Can a SMSF invest in property development? 

By: Reece Agland

The ATO has been sending some mixed messages about property development involving an SMSF and has indicated that it is one of the issues on its radar for 2018. So, is property development an acceptable pursuit for an SMSF? The short answer is yes, but be careful. The longer answer is be very careful - it is very easy to trip up and breach one or other of the rules. The ATO is keeping an eye on this area of SMSF investment, and will scrutinise any fund utilising property development. 

property development using SMSF

What’s the problem with a property development it’s just another investment?

The first hurdle you face with a property development is the “sole purpose test”. S 62 of the SIS Act is unequivocal, a superannuation fund, including an SMSF, must be run for the sole purpose of providing retirement income, with a few permissible “ancillary purposes” such as death and permanent disability. When you are undertaking property development you are also undertaking a commercial activity and effectively carrying on a business (if you are doing it all yourself). 

If you are outsourcing the project development and merely funding it through the SMSF then many of the problems disappear, you are not running a business, and if the property developers are unrelated, then you do not have any of the related party payment issues.  In this case, it is usually safe to continue.

What is wrong with carrying on a business?

The ATO has said that carrying on a business need not be a breach of the sole purpose test (SMSFR 2008/2) (though it may be if not done properly) but it doesn’t like them and will investigate them closely.

The problem with carrying on a business are several. One, it is generally to generate income today, not for retirement.  If all of that income is going to the fund, this is not going to be a problem, but if some of that income is going to a related party then we run into another problem (see payments to members or related parties).

There is also the issue that the trust deed and investment strategy must permit this kind of investment.  According to the case Kirkman v Booth a trust deed must specifically permit a business to be carried out. Even though this case did not involve an SMSF the rules around trust deeds are no different. Many older trust deeds will not and will, therefore, need to be updated.  Even newer deeds will need to be reviewed to ensure it is permissible. 

The investment strategy must also be updated to allow for this type of investment. When reviewing the investment strategy, it requires more than just allowing for a property investment.  The risk profile will also need to be reviewed.  Property development is inherently risky and may involve unexpected cost overruns, delays and the vagaries of the market.  Also, it must be in the interest of all members, and all members must agree to it.  This must all be addressed in the investment strategy.

The ATO has warned that when reviewing the carrying on of a business in an SMSF, it will be on the lookout for:

  • The trustee employs a family member (we look at things such as the stated rationale for employing the family member and the salary or wages paid)
  • The business carried on by the fund has links to associated trading entities
  • There are indications the fund's business assets are available for the private use and benefit of the trustee or related parties.

Payments to members or related parties

A superannuation fund is specifically prohibited from providing non-retirement benefits to members and related parties.  S 65 of the SIS Act prevents a trustee of an SMSF from providing financial assistance to members or relatives of members. Therefore, if a member of the fund or a relative, including a ‘Part 8 Associate’, receives a benefit from the fund in the form of payments towards the costs of the development, there is the potential for there to be a breach.

Financial assistance will not be provided if the member or related party is paid market rates, however, if underpayment is charged then there is likely to be a form of financial assistance that breaches the section.

There is also the problem of section 17A which prohibits SMSF trustees from receiving a benefit for duties or services as a trustee.  Thankfully S 17B ensures s 17A does not generally apply where:

  • The trustee performs the duties or services other than in the capacity of trustee;
  • The trustee is appropriately qualified, and holds all necessary licences, to perform the duties or services;
  • The trustee performs the duties or services in the ordinary course of a business, carried on by the trustee, of performing similar duties or services for the public; and
  • The remuneration is no more favourable to the trustee than that which it is reasonable to expect would apply if the trustee were dealing with the relevant other party at arm's length in the same circumstances.

Therefore, if an SMSF trustee is also the builder and being paid for services as a builder, they can only do so where they are qualified and are in the business of property development.  It also means the trustee must be paid market rates (payment over or under may bring about other issues as well).

For many SMSF wanting to undertake a property development, the trustees involved won’t be in the business of property development so will need some form of a workaround.

Finally, consideration must also be given to S 66 which prima facie prohibits an SMSF from acquiring assets from related parties.  This becomes very difficult for SMSF when engaging a related party to undertake the development. SMSFR 2010/1 permits the payment to a related party for “services” related to the property development but prohibits building material to be bought from a related party as these are assets of the related party.

One solution to this is for the SMSF to enter into an “agency” or “reimbursement agreement” with the related builder which states that the builder is not buying the material for themselves (and thus their asset) but on behalf of the SMSF. Again this must be crafted properly, and you can still run into the problem of the “arm’s-length” requirements.

Arms-length requirements

Even where your dealings with related parties are permissible, they must always be at arms-length prices.  Part of the reason for doing the development in-house rather than getting an external provider may be that it is hopefully cheaper to do so.  However, if payments are under or over market prices, then there will be a breach of these requirements.  Therefore, it is important that such transactions are well documented and that proof exists of payments at market rates. (It may be a good idea to get third-party quotes as proof)

Section 295‐550 (1) of the ITAA 1997 provides that an amount of income is non‐arm’s-length income if:

Read the full article in PDF format, fill out the information below to let us know where to send it to. 

Sign up for our Daily Update and receive news and insights delivered to your inbox every morning.