|
|
此文章由 Hillwang 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 Hillwang 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
Charterhill，一个专门通过自我管理退休金从事房地产投资的会计师事务所，最近倒闭了。投资者和自我管理退休金（SMSF）受托人应该从中吸取一些宝贵的教训。由于企业倒闭，约有160投资者和中小经营者因此损失了700万元。
Charterhill像许多其他物业发展企业，它提供一站式服务，包括物业研究中心，物业采购部门，物业发展部门，一个自我管理退休金SMSF建立和管理服务部门，以及针对中小经营者贷款业务部门。
这种垂直整合的金融服务业务形式已被主要银行采用来实现利益最大化。不幸的是这种商业模式往往最大化的是金融集团的利润而会对投资者造成损害。
当该集团提供投资意见，比如什么人应该投资，应该投资什么最好，做投资研究，提供贷款，还负责开发和管理的投资，很难想象在这其中不发生影响判断的利益关系冲突。
Charterhill在推广其服务时提出了以下四个方面，为什么利用SMSF借贷购买房地产比个人负扣税购买房地产更好：
1，可以通过税前可抵扣供款偿付自我管理退休金SMSF贷款。
2，可以利用退休金购买增长幅度较大的资产为退休后提供更舒适的生活。
3，可以通过SMSF购买他们希望退休后生活的居所。
4，通过购置物业，在自我管理退休金（SMSF）里利用利息和折旧产生的损失递减了强制雇主退休金和自愿工资转交退休金交纳的所得税。
如果那些在Charterhil购买了财产的中小经营业主投资者，就以上这四个利用自我管理退休金（SMSF）购买物业理由的正确性和可能性方面资讯（其他专家）获得了独立意见，他们就不会这样做了。
退休金被规定：唯一目的是提供退休福利。它不是提供投资于房地产的资金来源。
通过自我管理退休金（SMSF）购买房产基金不符合这一“唯一目的”的测试。
令人惊讶的是Charterhil的审计师将这样的自我管理退休金（SMSF）都划分为符合法规的退休金企业。
第四个原因在所得税方面更是没有意义。当现金流资金用于减税目的时，在个税情况下，个人支付的最低税率包括医疗保险征收等减税比例为20.5％，是比在自我管理退休金（SMSF）中抵减15 ％的所得税更有效的。
Charterhill失败倒不是最惊讶的，最惊讶的是，监管机构，澳大利亚证券及投资事务监察委员会ASIC及税务办公室ATO，对这样的问题也没有采取任何行动。
甚至在Charterhill的申报材料的常规审查中都应该敲响警钟。
Charterhill及其投资者发生了的事进一步证明不能在房地产市场价格上涨中责怪自我管理退休金（SMSF），而是应该对那些建议建立自我管理退休金（SMSF）进行物业投资的公司加强监管。
http://library.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx#
Article rank 17 Feb 2014 The Sydney Morning HeraldMax Newnham Max Newnham is founder of www.smsfsurvivalcentre.com.au Charterhill collapse a salutary lesson for investors The recent collapse of the Charterhill group, an accountancy firm that specialised in property investment through self-managed super funds, should provide some valuable lessons for investors and SMSF trustees. As a result of the collapse, approximately 160 investors and SMSFs stand to lose $7 million.
Charterhill was like many other property development businesses. It offered a one-stop shop consisting of a property research centre, a property sourcing company, a property development company, an SMSF formation and administration service, and a loan originating service sourcing finance for SMSFs.
This type of vertical integration in a financial services business is one that has been used to maximum advantage by the major banks. Unfortunately this type of business model often maximises the profits of the financial group to the detriment of investors.
Where a group provides investment advice as to what people should invest in, provides research on what are the best investments to buy, assists in providing loans so that investments can be bought, and also develops and manages the investments, it is hard to imagine how there cannot be a conflict of interest at some point.
The Charterhill group in marketing its services put forward the following four reasons why it was better to buy a property with borrowings in an SMSF rather than negatively gearing it personally:
Members can reduce the SMSF loan by making concessional deductible contributions.
Members can leverage the amount that they contribute to superannuation by buying a larger growth asset for a more comfortable retirement.
A member can buy a home now through an SMSF that they want to live in when they retire.
By buying a property in an SMSF the loss created due to interest and depreciation reduces the income tax payable on the compulsory employer and salary sacrifice contributions. If investors that had set up SMSFs and bought property through Charterhill had obtained independent advice as to the correctness of these four reasons for buying property in a super fund, there is a high likelihood they would not have proceeded. The sole purpose of superannuation is to provide retirement benefits. It is not to provide a source of funding for people to invest in property. By setting up an SMSF to buy property the fund does not meet this sole purpose test. It is surprising that the auditors of the SMSFs set up by Charterhill regarded them as complying super funds. The fourth reason given also does not make sense on income tax. Where a person has sufficient cash flow to fund the rental loss obtaining a tax deduction at 20.5 per cent, the lowest tax rate including Medicare Levy paid by an individual, is more tax effective than reducing the 15 per cent tax payable on super contributions. That the Charterhill group failed should come as no surprise. What is surprising is that the regulators, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Tax Office, did not take action against the group at some point. Even a casual review of the marketing material produced by Charterhill should have set the alarm bells ringing. What has happened to Charterhill and its investors is further proof that SMSFs are not to blame for increased prices in the property market, but it is the companies that recommend the set up of an SMSF to buy property that need to be more highly regulated.
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
管理人员评分BOC 在2014-2-17 10:26 +40分 并说
|
墨尔本水族馆----很值得带小朋友去看哦（有照片） (2005-4-22) AgeanSea 
发表于 2014-2-17 10:21
