. The bucket company received another entitlement. Loans were adjusted at year-end through journal entries. What is really happening is a circular flow. Money was being allocated to beneficiaries, then effectively coming back to the trust, either because it was never paid out or because it was loaned back almost immediately. No one was trying to hide anything. No one thought they were doing the wrong thing. They were just following what they’d always done. This is how section 100A issues usually arise. Slowly, quietly, and without any single dramatic mistake.
3 December 2025
Rental deductions maximisation strategies
28 October 2025
A Practical Guide to Running Your Family Business in Australia