SMSFs, Business real property and the small business CGT cap

Clarke McEwan Accountants

Small business clients often want to transfer their business premises into their SMSF as an in-specie contribution to take advantage of the tax effective superannuation environment.

To facilitate the transfer, some clients have sought to utilise the CGT small business concessions and make an in-specie contribution to super using the lifetime CGT cap - simultaneously.

However, the ATO has indicated via a number of private binding rulings that in-specie contributions of active assets, such as business real property, may not qualify for the lifetime CGT cap where the in-specie super contribution is also the CGT event that qualifies for the small business CGT concessions.

As a result, a client's ability to access these valuable concessions may be impacted and careful planning is required to ensure they structure their contributions to meet these complex rules.

Lifetime CGT cap

When a small business owner disposes of an active asset, they may be eligible to disregard some or all of the capital gain resulting from the disposal under the CGT small business concessions. In addition, they may be able to contribute some or all of the sale proceeds to superannuation and elect for the contributions to count towards the lifetime CGT cap.

The lifetime CGT cap for 2018-19 is $1.48 million (indexed annually). Contributions that count against the lifetime CGT cap are neither concessional nor non-concessional contributions.

Broadly, to access the lifetime CGT cap it is necessary for an individual, company or trust to qualify for the 15-year exemption or the $500,000 retirement exemption.

The following table outlines the types of contributions that can be contributed under the lifetime CGT cap:

Contribution type	Amount that counts against lifetime CGT cap
Individual able to disregard capital gain under retirement exemption	Amount of capital gains disregarded under the retirement exemption (up to maximum of $500,000)
Individual able to disregard capital gain under the 15 year exemption	Amount of capital proceeds
Company or trust able to disregard capital gain under retirement exemption	Amount of payment to CGT concession stakeholder of their share of the exempt amount (up to maximum of $500,000)
Company or trust able to disregard capital gain under the 15 year exemption	Amount of payment received by CGT concession stakeholder of their share of capital proceeds

When making small business CGT contributions, depending on the circumstances, the contribution must be made within strict timeframes.

Case study - contribution under the lifetime CGT cap:

Matthew and Lily (both age 70) are farmers who have been running a primary production business for over 15 years. They run their business on a farm they own jointly which qualifies as a business real property.
They decide to retire and sell the farm for its market value of $1.4 million to a third party purchaser.
As Matthew and Lily meet all the basic conditions for small business CGT exemptions as well as the 15 year exemption, they can disregard any capital gains as a result of the sale.
Subject to satisfying the work test, they can then each contribute their share of the capital proceeds ($700,000) from the sale into superannuation under the lifetime CGT cap.

Note – this applies regardless of whether the value of Matthew and Lily's total superannuation balance at the end of the previous financial year exceeds $1.6m, as the contributions are not non-concessional contributions.

In-specie contributions and the lifetime CGT cap

In the Matthew and Lily example, the active asset of the farm was sold and a cash contribution made into superannuation under the lifetime CGT cap. However, the situation is more complex when the transaction involves an in-specie contribution.

For example, if Matthew and Lily transferred their farm into their SMSF as an in-specie contribution, they may not be able to qualify for the lifetime CGT cap as the super contribution is also the event that qualifies for the small business CGT concessions. That is, the ATO has indicated in a number of private rulings ^[1] , that the contributor is not able to utilise the lifetime CGT cap in the event of an in-specie transfer of an active asset into a SMSF, where the small business CGT exemption is applied for the same CGT event.

The Commissioner has stated that the legislation does not contemplate the CGT event, choice (if paid from a company or trust) and contribution of the CGT exempt amount all happening simultaneously. Therefore, the CGT event must occur before a contribution is made and not at the same time.

This view has important implications as in-specie contributions that do not count against the lifetime CGT cap will instead be treated as personal non-concessional contributions and count against the non-concessional cap (assuming the member does not claim a tax deduction for some or all of the contribution), which may result in excess non-concessional contributions.

Due to these issues, advisers should encourage clients to seek a private binding ruling if they are looking to utilise the lifetime CGT cap for an in-specie transfer where the small business CGT exemption is applied for the same CGT event.

