The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has warned that any move by the Government to change the taxation regime surrounding the supply of financial services to a more principles-based approach will carry with it the danger of market disruption and higher compliance costs.
In a submission responding to a Treasury consultation paper reviewing the Goods and Services Act's financial supply provisions, ASFA said it did not support the replacement of the existing regime with a principles-based approach.
It said it also did not support a reduction in the 75 per cent rate applicable to reduced input tax credits in the present rules, which it said would then need to be met from members' accounts and would thus need to be reflected in either higher fees to members or reduced investment returns.
The ASFA submission said while it had some concerns about the complexity of the financial supply provisions, having lived with them for nine years, the initial complexities and confusions had been progressively worked through.
"At considerable expense, organisations have educated their staff on the operations of the provision and have implemented appropriate IT systems and an appropriate risk management framework," it said. "The replacement of the existing law with a set of principles would likely involve significant cost, especially with respect to the reimplementation of what is largely a settled area of tax law."
The super fund has significantly grown its membership following the inclusion of Zurich’s OneCare Super policyholders.
Super balances have continued to rise in August, with research showing Australian funds have maintained strong momentum, delivering steady gains for members.
Australian Retirement Trust and State Street Investment Management have entered a partnership to deliver global investment insights and practice strategies to Australian advisers.
CPA Australia is pressing the federal government to impose stricter rules on the naming and marketing of managed investment and superannuation products that claim to be “sustainable”, “ethical”, or “responsible”, warning that vague or untested claims are leaving investors exposed.