Related party purchases must be clean
Trustees must ensure any purchase from a related party is not a proxy for a loan or financial assistance to avoid breaching their obligations.

SMSF trustees making purchases of business real property from a related party for inclusion in their fund need to ensure the transaction is not a proxy for a loan to a member to avoid breaching trustee obligations, a technical expert has warned.
Colonial First State head of technical services Craig Day said SMSF trustees could make certain purchases from a related party, but any transaction had to be carried out at market value and without any obligations attached.
“There is a need to watch out for financial assistance because a fund is prohibited from lending money or providing any form of financial assistance to a member or a relative of a member,” Day said during a session on the use of lumpy assets in an SMSF at the recent Tax Institute National Superannuation Online Conference.
“Financial assistance includes a wide range of circumstances and can include any security, obligation or lien over fund assets that provides financial assistance to a member where it relies upon assets of the fund.”
He said it did not matter if the assets of the SMSF were impacted or not, but rather as soon as a member, or a relative of a member, relies on the assets to get financial assistance it was a breach of section 65 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act.
Any form of financing arrangements would also create a breach as an SMSF member cannot provide any sort of assistance that would constitute or look like the provision of finance to a member or a relative of a member, he said.
“An example that has been given of this is where a member owns commercial property and sells it into their SMSF, and uses the capital released to invest into their business and then later arranges to buy the business real property back off the fund in the way that would constitute the repayment of a loan,” he said.
“Most people would never do this because of the transaction costs involved, but if someone is desperate for investment, but can’t get a bank loan, then you do see these types of arrangements, and it is financial assistance and it breaches section 65.”
Jason Spits
October 26, 2020
smsfmagazine.com.au
Hot Issues
- SMSF commercial property owners and Div 296 ‘misconceptions’
- 7 simple steps to get on the investment ladder
- Can I access my super early?
- Magnificent Seven: More diverse than they may appear
- Look for the red flags that signal unscrupulous advice
- Carer responsibilities don’t meet interdependency criteria: PBR
- LRBA stability has been understated
- From Bricks to iPhones: The Evolution of the Telephone
- Interest rates likely to stay higher for longer
- Iran conflict: Keeping perspective on market risk
- Most Valuable Industries in the World 2026
- In turbulent times, stick to your long-term wealth strategy
- SMSF trustees acting badly – further disqualification cases
- Know the difference between death benefit pension and normal pension or pay the price
- View Division 296 as two-stage event
- Rise in SMSF inflows indicate more people are moving into the sector
- Super versus trusts: What is the best option with Div 296?
- Thinking of establishing an SMSF? Don’t skip reading the rules
- Investment and economic outlook, February 2026
- Coercive control in SMSF becoming a hot issue
- Are downsizer contributions losing steam?
- What to look for when choosing a financial adviser
- AI use needed with proper safeguards
- Most Reliable Car Brands in 2026
- ASIC targeting high-pressure sales and inappropriate advice
- Investment and economic outlook, January 2026
- Australians not underspending their super
- Five financial steps for the new year
- ASIC warns investors on pump and dump scammers
- Don’t confuse contribution with roll-over when using proceeds from small business sale
- Missed SG exemption may not be problem
- Rare and vanishing: Animals That May Go Extinct Soon
Article archive
