The Abbott government has introduced into Parliament proposed legislation to repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax.

Importantly, the Bill to remove the mining tax also proposes to repeal or revise a number of tax and superannuation measures. Key changes include:

• capital allowances for small business entities – the instant asset write-off threshold will be reduced to $1,000 and the accelerated depreciation arrangements for motor vehicles will be discontinued;
• company loss carry-back – the repeal of the loss carry-back measure will apply from the start of the 2013–2014 income year;
• superannuation guarantee (SG) charge – the SG charge percentage will be paused at 9.25% for the years starting on 1 July 2014 and 1 July 2015, increase to 9.5% for the year starting on 1 July 2016, and then gradually increase by half a percentage point each year until it reaches 12% for years starting on or after 1 July 2021; and
• low income superannuation contribution (LISC) – the LISC will not be payable in respect of concessional contributions made from 1 July 2013.

A taxpayer has been successful before the Full Federal Court in a matter concerning a GST assessment following the purchase of three residential apartments. The taxpayer (a company) had purchased the apartments in a hotel complex from the vendor on a GST-free basis as supply of a going concern. The apartments were subject to leases that the vendor had previously granted to a hotel management company, which was obliged to let the apartments as part of its serviced apartment business. The taxpayer had also elected to participate in a “management rights scheme”, which provided the taxpayer a right to income in exchange for allowing its apartments to be used in the serviced apartment business.

The Commissioner assessed the taxpayer as having a GST liability of $215,000 (ie an increasing adjustment), which represented 10% of the total purchase price paid by the taxpayer for the apartments. On appeal, the Full Court found that the primary judge had made an error in concluding that, following the sale of the reversion from the vendor to the taxpayer, there was a continuing supply, being the supply of residential premises by lease, by the vendor to the hotel management company. The Full Court said there was no continuing supply in relation to the lease; rather, the supply was the grant of the lease, which did not continue for the term of the lease. As a result, the taxpayer’s objection to the GST assessment was allowed.

An individual taxpayer has been successful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in arguing that he was not an Australian resident for tax purposes for the relevant years.

In June 2006, after his release from jail for drug offences, the man decided he had no future in Australia and moved to Thailand. In 2008, he moved to Bali and obtained the right to live in Indonesia as a retired person. During 2008 and 2010, the man made regular trips back to Australia, but during his last visit he was arrested and charged with possession of a precursor to a dangerous drug. The man was convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

While in prison, the Commissioner commenced an audit of the taxpayer’s affairs and decided that he was an Australian resident with unexplained income, and issued assessments for the 2009 to 2011 income years. The Commissioner also assessed penalties in excess of $350,000. The Commissioner based his decision on documents showing bank interest payments to the taxpayer as well as payments he had made towards the cost of building a boat.

However, the AAT was satisfied that the man was not a resident of Australia in the years in question. It said the man had not been residing in Australia since mid-2006 and that he had established a home in Bali from early 2008.

A stockbroker has been unsuccessful before the AAT in arguing that legal expenses he had incurred in the 2011 income year were deductible.

The taxpayer had incurred legal expenses challenging an ASIC banning order in proceedings before the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court. Both courts dismissed his appeals. The banning order, which became operative from 7 May 2010, prohibited the man from providing financial services for five years. The taxpayer had also incurred legal expenses in defending 20 criminal charges for alleged insider trading; he was eventually acquitted on 17 of the charges, with the remaining three withdrawn by ASIC.

The AAT was of view that the legal expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer “in the course” of gaining or producing assessable income. The AAT found that when the taxpayer had incurred the expenses, his position as an authorised representative at the company he worked for had ceased. Accordingly, the AAT held that the expenses incurred in the 2011 income year were not deductible.

The AAT has affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to refuse to release an individual from his tax liability based on serious hardship grounds. Under the Taxation Administration Act, the Commissioner has a discretion to release an individual from paying a tax liability (in whole or in part) if satisfying the liability would cause that person serious hardship.

The man argued that due to his wife’s illness, he had been increasingly required to care for her and their children and that this has reduced his capacity to earn income. The AAT was satisfied that the individual was facing serious hardship in the immediate future in the sense of lacking the means to purchase food, clothing and medical supplies for his family, and other basic requirements such as accommodation. However, it said the serious hardship was not caused by him being required to meet the tax liability. Rather, the serious hardship was due to the taxpayer’s liabilities, of which tax debt was just one, exceeding his assets, and the outgoings required to service those liabilities exceeding his income. As he had not met the relevant criterion, the AAT said it did not have the power to release him from his tax debts.