Potential solutions

Below we outline three possible alternative strategies that achieve the goal of moving the asset into the SMSF, without the in-specie contribution issue outlined above applying.

SMSF purchasing active asset from client

The SMSF could purchase the active asset from the client (or their trust/company) where they have the required funds available. This achieves the goal of moving the asset into the SMSF, as well as providing cash proceeds to the client (or their company or trust) which can then be contributed to super under the lifetime CGT cap.

Coming back to the example of Matthew and Lily, if their SMSF had cash reserves of $1.4 million, the SMSF could purchase the farm from them. Matthew and Lily could then use the cash proceeds to make contributions under the lifetime CGT cap.

When implementing this strategy, there are a few important things to be mindful of:

A SMSF is only allowed to acquire certain assets from a related party ^[2] , e.g. business real property that's used wholly and exclusively in any business. Generally active assets other than business real property e.g. goodwill of a business, shares in a private company or units in a related trust, cannot be acquired ^[3] .
The purchase must be on arm's length terms and at market value. The SMSF may need to obtain an independent professional valuation to determine the sale price, refer to ATO's Valuation guideline for SMSFs

SMSF uses limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) to purchase active asset from client

In situations where the SMSF does not have the required funds available to purchase the active asset from the client, an alternative is for the SMSF to borrow the money via an LRBA to complete the purchase.

The cash sale proceeds could then be re-contributed to the fund under the lifetime CGT cap and used to extinguish the outstanding LRBA loan amount. However, it is important to note that this arrangement will incur additional costs as the fund will be required to establish a complying LRBA including the required bare trust arrangements.

Where a fund borrows from a related party, additional care needs to be exercised to ensure the loan complies with the safe harbour guidelines as specified in ATO PCG 2016/5. Otherwise the trustee will need to demonstrate that the loan is on arm's length terms – otherwise any income earned from the asset may be taxed as non-arm's length income.

In-specie contribution of an asset for a different small business CGT event

If a client is disposing of multiple active assets, they could consider triggering a CGT event in relation to one of those assets and then making an in-specie contribution under the CGT cap of a different asset in lieu of the capital proceeds they received.

For example, in ATO ID 2010/217, the ATO confirmed that where a taxpayer sold an asset that qualified for the $500,000 retirement exemption, the taxpayer could contribute a separate asset under the lifetime CGT cap in lieu of the cash proceeds actually received. This is important as it may allow a client to contribute an allowable asset via an in-specie transfer direct to their SMSF under the lifetime CGT cap.

Case study: Winston

Winston (aged 60) ran a successful real estate agent business for more than two decades and has now decided to sell his business and retire. The real estate business operated through a company structure. Winston owned 100% of the shares and the commercial premises. Details are as follows:

Asset	Owner	Ownership period	Cost base	Market value
Shares in SuperAgent Pty Ltd	Winston	20 years	$0	$600,000
Commercial office	Winston	10 years	$200,000	$800,000

Winston wants to sell his shares in the company, but retain ownership of the commercial office within his SMSF which will then be leased to the new business owner.

Sale of shares in the company (CGT event no.1)

Winston sold the shares in SuperAgent Pty Ltd to an unrelated purchaser for $600,000. As he meets the basic conditions for small business CGT exemptions and qualifies for the 15 year exemption, he can fully disregard any capital gains associated with the sale of these shares. He is also eligible to contribute the capital proceeds up to $600,000 into super under the lifetime CGT cap ^[4] .

Small business CGT contribution strategy

While Winston could use the cash proceeds from the sale of shares to make a contribution under the lifetime CGT cap he instead chooses to contribute his commercial office into his SMSF under the lifetime CGT cap instead – as per the scenario in ATO ID 2010/217.

In-specie transfer of commercial office (CGT event no.2)

When Winston in-specie transfers his business real property into his SMSF it will trigger an assessable capital gain of $600,000. However, as the commercial office qualifies for the 50% individual exemption the assessable gain is reduced to $300,000. Winston can then apply the $500,000 retirement concession to fully offset the remaining $300,000 assessable gain - assuming he skips the 50% active asset exemption.

