Estate Planning Strategies

Transcription

1 Estate Planning Strategies

2 Overview of Our Services

3 Services SuperIQ and Super Concepts provides a full range of SMSF services SMSF accounting and administration services End of Year service (closed to new clients existing clients can continue) Continuous service (our main service) Online Dashboards End of Year service clients have online access to fund info at last balance date Continuous service clients have access to up to date info about their fund at all times Trustee Services Trust deeds / upgrades Pension documents Fund restructures Borrowing documents Technical Services & Education

4 Dashboard continuous admin service Up to date fund balance Outstanding admin & compliance tasks Current investment strategy Contribution caps and current year summary Pension minimums and maximums and current year summary

5 Dashboard end of year admin service Fund balance at last balance date Outstanding admin & compliance tasks Investment strategy at last balance date

6 Accessing your dashboard Please contact us if you would like help accessing your Dashboard or if you would like to move from the End of Year service to our continuous Administration service

7 Estate Planning Strategies

8 Agenda What happens to your super when you die? Who controls your SMSF? Case Law examples Tax on superannuation death benefits Using the legislation to get the best outcome How can we help?

9 Who controls your super when you die? The Trustee has full discretion to whom the benefit is paid. Unless: There is a Binding Death Benefit Nomination (BDBN). The pension is reversionary. With an SMSF the Fund s Trust Deed may appoint the deceased s Executor as Trustee. If individual Trustees a second individual Trustee will need to be appointed within 6 months. With a Company the sole surviving Member can be the Director.

10 Case Study Craig and Helen are individual Trustees and Members of their SMSF. They are Executors of each other s Estate. They have pensions in their SMSF that automatically revert to each other on death. Craig passes away. Craig s pension would automatically go to Helen (it does not stop). Helen would need to appoint a second individual Trustee. The title to all investments would need to change. Helen would have to do this within 6 months.

11 Case Study (cont.) Craig and Helen are Members of their SMSF. They have a Company as Trustee of their SMSF. They are Executors of each other s Estate. They have pensions in their SMSF that revert to each other on death. Craig passes away. Craig s pension would automatically go to Helen (it does not stop). Helen would not need to appoint a second Director of the Company. The title to all investments does not need to change.

12 Case Study (cont.) Craig and Helen are Members of their SMSF. They have a Company as Trustee of their SMSF. They are Executors of each other s Estate and have a BDBN to each other. They have pensions in their SMSF that do not revert to each other on death. Craig passes away. Craig s pension would cease and his benefit roll back to accumulation. Helen would not need to appoint a second Director of the Company. The Trustee would have to pay Craig s benefit to Helen.

13 Case Study (cont.) Craig and Helen are Members of their SMSF. They have a Company as Trustee of their SMSF. They are Executors of each other s Estate and do not have a BDBN to each other. They have pensions in their SMSF that do not revert to each other on death. Craig passes away. Craig s pension would cease and his benefit roll back to accumulation. Helen would not need to appoint a second Director of the Company. The Trustee does not have to pay Craig s benefit to Helen.

14 Binding Death Benefit or Reversionary Pension? A BDBN is a direction from the Member to the Trustee instructing how the Trustee should pay the Member s benefit if they die. Superannuation benefits can only be paid to dependants. Can include the estate of the deceased. A BDBN is binding on the Trustee of the Fund. However a reversionary pension does not cease on death it seamlessly continues to the reversionary pension recipient. Therefore the reversionary pension wins. But it often depends on the Fund s Trust Deed and other documentation.

15 Case Study Richard has a pension and accumulation benefit in his fund. The pension is reversionary to his spouse, Sandy. Richard has a BDBN that states his benefit is to go to Grant, his Son from his first marriage. On Richard s death the pension will continue to Sandy. The accumulation benefit will go to Grant. If the pension was non-reversionary, the whole benefit on Richard s death would go to Grant. This is where things can go wrong!

16 Can a reversionary pension be commuted back to accumulation? Yes, but need to be very careful, as a commutation may, in some circumstances, be considered a contribution. If the surviving spouse is not eligible to make a contribution, or the contribution is above their cap, the money may need to be refunded to the contributor. In this case this could mean the money leaves the superannuation system entirely.