An individual taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in seeking a review of the Commissioner’s decision to refuse a GST refund in relation to the June 2004 quarter. The Commissioner had refused the refund on the basis that the taxpayer’s application was made after the four-year cut-off date for the June 2004 quarter (that is, 28 July 2008).

The taxpayer explained that due to his ill health and troubles with his then business, he did not get around to lodging tax returns until 2011. The Commissioner acknowledged that the man was owed a refund and had recommended that he approach the Department of Finance and Deregulation to obtain an act of grace payment, but said that because more than four years had elapsed since the time the taxpayer could have claimed the money, there was no discretion that could be exercised in the taxpayer’s favour. The AAT agreed with the Commissioner. It also refused the taxpayer’s request for an extension of time to apply to the AAT for review of the Commissioner’s objection decision (dated 31 October 2011) refusing the GST refund for the June 2004 quarter.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has denied an individual’s claim that an exemption from capital gains tax (CGT) should apply to a property that he and his ex-de facto partner had sold. The individual had purchased land in 2002 with his then partner, and construction of a house on the land commenced in April 2004. However, the couple ended their relationship in September 2004.

Despite this, the individual argued that they had moved into the house in around May or June 2005 to meet the requirements under the law to sell the property without being subject to CGT. The AAT found that the evidence before it failed to establish that the house became the individual’s main residence “as soon as practicable” after construction was completed, and failed to establish that the house continued to be his main residence for at least three months after that. In this case, both requirements had to be met in order for the exemption to apply.

An individual has been unsuccessful before the AAT in arguing that he should not have to pay CGT on the sale of a townhouse he owned jointly with his son because, he argued, he was only holding his interest in the property to protect his inexperienced son from selling it on a whim.

The individual had purchased the property for his adult son to live in and transferred the property to himself and his son as joint tenants. After living in the townhouse for a few years, the son moved out to another property. The townhouse was then sold and all of the funds were used to pay down the mortgage on a new property. The individual argued that he received no proceeds from the sale and that he held his interest in the property in trust for his son, or alternatively, that an exemption under the CGT law should apply. The AAT did not accept the arguments and held that as a joint tenant, the individual was liable to CGT on 50 per cent of the net capital gain on the sale.

The AAT has recently affirmed a decision of the Tax Commissioner to impose a penalty on an individual equal to 50 per cent of the tax shortfall amount arising from deduction claims for work-related expenses that were unsubstantiated.

The individual worked as a cars salesman and in his 2011–2012 tax return made various claims for work-related expenses amounting to around $34,300. The Tax Commissioner determined that most of the claims were unsubstantiated and imposed a penalty of around $6,100, representing 50 per cent of the tax shortfall. The Commissioner also told the AAT that the individual had made similar claims in previous years.

The individual did not dispute that the claims were unsubstantiated, but argued that the penalty was severe and that he was unable to pay an outstanding portion of the penalty of $1,400. The AAT noted, among other things, that the individual did not retain invoices or receipts, or provide satisfactory evidence to substantiate the claims. The AAT was of the view that the individual’s conduct was more serious than mere failure to take reasonable care, and held that the penalty imposed was appropriate.

The AAT has refused an individual’s claim for input tax credits as it found no evidence that the individual was carrying on an “enterprise”. The individual claimed that before she was required to serve a term of imprisonment, she had tried to start a “services business”. She claimed that she had purchased, among other things, two motor vehicles, various office equipment, and business promotional materials. The individual made claims for input tax credits totalling almost $74,000 in respect of the various purchases over four years. However, the individual said the attempts to start the business did not succeed and straddled her term of imprisonment. The individual also claimed that any records she had of the purchases were lost or destroyed, or that she had not been asked to produce documentation by the Tax Commissioner.

The AAT said the individual was given various opportunities to produce documents to back her claims before the hearing; however, it noted that her evidence, being mostly personal testimony, did not satisfy the burden of proof that the Commissioner’s assessment denying the input tax credits was excessive. The AAT found that there was no “enterprise” for the purposes of the GST law and that the decision to deny the input tax credits was correct.

A company (a trustee of a family trust) that had sold a property to an individual has been unsuccessful before the Victorian Supreme Court in a matter concerning whether the individual was required to pay GST in addition to the purchase price on the property.