In this case, Winston is then eligible to contribute an additional $300,000 under the lifetime CGT cap – being the amount of the gain offset by applying the retirement concession to the transfer of the commercial office to the SMSF. In this case, Winston could then use $300,000 of his original cash proceeds from the sale of the shares to contribute to super under the lifetime CGT cap.

Mixed contributions

In the above scenario, it is important to note the market value of the BRP ($800,000) contributed in lieu of the share sale proceeds exceeded their value ($600,000) by $200,000. Therefore, only $600,000 of the property can be contributed under lifetime CGT cap. However, as Winston is under 65 years of age (and hasn't previously triggered the bring forward provision) the additional $200,000 could be treated as a non-concessional contribution. He can then make additional non-concessional contributions of up to $100,000 under the bring forward rule.

Summary of contributions:

In-specie transfer of BRP valued at $800,000:
Cash contribution of $300,000:

The end result is that Winston could make total contributions of $900,000 under the lifetime CGT cap (relating to two separate CGT events) and a non-concessional contribution of $200,000. He also has the option of making a further non-concessional of $100,000 to maximise his NCC cap.

The following diagram illustrates the strategy:

Important note

The above example is for illustrative purposes and does not consider the application of the anti- avoidance measures in Part IVA of Tax Act. As this is a complex area of tax law, clients should seek advice from a registered tax agent or obtain a private binding ruling from the ATO before making any decisions relating to the sale of their active business asset, and in-specie transfer of business real property into their SMSF.

[1] Private ruling PBRs: 1013008906784; 1013054081138; 1013021531190; 1012862148885

[2] Section 66 of the SIS Act prohibits a SMSF from acquiring assets from a related party unless an exception applies. A related party is defined as: a member of the fund; a standard employer-sponsor of the fund; and a Part 8 associate of either of these two entities.

[3] Note – SMSFs can acquire units or shares in related companies and trusts under the 5% in-house exemption.

[4] CGT cap election form must be submitted at or before the time of contribution

Disclaimer: This article is not legal or personal financial advice and should not be relied on as such. Any advice in this document is general advice only and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular person. You should obtain financial advice relevant to your circumstances before making investment decisions. Where a particular financial product is mentioned you should consider the Product Disclosure Statement before making any decisions in relation to the product. Whilst every reasonable care has been taken in distributing this article, Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information contained within it. Any views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not represent the views of Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee any particular outcome or future performance. Taxation Information in this document should not be relied upon without seeking specialist advice from a tax professional. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd ABN 26 098 725 145, AFSL & Australian Credit Licence No. 234459, 114 Albert Road, South Melbourne, VIC 3205. This document produced in October 2018. © Copyright 2018

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Reviewing your fund’s investment strategy