17 Can a reversionary pension be commuted back to accumulation? This could occur where the reversionary pension is commuted within the death benefits period (s307-5(3) of the ITAA 1997): 6 months after the death of the deceased person; 3 months after the Grant of Probate of the deceased s Will; If payment delayed because of legal action, 6 months after legal action ceases; and If the payment is delayed because beneficiaries cannot be identified, 6 months after that process is completed. The Commissioner can also make a decision that the lump sum is not a superannuation benefit.

18 Case Study Jessica and Daron are a married couple. They are 67 years of age and retired. They each have pensions worth $700,000 that are reversionary. Daron passes away on 1 January His pension automatically reverts to Jessica. She now has two pensions her own and Daron s reversionary pension. She wants to combine the two pensions into one large pension. She commutes the pension on 1 March 2015.

19 Case Study As this is within the periods stipulated is s307-5 (ITAA 1997), it is a death benefit and will therefore be considered a contribution. Jessica is not eligible to make a contribution, as she is 67 and retired. Therefore the $700,000 benefit will have to be refunded to the contributor in this instance it is Jessica. The $700,000 superannuation benefit has now left the tax free superannuation system. If Jessica commuted the pension outside the death benefits period it could be rolled over and the two pensions combined.

20 Tax on Death Benefits Only a spouse, disabled child, person with an inter-dependant relationship, financial dependant or minor child can take a death benefit as a pension. An independent adult child or the Member s estate can receive a death benefit, but only as a lump sum. Death is a compulsory cashing event the deceased s benefit must be used to commence a pension, continue a reversionary pension or paid as a lump sum. Lump sum going to an independent adult child or the Member s estate may be subject to lump sum tax. Lump sum to tax dependant is tax free.

21 Tax on Death Benefits If the benefit is going to a Tax dependant they receive the benefit tax free if received as a lump sum or a pension. How broad can the definition of a Tax Dependant be? Interdependency: (a) they have a close personal relationship; and (b) they live together; and (c) one or each of them provides the other with financial support; and (d) one or each of them provides the other with domestic support and personal care. SIS Definition can also include a personal who is financially dependant. Can a grand-child be a financial dependant?

22 Tax on Death Benefits Financial dependency is a question of fact. The ATO has a stricter view than the Courts (but the ATO view is not LAW). As a rule of thumb the Grandparent would need to: Provide the cost of at least half the daily necessities of food, shelter and clothing. And school fees. Private school fees would not necessarily be seen as a necessity rather a quality of life issue. Only the necessities of life are relevant.

23 Tax on Death Benefits Lump sum tax is payable as follows if benefit goes to SIS dependant : Tax Free Nil Taxable 15%* *Plus Medicare Levy. The tax free component consists of non-concessional and undeducted contributions (also Pre 1 July 1983 component). The taxable component is the rest. The fund withholds the tax and pays the net benefit to the SIS dependant. If lump sum paid to the estate no Medicare Levy.

24 Case Study Larry, 66, has a benefit in his fund of $700,000. It is 50% tax free and 50% taxable. Larry has a BDBN to his only Son Curly, who is an independent adult child. Larry passes away and Curly receives the benefit directly. The lump sum tax would be $350,000 x 17% = $59,500. The net benefit of $640,500 is paid to Curly.

25 Case Study (cont.) If Larry had a BDBN to his Legal Personal Representative instead: Curly could be named as the beneficiary under the Will. As the Estate has received the superannuation benefit, no Medicare Levy. The lump sum tax would be $350,000 x 15% = $52,500. The net benefit of $647,500 could be paid to Curly. A tax saving of $7,000. If Curly was a tax dependant he could take Larry s benefit as a tax free lump sum or tax free income stream.

26 Tax on Death Benefits Tax on pensions depends on age. If the deceased was 60 pension is tax-free to recipient. If the recipient is 60 pension is tax-free. If both aged <60 pension it depends on the pension components: Tax Free Taxable Nil MTR less 15% rebate Pension becomes tax free once the death benefit pension recipient turns 60.

27 Case Law Provide examples of what can go wrong. Remember the Trustee of the Fund often determines where your super benefit goes. Superannuation is not an estate asset. Trustee may not be the same as the recipient of your super. It is almost impossible to fix errors after that fact. Effective Estate Planning crucial to ensure a fair and equitable outcome. Specialist advice now can save lots of money in the future!