The purchase price was set out in the Particulars of Sale in the contract as $2,250,000. The Supreme Court reviewed the contract, and in particular, a “special condition” dealing with GST. While the Court accepted that the commercial aim of the special clause may have been to allocate responsibility for any GST liability attached to the sale of the property, it considered that the contract said nothing about whether the purchase price in the Particulars of Sale was actually intended to include GST. Further, it could not discern from the special clause any particular contractual intention of the parties. In conclusion, the Court held that the special clause should be removed from the contract. As a result, it said the $2,250,000 amount in the Particulars of Sale should be understood to be inclusive of any GST payable on the sale.

The AAT has found that individuals working for a plumbing business were employees of the business and that the business was required to provide superannuation contributions for them. The business argued that the workers were independent contractors and that there was no superannuation requirement.

After reviewing the individuals’ relationship with the business, the AAT was of the view that, effectively, the workers were full-time casuals paid on an hourly rate and not eligible for holiday or sick leave. The AAT considered various factors, including that the individuals all had the same contract (with the same terms) with the business. The AAT said one would expect independent contractors to have differing terms, but the fact that their contracts were the same was “extraordinary”. Another key factor was that the hourly rates charged by the workers to customers were largely set by the business. Overall, the AAT concluded that the workers were employees and affirmed the requirement to pay superannuation.

The ATO has cautioned taxpayers against trading shares on a special market operated by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) with the sole purpose of obtaining additional franking credits. The ATO says these arrangements involve a taxpayer selling shares in a company on the ordinary market after a franked dividend has been announced, and retaining the franked dividends. Then, within days, the taxpayer buys back a similar parcel of shares in the same company on the special market, which also has franked dividends. The ATO says the transactions could constitute “dividend washing” and that the taxpayer could face penalties under the law.

The ATO has highlighted areas of concern in relation to certain financial products, particularly a small number of financial products that may offer the promise of tax benefits that may not actually be available to some or all investors who invest in the product.

Key factors that draw the ATO’s attention include suggestions that the investor could obtain tax advantages (that most taxpayers would not in fact receive in their individual circumstances), or that the tax law’s anti-avoidance provisions may not apply.

The ATO has issued an alert to warn taxpayers that it is aware of arrangements where a discretionary trust is used to effectively funnel large capital gains to a newly incorporated company that is then wound up to avoid paying taxes.

The ATO says these arrangements concern situations where a trust has generated a small amount of income and a large capital gain during the year. The trust then distributes funds generated by the capital gain, tax free, to one beneficiary, while the newly incorporated company receives the tax liability, but does not have the funds to pay the tax. A liquidator is then appointed to wind up the company.

The ATO says such arrangements may be shams and those involved could face serious consequences under the tax law.

The superannuation law has recently been amended so that the effective contributions tax for certain concessional contributions (up to the concessional cap) has been doubled from 15% to 30% for “very high income earners”, ie those with income (plus relevant concessional contributions) above a $300,000 threshold.

The ATO has recently advised that it will start issuing the first assessments for the new tax in January 2014 for individuals who were above the $300,000 high income threshold for the 2012–2013 income year.

An individual has been unsuccessful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in arguing that he was not a resident of Australia for tax purposes during the relevant years. The individual was a mechanical engineer and worked overseas in the 2007 and 2008 income years. The taxpayer argued that in mid-2006 he had formed an intention to live in the United Kingdom, but was ultimately unable to do so due to the failing health of his mother-in-law. The taxpayer eventually returned to Australia in 2009.

The AAT held that the taxpayer had maintained a strong and continuing residency connection with Australia. The AAT noted, among other things, that the taxpayer had maintained an Australian bank account. He had also identified himself as a resident in official immigration arrival and departure cards.

The AAT has held that an individual was a share investor, and not a share trader as claimed, during the relevant years. The individual was a full-time council employee and claimed that he had an arrangement with his employer where he could trade during business hours and then make up the time after hours. The Tax Commissioner argued that the individual was not carrying on a business of share trading and therefore was not entitled to deductions he had claimed on the premise that a business existed.

The AAT held that, overall, the factors pointing against the existence of a share trading business outweighed the factors that were in the taxpayer’s favour. Among various things, the AAT found there was a lack of a regular routine with buying and selling shares in the individual’s case, which pointed towards the transactions being made on a speculative basis. The AAT was also of the view that full-time employment went against the conduct of a share trading business.