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

Superannuation law requires trustees of SMSFs to formulate, regularly review and give effect to an investment strategy that has regard to the whole of the circumstances of the fund. Although there is nothing in the law stating a timeframe that may define ‘review regularly’, it is commonly accepted that this would be at least annually. This aligns with comments on the ATO’s website where they expect reviews to occur at least annually. Some trustees will undertake an annual review leading up to, or at the beginning of a new financial year, while others will undertake the review as part of reviewing the completed financial accounts from the previous financial year. Neither is the right or wrong option, and you must consider what is best for your situation. Either way, you will need to be able to show your fund’s auditor that you have reviewed the investment strategy and documented any decisions made, whether it be recording changes deemed necessary or determined the existing strategy remains appropriate. There may be other times that it is appropriate to review the investment strategy. These may include when: There is a market correction; A member joins or leaves the fund; A member starts a pension in the fund. An investment policy will generally be comprised of two parts: 1. Investment objective – this part outlines the fund’s objectives and expected outcomes. For example, an objective may be to achieve a certain level of return over a certain period. This would generally take into account the age of the members, their retirement needs and investment risk profile. 2. Investment strategy – this part outlines how the fund will achieve the stated objectives. For example, it may include investment asset ranges or specific assets that will be held. When reviewing your fund’s investment strategy, consideration must be given to: The risk of holding particular investments and their returns, with regards to the fund’s objectives and expected cashflow requirements; Composition of investments and the risk of inadequate diversification; Liquidity of investments, with regards to expected cashflow requirements; Ability to discharge existing and prospective liabilities; and Whether insurance cover for one or more members should be held by the fund. Although these points need to be considered, it is up to the trustees to determine how they are applied, based on the circumstances of the fund. As an example, you must consider the diversification of the fund’s assets, but that does not mean you are required to have a diversified investment strategy. Many funds hold just a property and a bank account, and this may be appropriate for those funds. However, the trustees should document what consideration they gave to diversification, why the lack of diversification is appropriate and why they have chosen these particular assets. Likewise, there is no legal requirement to hold insurance cover for the members, but you do need to document that it has been considered. As noted above, a member starting a pension may be reason to review the fund’s investment strategy. This is due to the fact that this is likely to change the liquidity considerations and investment profile of the fund. When members are all in the pre-retirement growth phase, expenses are usually more predictable and there isn’t a need for many funds to hold large cash reserves. Once members reach the point they are accessing their benefits, as either pension or lump sum payments (or both), cashflow, liquidity and a potential cash buffer become a more important consideration. It is not uncommon that leading up to the end of any given financial year we will field enquiries and concerns from trustees that do not have the cash to satisfy even the minimum pension requirements for the year. While there may be several reasons for this, it should raise questions about the appropriateness of the fund’s current investment strategy and considerations as to whether a review of the asset holdings is warranted. If we revisit the one property and one bank account funds mentioned early, this may have been a reasonable strategy during the growth phase, but does it remain so during the drawdown phase? Although many people are comfortable with property and Australian investors in general have an affinity for the old bricks and mortar, this does not mean it is an appropriate investment in all circumstances. If the rental income from the property cannot support your retirement needs and minimum pension withdrawal requirements, something needs to change. This will hold true for any other investment that may not be easily sold, such as holdings in unlisted companies and trusts. Reviewing your fund’s investment strategy and giving consideration to the needs of the members and the asset holdings of the fund should not be seen as just a tick-a-box legal requirement. You’ve worked hard to build you retirement wealth and when the time comes, you want to be able to enjoy it. Having an appropriate investment strategy that will allow this is an important element of running an SMSF. Have you reviewed your strategy lately?

“Widow tax” fixed

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

Federal Parliament has closed an unintended loophole in the recent negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms that became widely known as the “widow tax”. At the same time, the Government also fixed a technical issue that could have affected people who first use a main residence to generate rental income after Budget night on 12 May 2026. What the problem was As you might be aware, the tax rules have recently been changed to ensure that losses generated from residential rental properties from 1 July 2027 can be ‘quarantined’. This means that they can only be offset against income or capital gains generated from other residential rental properties. However, the changes won’t generally apply to properties that were purchased by the relevant taxpayer before 12 May 2026. However, a problem could arise when an ownership interest in a property passes to someone as a result of the death of the original owner or because of a relationship breakdown and this occurs after 12 May 2026. Under the original version of the new rules, that transfer could be treated as a new acquisition. This could have meant that a surviving spouse or former partner risked losing the protected negative gearing treatment that had applied to the property in the hands of the previous owner. How it was fixed The Government moved quickly once the issue was identified. Some new rules now specifically protect people who acquire a residential property interest from a spouse because of death or relationship breakdown. The rules can also potentially protect someone who inherits an additional ownership interest in a rental property from a co-owner who isn’t their spouse. Case study 1 – the widow tax fix Sarah and David bought a rental unit in 2019 as equal joint owners. The property has always been negatively geared, with annual rental losses of around $8,000 offset against their other income each year. Under the original May 2026 reforms, the property was protected because it was acquired well before Budget night. However, if David had died and the property transferred fully into Sarah’s name, the additional 50% interest that Sarah inherited from David’s estate risked being treated as a new acquisition. Sarah could have lost the ability to claim the losses generated from this interest in the property against her other income. With the updated rules now in place, that outcome is avoided. Because the transfer occurs due to the death of a spouse, Sarah keeps the original protected treatment and can continue offsetting the rental losses in the same way as before. Former main residences A related technical issue also needed fixing. Under the original rules there was a risk that an existing main residence purchased before 12 May 2026 could lose its protected status if it was later first used to generate taxable rental income after that date. This was because of the interaction with a long-standing tax rule that can treat someone as if they had reacquired a former main residence when it is first used to produce income. The Government has now passed legislation to correct this. The new rules specifically disregard that “first use to produce income” rule when determining the acquisition date for negative gearing purposes. Case study 2 – renting out a former home James bought his home in 2018 and has lived in it as his main residence ever since. In 2027 he decides to move in with his partner and rent the property out for the first time. Under the original drafting of the 2026 reforms, first renting the property after 12 May 2026 risked resetting its acquisition date. That could have caused the property to be treated as a post-Budget night acquisition and subjected to the tighter negative gearing limits. With the new rules now in place, that reset is disregarded for negative gearing purposes. Because James originally acquired the property before 7:30 pm on 12 May 2026, it keeps its original acquisition date. He can continue to offset any rental losses in the same way as if the property had always been an investment property acquired before Budget night. Why these fixes matter Both changes remove sources of unexpected cash-flow disruption. The “widow tax” fix protects people at a difficult personal time. The main residence clarification gives homeowners greater flexibility if their circumstances change and they later decide to rent out a property they already own. What you should do now If you own a jointly held investment property acquired before 12 May 2026, the “widow tax” fix provides reassurance that a future transfer on death or separation should not remove negative gearing rights, but the rules are still complex and it is always best to have the position checked. If you own a main residence bought before 12 May 2026 and are considering renting it out in future, the new rule means the property should keep its original acquisition date for negative gearing purposes, but there could still be some complex CGT implications. Keep clear records of the original purchase date and ownership history. If either situation applies to you and you would like confirmation of how the amended rules work in your circumstances, contact us.