28 McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 Son, James, died 14 July Died intestate, but lived with his Mother. Mother and Father were divorced and had an acrimonious relationship. Mother applied to be Administrator of James Estate. It was clear that James was very close to his Mother, but had little to do with his Father. Letters of Administration granted 24 September Mother agreed to distribute son s estate 50/50 with the estranged Father.

29 McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 His estate was small - $80,000, but he had $454,000 in 3 industry super funds. He had no valid BDBNs, but did have non-binding nominations to his Mother. As Legal Personal Representative (LPR), the Mother divided the estate evenly. However, as she was in an interdependency relationship with her son, she applied to the super Trustees to pay the super monies to herself. She argued super was not an estate asset, so as a dependant was entitled to the monies and it did not need to pass through the estate.

30 McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 The Trustees of the industry funds complied. But Father s Lawyers disagreed with this, and it went to Court. Court said as she was LPR and acting in that capacity she should have sought the maximum amount for the estate not herself. As LPR appointed by the Court, she had a fiduciary duty to maximise the estate. Therefore the Court ordered the super proceeds form part of the estate and be distributed evenly between the Mother and Father. It was clear from Court evidence this was largely inequitable.

31 McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 The Court said valid BDBNs would have ensured the monies went to the Mother and not 50% to the Father. Also if the Son had a Will that appointed his Mother as LPR, the super monies could also be paid to her. This would show the Testator exercising choice. The Willmaker the knowledge of all the facts is making a conscious decision to give the LPR the ability to pursue their personal interests. Whilst BDBNs remove uncertainty, they are far from perfect.

32 Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti & Anor [2013] WASC 389 Defendant and his Wife established an SMSF in July Both were Members and individual Trustees. Wife died in August She did not have a valid BDBN. Her Will stated she wanted her super to go to her 4 daughters from her first marriage. She specifically stated she did not want her super to go to her second husband. The SMSF Trust Deed stated, in the absence of a BDBN, the Trustee had absolute discretion as to where a benefit is paid.

33 Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti & Anor [2013] WASC 389 On advice the second husband as the surviving Trustee appointed a newly established Company as Trustee. The Corporate Trustee resolved to pay all of the wife s benefit to the second husband. Therefore $650,000 was paid to the husband from the second marriage and not the children from the first marriage. The Executors of the deceased s estate (two of the 4 daughters) challenged this decision. They argued the Trustee had not exercised discretion in a bona fide manner.

34 Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti & Anor [2013] WASC 389 They also argued other points (regarding the appointment of the Executors as SMSF Trustee amongst other things). The WA Supreme Court said the Trustee was within its right to make the payment. The Trustee was within its right to make the payment to himself and ignore the direction of the deceased s Will. Furthermore the surviving Trustee was not obliged to appoint an Executor of the deceased s Estate as a Trustee of the SMSF. Therefore the second husband received the $650,000 benefit.

35 Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti & Anor [2013] WASC 389 A valid BDBN would have meant: The 4 daughters received the benefit. They would be appointed Co-Trustee of the SMSF. The Trustee would be bound by the wishes of the deceased. The second husband would not be entitled to the deceased s benefit.

36 Wooster v Morris [2013] VSC 594 Mr and Mrs Morris established an SMSF in August Both were Members and individual Trustees. Mr Morris had two daughters from a previous marriage. Mrs Morris had a son from a previous marriage. Mr Morris executed a BDBN in favour of his two daughters. He died on 27 February Mrs Morris sought legal advice, which said the BDBN was not valid.

37 Wooster v Morris [2013] VSC 594 Mrs Morris then appointed a new Company as Trustee of the Fund, with herself the sole Director. The new Company then resolved to pay the $924,000 benefit to her and not the two daughters. The Plaintiffs then issued court proceedings. It was agreed a Special Referee would hear the case to keep costs down. The Special Referee found the BDBN was in fact valid. The Special Referee also recommended the Defendants pay the legal and accounting fees.

38 Wooster v Morris [2013] VSC 594 Mrs Morris and the Corporate Trustee took the matter to Court. The Court upheld the decision, and also stated the deceased s benefit should be paid from all monies in the Fund (including Mrs Morris s benefit). Furthermore the Court ordered the Company and Mrs Morris pay the Plaintiff s cost of the proceedings. The Court stated Mrs Morris did not act in the best interests of the Members or their beneficiaries. By doing this she had forgone her right to indemnity from the Fund s assets.