The AAT has confirmed a decision of the Tax Commissioner that a husband and wife partnership (which was registered for GST) had an increasing adjustment resulting in a GST payable amount following the purchase of two apartments in a hotel complex.

The original owner of the apartments had previously granted leases in respect of each apartment to a hotel management company that was obliged to operate a serviced apartment business. The partnership had also elected to participate in a scheme that allowed the hotel management company to let the apartments as part of its serviced apartment business in return for income generated by the business. The supply of each apartment was treated as GST-free under the “going concern” concessions in the GST law. Since their purchase, the apartments were operated as part of the serviced apartment business.

The AAT essentially agreed with the Commissioner that the partnership had an increasing adjustment because of continuing input taxed supplies made in relation to the apartments.

The AAT has affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to impose excess non-concessional contributions tax on an individual in relation to excess super contributions he had made in September 2009.

Essentially, the taxpayer had withdrawn and redeposited his superannuation monies in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the global financial crisis. The Commissioner claimed the individual had breached the so-called “bring forward rule”, which provides a $450,000 cap on non-concessional contributions for every three-year period for people under age 65.

The AAT did not accept the individual’s argument that his super fund should have warned him of the danger of breaching the $450,000 limit. The AAT also did not expect the individual to necessarily understand the law himself; however, it did expect that the individual “might have asked for some advice”.

The AAT has held that the Tax Commissioner was no longer bound by a private binding ruling that he had issued to a taxpayer company, because the taxpayer had implemented the scheme differently to the private ruling. As a result that the Commissioner was authorised to issue the taxpayer with fringe benefits tax (FBT) assessments for the relevant years.

Broadly, the private ruling provided that there would be no housing fringe benefit in relation to a home that was half-owned by the company (with the other half owned by a couple, who were also the directors of the company) on the basis that the business use of the home was 50%. However, the AAT considered that, in fact, less than 50% of the home had a “business use”, and therefore the private ruling was not longer binding.

An individual has been unsuccessful before the Federal Circuit Court in seeking a review of the Tax Commissioner’s decision to refuse a tax compromise deal. The individual had taken over his father’s jewellery business, but said he was not aware of the financial mismanagement of the business until unpaid creditors began calling. The taxpayer argued that the Commissioner had not taken into account the ill-health of his father and the effect the global financial crisis had on the business.

However, Court said there was no reason to believe that they were not taken into account by the Commissioner. Further, it held it could not review the Commissioner’s decision as it was not a decision made “under an enactment”.

The ATO has issued a GST ruling that sets out the requirements for adjustment notes under the GST law. An adjustment note reflects the adjustment to the amount of GST charged on a taxable supply as a result of an adjustment event. An adjustment event will result in the original tax invoice issued by the supplier being incorrect. A supplier is required to issue an adjustment note for a taxable supply unless the supply was issued under a recipient created tax invoice. In that case, the recipient of the supply must issue the adjustment note.

The GST ruling outlines when a document is in the approved form for an adjustment note, the information requirements determined by the Tax Commissioner, and when the Commissioner will treat a particular document as an adjustment note even though that document does not meet all of the requirements.

The next Federal Election will be held on 7 September 2013. Both sides of politics have made various announcements and promises. Some of the key announcements to keep in mind include the following:

• Company tax rate cut – On 7 August 2013, the Coalition announced that, if elected, it would cut the company tax rate by 1.5% with effect from 1 July 2015. It said the proposed new company tax rate of 28.5% is part of its “significant tax reform agenda to be delivered within the first term”. Note that the Coalition has also previously proposed a levy on large companies to fund its proposed paid parental leave scheme.
• GST and tax reform – On 7 August 2013, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey reaffirmed that the Coalition had “no plans whatsoever to change the GST”. “We are prepared to have a debate about tax reform but any changes arising out of the white paper process would first be put to the Australian people at the next election,” Mr Hockey said.

The ATO has released its compliance program for 2013–2014, setting out key activities and focus areas for the coming year. Some key points include the following:

• The ATO says it will pay particular attention to large work-related expense claims made by: (i) building and construction labourers, construction supervisors and project managers; and (ii) sales and marketing managers.
• This year, the ATO will use new information sources to check correct reporting of: (i) private health insurance rebate claims; (ii) flood levy exemptions; and (iii) taxable government grants and payments.
• The ATO has set up a new taskforce to deal with promoters, individuals and businesses that seek to misuse trusts. The ATO plans to conduct 5,000 data-matching cases and around 700 income tax reviews and audits over the next four years.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has held that the exclusion in the tax law from the capital gains tax (CGT) small business concessions for assets used “mainly to derive rent” applies even if the assets are used in “carrying on a business” of deriving rent.