$21 billion in lost super is waiting

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

More than $21 billion in lost and unclaimed superannuation is currently sitting idle across Australia, according to the latest ATO figures. The average lost account holds around $41,000. Last year alone the ATO reunited more than $1.1 billion with members. That is real money that could be working harder for your retirement. Tax time is the natural moment to check whether any of it belongs to you. How super becomes “lost” Super generally becomes lost when an account becomes inactive and the fund can no longer contact the member. Common triggers include: Changing jobs and leaving an old account behind Moving house or updating your phone number without telling the fund Changing your name When the fund cannot reach you, the account may be classified as lost. In some cases, the balance is eventually transferred to the ATO to hold until the rightful owner claims it. The money does not disappear; it simply sits waiting to be reunited with its owner. A five-minute health check Finding lost super is straightforward and free. The quickest way is through ATO online services via myGov: 1. Log in to myGov and open the ATO section. 2. Select Super, then Fund details. 3. You will see any active accounts plus any lost or ATO-held super linked to your tax file number. You can also use the ATO app or call the automated lost super search line on 13 28 65. A paper form is available if you prefer. Many people are surprised by what turns up from old accounts from early jobs, small balances that have grown over time, or larger amounts they had completely forgotten about. Especially valuable if you are approaching retirement For clients still decades from retirement, finding lost super is useful. For those at or approaching retirement age it can be particularly meaningful. An extra $20,000 or $40,000 (or more) can make a noticeable difference to the size of the nest egg available to draw on. Even smaller amounts compound further once consolidated into a single active account that continues to earn returns and attract any future contributions. One important practical warning before you consolidate If you decide to roll multiple accounts into one preferred fund, check the insurance cover attached to each account first. Death, total and permanent disability, or income-protection cover that comes with a super account can sometimes end when the balance is rolled over. Losing that cover without realising it can leave a gap in your protection at the exact time you may need it most. Speak with your fund or adviser before consolidating so you understand exactly what will transfer and what will not. The commercial upside is simple Every dollar sitting in a lost or low-balance account is potentially earning less than it could, or incurring unnecessary fees. Bringing the money into one active account usually reduces fees, improves investment choice, and makes it easier to keep track of your overall position. The ATO’s reunification figures show that when people do the search, meaningful amounts are regularly returned. The process takes only a few minutes and costs nothing. Given that more than $21 billion is currently waiting to be claimed, the odds that some of it belongs to you are higher than many people expect. You can start the free search here: https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/superannuation-searching-for-lost-superannuation If you would like help interpreting what you find, or advice on whether consolidation makes sense in your circumstances (including the insurance check), just get in touch. A short conversation now can put money back into your retirement savings that might otherwise stay forgotten.