39 Wooster v Morris [2013] VSC 594 In summation, Justice McMillan made the following declarations: The deceased s BDBN was valid and binding on the SMSF Trustee/s. All monies held in the SMSF were to be made available to meet the payments required. And the following orders: Upper Swan as SMSF Trustee and Mrs Morris personally pay the shortfall owing on the deceased s benefit, plus interest. The judgement amount be paid within 14 days. Upper Swan and Mrs Morris pay the plaintiffs costs of the proceedings.

40 Wooster v Morris [2013] VSC 594 A better outcome would have been: The Fund have a Company as Trustee. The Executors be appointed as Directors of the Company. Mr Morris s benefit could then be paid in accordance with his wishes. Mrs Morris would have saved herself $350,000!

41 Donovan v Donovan [2009] QSC 26 Two years before the Member died he wrote a letter to the SMSF Trustee. The letter expressed his wish for his benefit to go to his Legal Personal Representative. The benefit was then to be distributed according to his Will. After his death the validity of the deceased s letter was challenged in Court. The deceased s second wife (the sole remaining Trustee) stated is was not a valid BDBN and therefore didn t bind the Trustee. She stated the Trustee (herself) was able to exercise discretion as to whom the deceased s benefit was to be paid.

42 Donovan v Donovan [2009] QSC 26 The deceased s daughter from the first marriage argued the BDBN did not need to take any particular form. Therefore the deceased s death benefit should form part of his Estate. The Court held the BDBN was not in a form that bound the Trustee. The nomination needed to be in the form that satisfied the statutory requirements. Therefore it needed to be in the form prescribed in Regulation 6.17A(6) of the SIS Regulations (1994).

43 Donovan v Donovan [2009] QSC 26 Although the Deed allowed for both Binding and Non-Binding Nominations, the letter from the Member did not specify what type of nomination it was. The outcome was that, whilst the Trustee was entitled to take into account the desires of the Member, it was not bound by the nomination. This was because it was not in a form that bound the Trustee under the Fund s governing rules (the Trust Deed). Therefore the Trustee was free to exercise absolute discretion in the payment of the benefit. The deceased s wishes were ignored.

44 Donovan v Donovan [2009] QSC 26 A valid BDBN would have ensured: The super benefit was paid to the deceased s estate. It would then be able to be encompassed by the deceased s Will. The deceased s wishes would have been realised.

45 Katz v Grossman [2005] NSWSC 934 Ervin Katz became sole individual Trustee of an SMSF on the death of his wife Linda. He appointed his daughter, Linda Grossman, as Co-Trustee. He had two children, Linda and Daniel. He intended for them to share equally on his death. He completed a Non-Binding Death Benefit Nomination to this effect.

46 Katz v Grossman [2005] NSWSC 934 After his death, however, Linda, as the sole remaining individual Trustee, appointed her husband as Co-Trustee. The Trustees then decided to pay all of the super benefit to Linda (and did not follow the Non-Binding Death Benefit Nomination). The super benefits were $1,000,000. Daniel challenged this decision. The NSW Supreme Court rejected Daniel s case. As the deceased only completed a Non-Binding Death Benefit Nomination the SMSF Trustee was not bound by it.

47 How can these outcomes be avoided? Seek specialist guidance a little set-up cost now goes a long way later. Make sure the documentation is in place: The Fund s Deed is up-to-date. Pensions are properly documented as reversionary. Non-lapsing BDBNs are in place and are valid. The Fund has a Company as Trustee. The right person (or people) are Executors of your Estate and become Directors of the Corporate Trustee.

48 Estate Planning Controversial ruling regarding superannuation pensions ATO stated pensions cease on the death of the primary pensioner. Unless reversionary, pension assets revert back to accumulation mode. Therefore if a lump sum is paid from the fund, Capital Gains Tax (CGT) could apply. This would be in addition to lump sum tax if the benefit was to go to a nondependant. The CGT on the capital gain would be at the superannuation accumulation rate of 15% (less 1/3 discount).

49 Estate Planning Case Study Barry is a widower and sole member of his SMSF. He has a non-reversionary Account Based Pension with a capital value of $3m. The assets of the fund include a property valued at $1,000,000 with a cost base of $250,000. Barry has a BDBN to his Legal Personal Representative who is also his only child, Dwayne. Barry passes away. Dwayne decides he wants to sell the property in the fund.