In this case, the taxpayer argued that in interpreting the rules, it was necessary to distinguish between those assets used to derive passive investment income such as rental income, and those actively used in carrying on a business. Essentially, the taxpayer argued that the strict view that all properties that are used mainly to derive rent are automatically excluded from the concessions unfairly discriminates against small leasing businesses.

However, the AAT considered that the words in the law must be considered first and that it was not “unduly pedantic to begin with the assumption that words mean what they say”.

An individual employed by a mining company at Port Hedland on a “fly-in fly-out” basis has been unsuccessful before the Federal Court in appealing an earlier decision that refused his deduction claim of $36,000 for accommodation and food against an allowance.

In the earlier decision, it was held that the allowance was properly characterised as a living-away-from-home allowance (LAFHA) under the fringe benefits tax (FBT) rules. As a result, it was subject to FBT in the hands of the taxpayer’s employer, and travel expenses could not therefore be claimed in relation to it. In affirming the earlier decision, the Court said the expenses in relation to accommodation, food and travel were not incurred by the taxpayer in the course of gaining or producing his assessable income. Rather, the expenditure arose from the taxpayer’s decision not live in Port Hedland and to instead travel to Port Hedland on a fly-in fly-out basis.

The AAT has ruled that a taxpayer who was the managing director of a company in various countries from 2002 to 2007, and who was paid an employment termination payment (ETP) when he returned to Australia, was not assessable on the part of the annual and long service leave component of the ETP that was attributable to his foreign service (in view of the exemption in the tax law at the time).

However, the AAT confirmed that he was assessable on the taxable component of the ETP, despite its foreign source, on the basis that he was a tax resident of Australia when the ETP was paid to him.

In a recent decision, the AAT has affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to impose on a taxpayer an administrative penalty at the rate of 50% for “recklessness” in relation to incorrectly claimed input tax credits (ITCs). The taxpayer had lodged a claim in the relevant business activity statement (BAS) for almost $72,000 in ITCs in relation goods said to be from Hong Kong. This was despite the goods never having left the country or having been manufactured.

The taxpayer’s representative claimed that he had relied on telephone conversations with the ATO in which the ATO had allegedly advised to the effect that the taxpayer could claim ITCs. However, the AAT did not accept the taxpayer’s arguments in that regard and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The AAT noted, among other things, that the discussions post-dated the filing of the BAS and, accordingly, any advice received at that time could not have influenced the making of a false or misleading statement.

A taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in arguing that $1.6 million she received from a company run by her (then) husband was provided to her as part of a domestic arrangement with her husband and was not therefore assessable in her hands.

Broadly, the taxpayer contended that she had agreed to finance her then husband’s purchase of shares in the company and that she was behaving as a “good” wife who deployed the resources at her disposal in support of her husband, and that she was not an independent investor in her husband’s business. The AAT did not accept that the taxpayer was simply acting as a supportive spouse who passively received benefits provided to her by her husband under a matrimonial arrangement. The AAT essentially agreed with the Commissioner that the taxpayer was an investor in the business and found that the payments were “income” assessable to her under the tax law.

A trustee of a family trust that operated a construction and earthmoving equipment business has been unsuccessful before the AAT in its claim for fuel tax credits. Following an audit of the business in 2010, the Commissioner refused the credits, citing that records maintained by the taxpayer did not accurately describe the amount of fuel acquired or used, or adequately describe the purpose for which the fuel was used.

The taxpayer acknowledged that there were problems with its recordkeeping but said the difficulties were caused by employee delinquency. Further, it said its true entitlements were actually much greater than the amount claimed. However, the AAT was not satisfied with estimates provided by the taxpayer. It was also critical of the taxpayer’s records, saying they “were a mess”. The AAT affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, as well as the imposition of penalties at 25%.

The Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, has announced that the Government will prevent “dividend washing” by introducing a specific integrity rule into the tax law. This follows the Government’s announcement in the 2013–2014 Federal Budget that it will implement reforms to close, with effect from 1 July 2013, a loophole it believes currently enables some investors to engage in this practice.

