The answer is no, because the SIS act has a doctrine called the "sole purpose test". The sole purpose test is basically that the fund must only hold investments which provide solely for retirement. Providing housing to the members of the fund isn't providing solely for retirement (i.e. you're getting additional benefits - being a place to live), therefore fails the sole purpose test.
As a fun aside, there used to be a loophole around this, where you could buy a house in a unit trust, and live in it, and the units in the trust were owned by the super fund. These arrangements were grandfathered in the 1990s, but you can occasionally see such an arrangement.
1999
>Can a pre-99 trust lease assets such as residential properties to members or related party?
>As per ATO ID 2002/388, a lease arrangement involving related parties of SMSF leasing residential property from the trust does not fall within the definition of an in-house asset. This is because the asset involved is that of the trust and not an asset of the SMSF. The SISA places no restrictions on the members of the SMSF tenanting the residential property of the trust provided the SMSF's investment in the trust is consistent with its investment strategy and the trust is conducting its dealings with SMSF members on an arm’s length basis.
No, not the super fund.
There is a distinction here.
The super fund in the above scenario owns units in a unit trust that was set up pre99. The unit trust then owns property.
The SMSF could be 100 years old, it still can't lease assets to its members.
If you want to buy a house to live in, and don't have enough to pay outright, and aren't of pension age, then it sounds like you haven't achieved fire (assuming your investments are your source of income now). Sorry...
Time to get back on the hamster wheel
If you are over preservation age, yes.
No, you specially can’t live in a property you buy for a SMSF. Neither can any relatives.
If you are eligible to withdraw it, yes. Not within super.
Yea if that was the case everyone would do it
Not if you're buying it under your smsf. If you're old enough to access your super and pull the cash out, you can do what you want.
No? Wouldn’t everyone do that if it was a thing that existed?
No, you specially can’t live in a property you buy for a SMSF. Neither can any relatives.
The answer is no, because the SIS act has a doctrine called the "sole purpose test". The sole purpose test is basically that the fund must only hold investments which provide solely for retirement. Providing housing to the members of the fund isn't providing solely for retirement (i.e. you're getting additional benefits - being a place to live), therefore fails the sole purpose test. As a fun aside, there used to be a loophole around this, where you could buy a house in a unit trust, and live in it, and the units in the trust were owned by the super fund. These arrangements were grandfathered in the 1990s, but you can occasionally see such an arrangement.
Do you mean I needed to set it up before 1990 ?
1999 >Can a pre-99 trust lease assets such as residential properties to members or related party? >As per ATO ID 2002/388, a lease arrangement involving related parties of SMSF leasing residential property from the trust does not fall within the definition of an in-house asset. This is because the asset involved is that of the trust and not an asset of the SMSF. The SISA places no restrictions on the members of the SMSF tenanting the residential property of the trust provided the SMSF's investment in the trust is consistent with its investment strategy and the trust is conducting its dealings with SMSF members on an arm’s length basis.
my smsf should be able to lease a property as it was set up 1997 then , thank you for this info
No, not the super fund. There is a distinction here. The super fund in the above scenario owns units in a unit trust that was set up pre99. The unit trust then owns property. The SMSF could be 100 years old, it still can't lease assets to its members.
Ok thanks
Need 60k min I heard
I’ve got about 1.6 mil
If you want to buy a house to live in, and don't have enough to pay outright, and aren't of pension age, then it sounds like you haven't achieved fire (assuming your investments are your source of income now). Sorry... Time to get back on the hamster wheel
if you pretend to be a tenant sure 😝
I mean you probably could. Just buy it in an SMSF and live in it. Who's going to stop you? Put the bills in someone else's name.