50 Estate Planning Case Study (cont.) Sale Price $1,000,000 Less: Cost Base ($250,000) Net Capital Gain $750,000 Less: CGT discount ($250,000) Assessable Capital Gain $500,000 CGT Payable by SMSF ($75,000) Net Amount $925,000 Ignores CGT on other fund assets. Does not include lump sum tax on benefit being received by non-dependant. In addition, income may be taxable on the investment prior to sale.

51 Estate Planning Changes announced in Mid Year Economic Forecast The ATO s stance has always seemed inequitable. Government announcement meant investment earnings on assets supporting pensions remain exempt from tax. Even when there is no reversionary recipient. The tax exemption will continue following the death of a pension recipient until the deceased member s benefit is paid from the fund. Must be paid out as soon as practicable. Will only apply from 1 July 2012.

52 Estate Planning Case Study In the previous example the sale of the property, if done as soon as practicable, will be exempt from CGT. Therefore Dwayne s gross benefit will increase by $75,000. Lump sum tax where the benefit is paid to non-dependants may still apply. Recent legislative amendments have now enshrined this into law. Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Superannuation Measures No.1) Regulation But the amendment has further ramifications.

53 Estate Planning Treatment of pensions on death The amendment includes investment earnings on assets used to support a pension. Earnings will have the same proportion of tax free/taxable components as the pension. Does not include insurance proceeds or amounts allocated from an antidetriment reserve. These amounts would be considered a taxable component. Remember this only applies to non-reversionary pensions the rules did not change for reversionary pensions.

54 Estate Planning Treatment of pensions on death Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Superannuation Measures No.1) Regulation 2013 also states a non-reversionary pension remains a separate superannuation interest - even after death. This means the tax free/taxable components crystallised at the commencement of the pension will be retained if the benefit is paid as a lump sum or new pension. This announcement provides some strategic estate planning opportunities. But only if paid as soon as practicable.

55 Estate Planning Case Study - Earnings Betty was in receipt of a non-reversionary pension at the time of her death on 1 July Betty s spouse Simon, who is also Betty s Executor, wishes to take Betty s benefit as a pension. Betty s benefit was $650,000 at the date of death, consisting of 50% tax free and 50% taxable components. Simon receives Grant of Probate on 1 November Simon commences a pension on 1 November with Betty s $800,000 superannuation interest.

56 Estate Planning Case Study Earnings (cont.) The $800,000 benefit will 50% tax free and 50% taxable components. Therefore $400,000 tax free and $400,000 taxable. Previously the rules stated the $150,000 earnings would be a taxable component, as the separate superannuation interest ceased on death. So the benefit started as a pension on 1 November by Simon would have been as follows: Tax Free $325,000 (40.6%) Taxable $475,000 (59.4%)

57 Estate Planning Case Study Separate Superannuation Interest Bill, 61, was in receipt of two non-reversionary pensions one 100% tax free and one 100% taxable. Tax Free Pension $500,000 (50%) Taxable Pension $500,000 (50%) Fund asset cost base is $500,000 ($500,000 unrealised gain). Bill passed away on 1 July Bill s wife, Wendy, Bill s Executor, decides to pay the 100% tax free pension as a cash lump sum to their adult child Mark on 1 September Wendy decides to take Bill s 100% taxable pension as a death benefit pension on 1 September 2013.

58 Estate Planning Case Study Separate Superannuation Interest (cont.) Assets are sold within the Fund to allow for the cash lump sum to Mark. The Fund earns 10% from the date of Bill s death until the benefits are paid. Under the changes announced the assets sold to fund the tax free lump sum to Mark will be included in Exempt Current Pension Income (no CGT). Earnings on the assets used to pay pensions will be in the same proportion of tax free/taxable components. Also the superannuation interests remain separate superannuation interests and can be dealt with separately.

59 Estate Planning Case Study Separate Superannuation Interest (cont.) Under the old rules CGT on sale of assets: Sale Price $550,000 Less: Cost Base ($250,000) Net Capital Gain $300,000 Less: CGT discount ($100,000) Assessable Capital Gain $200,000 CGT Payable by SMSF ($30,000) Net Amount $520,000

60 Estate Planning Case Study Separate Superannuation Interest (cont.) Earnings on the assets will be in the same proportion as the superannuation interests (i.e. either tax free or taxable). Tax Free Pension $550,000 (50%) Taxable Pension $550,000 (50%) Prior legislation meant the two superannuation interests would be mixed on death. The Fund would consist of one accumulation account. Earnings on an accumulation interest are a taxable component.

