The Federal Government has been told that blame for breaching the rules around superannuation income streams should be carried by the income stream provider, rather than the superannuant.
Tax and Super Australia, previously known as Tax Payers Australia, has used its pre-Budget submission to the Treasury to argue for legislative amendments which would effectively place additional responsibility on income stream product providers.
The submission calls on the Government to amend the relevant sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act to give effect to the change.
“Penalties for a failure by the superannuation income stream provider to comply with the commutation authority should be directed to the provider and not the superannuant,” the submission said.
It pointed out that the new section of the Act required a superannuation income stream provider to comply with a commutation authority but that the penalty for non-compliance was then levied on the superannuant.
“The penalty should instead be directed to the superannuation income stream provider,” the submission said.
A ratings firm has placed more prominence on governance in its fund ratings, highlighting that it’s not just about how much money a fund makes today, but whether the people running it are trustworthy, disciplined, and able to deliver for members in the future.
AMP has reached an agreement in principle to settle a landmark class action over fees charged to members of its superannuation funds, with $120 million earmarked for affected members.
Australia’s second-largest super fund is prioritising impact investing with a $2 billion commitment, targeting assets that deliver a combination of financial, social, and environmental outcomes.
The super fund has significantly grown its membership following the inclusion of Zurich’s OneCare Super policyholders.
So Fund A should pay the penalty if the client already has a pension with Fund B but didn't tell them - really ? What responsibility would be put on the client to tell the fund/s ?