Private ruling: Lump Sum payment from overseas defined benefit
Published: June 2013
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 2014
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2013

Ruling: Q1: Is the defined benefit plan (the Plan) which was established in an overseas country a 'foreign superannuation fund' for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997)? | A1: Yes.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You advised that you have not been a tax resident of Australia since year 2006. You became a member of the Plan which is a Defined Benefit Plan in an overseas country after the 2005 income year. You advised that the total amount of contributed funds in the Plan is approximately X. You stated that under the tax laws of the overseas country, the benefits can be taken out of your plan at age 59.5 years or earlier upon employer termination subject to an actuary report. You have not yet returned to Australia. You stated that you intend to terminate the Plan during the 2014 income year and request for the funds to be paid to you. You have indicated that you intend to return to Australia during the 2014 income year and intend to become a resident for tax purposes on this date.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 295-95(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 995-1(1) | Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 Section 19

Reasons for decision: Summary: As the Plan was established in an overseas country and is not an Australian superannuation fund, it is considered to be a foreign superannuation fund. | Detailed Reasoning - Foreign superannuation fund: A foreign superannuation fund is defined in subsection 995-1(1) of the ITAA 1997 as follows: (a) a superannuation fund is a foreign superannuation fund at a time if the fund is not an Australian superannuation fund at that time; and (b) a superannuation fund is a foreign superannuation fund for an income year if the fund is not an Australian superannuation fund for the income year. Subsection 295-95(2) of the ITAA 1997 defines Australian superannuation fund as follows: A superannuation fund is an Australian superannuation fund at a time, and for the income year in which that time occurs, if: (a) the fund was established in Australia, or any asset of the fund is situated in Australia at that time; and (b) at that time, the central management and control of the fund is ordinarily in Australia; and (c) at that time either the fund had no member covered by subsection (3) ( an active member ) or at least 50% of: (i) the total market value of the fund's assets attributable to superannuation interests held by active members; or (ii) the sum of the amounts that would be payable to or in respect of active members if they voluntarily ceased to be members; is attributable to superannuation interests held by active members who are Australian residents. Thus, a superannuation fund that is established outside of Australia and has its central management and control outside of Australia would qualify as a foreign superannuation fund . The fact that some of its members may be Australian residents would not necessarily alter this. In this case, you are a member of the Plan which was established in the overseas country and is not an Australian superannuation fund as defined in subsection 295-95(2) of the ITAA 1997. | Detailed Reasoning - Provident, benefit, superannuation or retirement fund: The High Court examined both the terms superannuation fund and fund in Scott v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No. 2) (1966) 10 AITR 290; (1966) 40 ALJR 265; (1966) 14 ATD 333 (Scott). In that case, Justice Windeyer stated: …I have come to the conclusion that 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. In this connexion "fund", I take it, ordinarily means money (or investments) set aside and invested, the surplus income therefrom being capitalised. I do not put this forward as a definition, but rather as a general description. The issue of what constitutes a provident, benefit, superannuation or retirement fund was discussed by the Full Bench of the High Court in Mahony v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1967) 41 ALJR 232; (1967) 14 ATD 519 ( Mahony ). In that case, Justice Kitto held that a fund had to exclusively be a 'provident, benefit or superannuation fund' and that 'connoted a purpose narrower than the purpose of conferring benefits in a completely general sense…'. This narrower purpose meant that the benefits had to be 'characterised by some specific future purpose' such as the example given by Justice Kitto of a funeral benefit. Furthermore, Justice Kitto's judgement indicated that a fund does not satisfy any of the three provisions, that is, 'provident, benefit or superannuation fund', if there exist provisions for the payment of benefits 'for any other reason whatsoever'. In other words, though a fund may contain provisions for retirement purposes, it could not be accepted as a superannuation fund if it contained provisions that benefits could be paid in circumstances other than those relating to retirement. In section 62 of the SIS Act, a regulated superannuation fund must be 'maintained solely' for the 'core purposes' of providing benefits to a member when the events occur: · on or after retirement from gainful employment; or · attaining a prescribed age; and · on the member's death. (this may require the benefits being passed on to a member's dependants or legal representative). Notwithstanding the SIS Act applies only to 'regulated superannuation funds' (as defined in section 19 of the SIS Act), and foreign superannuation funds do not qualify as regulated superannuation funds as they are established and operate outside Australia, the Commissioner views the SIS Act (and the SIS Regulations) as providing guidance as to what 'benefit' or 'specific future purpose' a superannuation fund should provide. In view of the legislation and the decisions made in Scott and Mahony , the Commissioner's view is that for a fund to be classified as a superannuation fund, it must exclusively provide a narrow range of benefits that are characterised by some specific future purpose. That is, the payment of superannuation benefits upon retirement, invalidity or death of the individual or as specified under the SIS Act. Therefore, in order for the lump sum payment from the overseas fund to be considered a payment from a foreign superannuation fund as defined in subsection 995-1(1) of the ITAA 1997, it must also satisfy the requirements set out in subsection 295-95(2) of the ITAA 1997. This means that it should not be an Australian superannuation fund as defined in that subsection but must be a provident, benefit, superannuation or retirement fund as discussed above. The documentation provided indicates your benefits in the Plan are only payable upon retirement and the fund would meet the definition of a superannuation fund. In addition, it is clear the payers of the lump sum payments were established outside of Australia with their central management and control outside of Australia. Therefore, on the basis of the information provided, the Commissioner is likely to consider any lump sum payments received as from a foreign superannuation fund as defined in subsection 995-1(1) of the ITAA 1997.