61 Estate Planning Case Study Separate Superannuation Interest (cont.) Prior to amendments, earnings would be on an accumulation benefit and therefore a taxable component: Tax Free Component $500,000 (45.45%) Taxable Component $600,000 (54.55%) Therefore Mark would receive a benefit that was part tax free/taxable: Tax Free Component $243,158 (45.45%) Taxable Component $291,842 (54.55%) Therefore lump sum tax of $291,842 x 17% = $49,613 would be payable.

62 Estate Planning Case Study Separate Superannuation Interest (cont.) So prior to Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Superannuation Measures No.1) Regulation 2013 : Net amount received by Mark = $550,000 - $15,000 - $49,613 = $485,387. The superannuation interests ceased to be separate superannuation interests on death. Assets sold to fund the lump sum to Mark will be in accumulation mode and subject to CGT. Earnings on the assets will be a taxable component.

63 Estate Planning Case Study Separate Superannuation Interest (cont.) Post Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Superannuation Measures No.1) Regulation 2013 : Net amount received by Mark = $550,000 (a difference of $64,613). The superannuation interests remain separate superannuation interests on death and can be dealt with separately. Assets sold to fund the lump sum to Mark will be included in Exempt Current Pension Income (no CGT). Earnings on the assets will be the same proportion as the superannuation interests (i.e. either tax free or taxable). But only if done as soon as practicable.

64 Estate Planning Case Study Insurance Proceeds Richard was in receipt of a non-reversionary pension at the time of his death on 1 July The pension benefit in the fund was $600,000 and consisted entirely of a tax free component. Richard was covered by a life insurance policy held by the fund. The fund was paid $500,000 in respect of Richard s death. The amount was added to the superannuation interest that had supported Richard s income stream. But only if pension non-reversionary.

65 Estate Planning Case Study Insurance Proceeds (cont.) The Trustee of the fund decides to pay Richard s spouse Emma an income stream from 1 November 2013, which was as soon as practicable. The income stream consists of Richard s superannuation interest and the insurance proceeds. The benefit started as a pension on 1 November by Emma would be as follows: Tax Free $600,000 (54.55%) Taxable $500,000 (45.45%) Any earnings on the $600,000 from 1 July to 1 November 2013 will be exempt from tax.

66 Estate Planning Case Study Insurance Proceeds (cont.) If Richard s pension had been reversionary to Emma, the insurance proceeds would be the same component as the superannuation interest. As the pension was 100% tax free, the insurance proceeds received by the fund would also be tax free. So the benefit started as a pension on 1 November by Emma would be as follows: Tax Free $1,100,000 (100%) Any earnings on the $1,100,000 from 1 July to 1 November 2013 will be exempt from tax.

67 Services to support SMSF Trustees How can we help? Advice technical, structuring and procedural advice. Consultations analysis of individual circumstances. Documents Minutes, Trustee Resolutions, member requests and Pension Agreements.

68 Disclaimer This presentation was prepared by SuperIQ Pty Ltd (ABN ) ( SIQ ). Material contained in this presentation is a summary only and is based on information believed to be reliable and received from sources within the market. The information is believed to be accurate at the time of compilation and is provided by SIQ in good faith. However, the statements including assumptions and conclusions are not intended to be a comprehensive statement of relevant practice or law that is often complex and can change. It is not the intention of SIQ that this presentation be used as the primary source of readers information but as an adjunct to their own resources and training. To the extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage as a result of any reliance on this information. SuperIQ does not guarantee the performance of any fund or the return of an investor's capital. No representation is given, warranty made or responsibility taken as to the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any information or recommendation contained in this publication and SIQ will not be liable to the reader in contract or tort (including for negligence) or otherwise for any loss or damage arising as a result of the reader relying on any such information or recommendation (except in so far as any statutory liability cannot be excluded). Individual circumstances, in particular relating to self managed superannuation funds, may vary greatly. This presentation has been prepared for general information purposes only and not having regard to any particular person s investment objectives, financial situation or needs. Accordingly, no recommendation (express or implied) or other information should be acted upon without obtaining specific advice from an authorised representative.

69 See your future clearly superiq.com.au superconcepts.com.au