One of the more intriguing recommendations from the Phase Three preliminary report is that SMSFs be prevented from being established or renamed using a name which is the same or similar to an existing APRA-regulated fund. This recommendation came out of an ASFA submission.
The concern is that it would be too easy to 'mirror' a well-established APRA regulated fund. No evidence is offered to suggest that this is an existing problem, or even likely to be a problem in the future. It's hard to imagine how this might be a problem. There are sufficient facilities for those needing to ascertain whether a fund is regulated or not. An employer who contributed to such a fund without making appropriate checks would either be reckless, grossly negligent or deliberately fraudulent.
Sure, it's a simple matter to make the amendment, and it won't have any major impact on most SMSFs, but one has to ask whether this change - like the banning of collectables - fixes a problem which at worst is marginal.
No comments:
Post a Comment