“Dividend washing” potentially allows investors who undertake certain sophisticated share transactions to receive two sets of franking credits on what is essentially the same parcel of shares. Mr Bradbury says the proposed specific integrity rule will end this practice. He adds that the measure will not impact typical “mum and dad investors” as it will only apply to investors who have franking credit tax offset entitlements in excess of $5,000.

In a recent decision, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has affirmed a decision of the Tax Commissioner to deny a taxpayer’s claim for a personal deduction for interest and bank fees of over $120,000. These were incurred over a two-year period in relation to rental properties purchased by a family discretionary trust that had been set up for that purpose, and of which the taxpayer was the trustee.

The AAT was of the view that the bank had lent the money to the taxpayer in his capacity as trustee of the trust, and not in his personal capacity. The AAT was also not convinced by the taxpayer’s argument that the bank had been mistaken in relation to the legal character of the person to whom it had lent the money. The AAT therefore upheld the Commissioner’s decision not to allow a personal deduction.

A doctor has been unsuccessful before the AAT in arguing that he should be declared a non-resident of Australia for tax purposes. The doctor had been working in East Timor since 2006 and submitted that he “resided” in East Timor as that was where he spent his time and lived.

The AAT heard that the doctor was an Australian citizen and spent nine to 11 months of the year in East Timor, with the remainder of his time spent in Australia and Bali. However, the AAT noted that the doctor owned a property in Australia which the Tax Commissioner described as the “family home”. The AAT also noted that the doctor had a property in Bali which he and his wife called “home”. The AAT found that the doctor “resided” in Australia for tax purposes because the taxpayer had retained a “continuity of association” with Australia.

The AAT has held that a partnership was not carrying on an enterprise and was not entitled to input tax credits claimed in respect of the relevant period.

The taxpayers, a married couple, argued that their partnership had provided handyman and other maintenance services to a hotel, a business they also controlled and which they had taken over from their sons. The AAT was not convinced that the partnership was an entity providing the claimed services to the hotel. Therefore, the taxpayers were not entitled to claim input tax credits during the relevant period.

However, the AAT was of the view that the net amount of GST owed for the relevant period was zero, and not a positive net amount as argued by the Commissioner.

The ATO has advised that, for the income year that commenced on 1 July 2013, the benchmark interest rate to be used in calculating the interest component on the repayment of a private company loan received by a shareholder (or an associate of a shareholder) is 6.20%.

The ATO has announced the amounts that the Commissioner considers are reasonable for the 2013–2014 income year in relation to claims made for:

• overtime meal allowance expenses;
• domestic travel allowance expenses;
• overseas travel allowance expenses; and
• travel allowance expenses for employee truck drivers.

The ATO has announced that the car depreciation limit for the 2013–2014 income year is $57,466.

The Government has recently enacted a number of key superannuation changes. These are discussed below. Importantly, these rule changes are not simple and individuals would be prudent to consider their options before deciding what to do.

Excess concessional contributions

The rules in relation to the taxation of excess concessional contributions have been amended with effect from 1 July 2013. The Government says the new rules will be “fairer for individuals who exceed their annual concessional cap”.

Under the new rules, excess concessional contributions are automatically included in an individual’s assessable income and subject to an interest charge to account for the deferral of tax. Broadly, the new rules ensure that individuals who make excess concessional contributions are taxed on the contributions at their marginal tax rates, rather than at the effective 46.5% tax rate that previously applied for all taxpayers before the changes were introduced.

Higher contributions cap of $35,000

On 1 July 2013, the concessional contributions cap increased from $25,000 to $35,000 for individuals aged 60 years and over. The same threshold will apply from 1 July 2014 for individuals aged 50 years and over.

Under the new cap, eligible individuals will potentially be able to claim greater deductions for superannuation contributions, or salary-sacrifice larger contributions. It is important to note that this temporary concessional cap will cease when the general cap reaches $35,000 through indexation (which is expected to be 1 July 2018).

Extra 15% contributions tax for $300,000+ incomes

From 1 July 2012, individuals earning above $300,000 must pay an additional 15% tax on concessional contributions. That is, the effective contributions tax has doubled from 15% to 30% for concessional contributions (up to the cap of $25,000 or, for older taxpayers from 2013–2014, $35,000) made on behalf of individuals above the $300,000 income threshold.

However, despite this extra 15% tax, it should be noted there is still an effective tax concession of 15% (ie the top marginal rate less 30%) on concessional contributions up to the cap of $25,000 (or $35,000).