Travel records under the microscope

By Clarke McEwan • October 21, 2026

Travel records under the ATO microscope

Should You Buy or Lease Your Business Premises?

By Clarke McEwan • October 7, 2026

Owning your business premises can build long-term wealth and eliminate rent increases. Leasing can offer greater flexibility and preserve cash flow. Every business is different. Let us help you analyse the costs and benefits so you can make the right decision. 📞 Get in touch today.

Should you buy or lease your business assets?

By Clarke McEwan • September 18, 2026

There are certain items of equipment, machinery and hardware that are essential to the operation of your business – whether it’s the delivery van you use to run your client deliveries, diagnostic equipment in your medical practice or the high-end digital printer to run your print business. But when a critical business asset is required, should you buy this item outright, or should you lease the item and pay for it in handy monthly instalments? To buy or to lease? That is the question Buying new pieces of business equipment, plant, machinery or vehicles can be an expensive investment. So, depending on your financial situation, it’s important to weigh up the pros and cons of buying, or opting for a leasing option. First of all, let’s look at why you might decide to buy the item… Buying: the pros and cons: - Pro: It’s a tangible asset – when you buy an item, you own the item outright and it will appear on your balance sheet as one your business assets. As such, by owning these assets outright you increase the perceived capital and value of your business. You can also claim the cost of the asset against your capital allowance for tax purposes. - Pro: It’s yours for the life of the asset – once you own the item, you have full use of the equipment for the duration of the life of the asset. Your use of the asset isn’t reliant on you being able to keep up regular lease payments, and if your financial circumstances change then you can sell the asset to free up the capital. - Con: It’s an expensive outlay – paying for the item up-front is a large outlay for the business and will require you having the cash to cover this cost. Spending a large lump sum in this way may take cash away from other areas of the business, so you need to be 100% sure that this purchase is the right decision and a sound investment. - Con: You may require extra funding – if you don’t have the liquid cash available to buy the item outright, you may need to take out a loan. Asset finance is available from funding providers, but does tie you into a loan agreement that will add to your liabilities as a business – reducing your worth on the balance sheet. Leasing: the pros and cons: - Pro: Leasing has a cheaper entry point – if the item you need to purchase has a large price tag, leasing allows you to make use of the asset without the cost of buying it in full. For start-ups and smaller businesses with minimal capital behind them, this can make leasing a very attractive option. You may not own the asset, but you can make use of it – and this may be the difference between the success or failure of your business. - Pro: You can spread the cost – there is still an associated cost of leasing, but you can spread the cost over a longer period, making it easier to find the necessary liquid cash to meet your lease payments. With this money saved, you can then invest in other areas of the business, helping you to expand, grow and bring in more customers and revenue. - Con: You don’t own the asset – there are different types of leasing agreement. Under a capital lease, you do own the asset (once you’ve paid if off). But if you opt for an operating lease, this is a more short-term lease and you won’t own the asset at the end of the contract. Ownership does have its advantages (including being able to sell off the asset if required) so it’s important to consider what kind of leasing agreement you’re entering into and what the advantages/disadvantages may be. - Con: You may pay more in the long run – most leasing agreements will attract additional costs and interest on your agreement, so you may well end up paying more than the market price for your asset in the long term. If you can cope with the higher cost, this is fine, but bear in mind that buying outright may have offered greater value. - Con: You may lose the use of the asset – if you can’t keep up your lease payments (due to poor cashflow for example) then the owner of the lease agreement may recall the asset. If this item is crucial to your business model, losing this key asset can have a profound impact on your ability to operate. In this respect, leasing is a more risky prospect, but also an easier option for businesses with less cash to splash.Talk to us about whether buying or leasing is the best way forward. Whether you opt to buy or lease your equipment isn’t always a straightforward decision to make – so it’s a good idea to consult with your accountant early on in the decision-making process. We’ll help you review your current financial position, assess your available cashflow and look at your regular cost base to decide whether buying or leasing is the right thing for your business.