Error
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 564
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 563

18 April 2012 – Off-market transfers of certain assets, such as shares, between related parties and self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) will cease to be allowed under Tax Office rules.

Frequently referred to as in-specie contributions, the government announced in 2011 that from July 1, 2012, non-market transactions that result in a contribution being made to an SMSF in the form of an asset will no longer be permitted.

The government's move came as a response to the growing trend of SMSF members making in-specie contributions of property into their SMSF, as on a practical level many people may not have had spare cash but may have had valuable assets they could contribute.

However there are restrictions imposed on the assets that can be acquired by funds from related parties (such as fund members or family members). The asset must be:

  • business real property (property used exclusively in one or more businesses)
  • listed securities (shares)
  • certain in-house assets acquired at market value (where the value of those in-house assets do not exceed 5% of the value of the fund's total assets).

Off-market transfers that make in-specie contributions to an SMSF are, however, generally made without actually selling and re-purchasing the securities on the open market. Hence the government believed that such non-market transactions were not transparent, and were open to abuse — through transaction date and/or asset value manipulation to achieve more favourable results with regard to both contribution caps and capital gains tax outcomes.

Keeping such asset transfers at arm's length was also seen to more closely meet the sole-purpose test for SMSF activities.

Part of the Stronger Super package, the legislation was formed to ensure that related party transactions be conducted through a market, or accompanied by a valuation if no market exists. In the latter case, transactions must be supported by a valuation from a suitably qualified independent valuer.

For equities, for example, the underlying formal market is the Australian Securities Exchange. So if SMSF trustees want to contribute listed shares to their fund, these will be required to be sold onto the market and then subsequently repurchased.

For business real property, there is no underlying formal market, so transferring these assets will therefore require validation by a valuation from a qualified valuer. Under the existing rules, a real estate appraisal of the value is sufficient.

Speaking at the SMSF Professionals Association of Australia's 2012 conference in February, Tax Office assistant commissioner Stuart Forsyth said the Tax Office will provide guidelines, probably before the end of the financial year, to help trustees and their advisers with the valuation problems they may encounter.

'They'll promote a consistent approach to valuations across the sector and support the proposed new requirement for SMSFs to value their assets at net market value,' Forsyth said. 'We'll also talk directly to auditors and other stakeholders as we develop this product which will build on existing guidelines focused on taxation compliance.'

Source: Taxpayers Australia INC latest news

 

Monday, 02 April 2012 11:16

Equity Market Pessimism is at Extreme Levels

Written by

The old saying of buy in gloom and sell in boom is much easier in theory than in practice, firstly because of the emotional aspect of investing and secondly the difficulty investors have in measuring the gloom.

One reliable measure of measure of gloom (and boom) is the equity risk premium.

The definition of equity risk premium is "The excess return that an individual stock or the overall stock market provides over a risk-free rate. This excess return compensates investors for taking on the relatively higher risk of the equity market. The size of the premium will vary as the risk in a particular stock, or in the stock market as a whole, changes; high-risk investments are compensated with a higher premium."

Below is an updated chart of equity market risk premiums for the Australian share market.  This chart highlights that equity market risk premiums are at levels not seen since the depth of despair from the GFC in March 2009 and in fact higher than they were during 1974 and 1980.  The way of interpreting this chart is the higher the risk premium, shares are cheaper, and the lower the risk premium, the more expensive they are.



You will also see that historically, following peaks in the equity risk premium there have been significant share market rallies such as that experienced during 2009 which saw the market rise by around 25%.

Much of the cause for pessimism relates to Europe and we remain of the view that a workable medium term plan for Europe can be found.  If this risk was reduced, one would expect equity risk premiums to drop which would result in an increase in share prices.  Arguably most if not all tail risk if already priced into the sharemarket.

Clearly we are not in boom times, which is why we have a bias to buy (selectively) not sell at this point.

Note: Advice contained in this articler is general in nature and does not consider your personal situation or needs. Please do not act on this advice until its appropriateness has been determined by a qualified adviser.  While the taxation implications of this strategy have been considered, we are not, nor do we purport to be registered tax agents. We strongly recommend you seek detailed tax advice from an appropriately qualified tax agent before proceeding.  The information provided is current as at March 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:55

Important to scratch the surface when investing

Written by

All too often we hear the generalist who says "buy healthcare because of the ageing of the population" or "can't lose in bricks and mortar".

When investing it is critical to scratch below the surface and avoid being tempted by the generalist.

Europe is currently an excellent study for this as the generalist would probably be saying that Europe is a basket case and investors should avoid it at all costs.  Upon digging below the surface however it can be seen firstly that not all of Europe is a basket case.  This is represented by the graph below whcih shows the GDP (commonly used to measure strength in an economy) of various European countries over the past 5 years.

While it is clear that the Greek economy is in poor health, the German economy is enjoying the cheap Euro that assists their exporters such as BMW.  While talking of BMW, we read from the Wall Street Journal that the waiting list in China to buy a BMW is 6 months and that BMW is making considerable money exporting cars to China.  Fund managers including Platinum Asset Management have made a significant amount of money from investing in BMW while the generalist would have missed the opportunity.

We encourage investors to "scratch below the surface when considering investments".

Note: Advice contained in this article is general in nature and does not consider your personal situation or needs. Please do not act on this advice until its appropriateness has been determined by a qualified adviser.  The information provided is current as at March 2012.

Saturday, 17 December 2011 10:44

Show leadership and stop “Bank Bashing”

Written by

It is truly disturbing to read daily political statements from our leaders on all sides of politics bashing banks for the sake of political gain.  Even the unions have joined this lunacy recently, but then again, none of these players are necessarily known for their intellectual athleticism.

Michael Chaney, one of Australia’s most respected businessmen has said that our leaders should educate people about the banking system, rather than use it for political mileage.  We agree.

Our political leaders would have you believe that banks are gouging borrowers by not passing on interest rate cuts.  The easiest way to determine if this was the case is to examine the banks net interest margins.  The net interest margin is simply the difference between what the banks pay to obtain funding and the rate charged to customers.

Below is a chart showing the net interest margin of the major and regional banks over the past decade.

This chart shows that margins now are significantly lower than they were 10 years ago and that the major bank margins have only been restored to levels seen before the Global Financial Crisis.  There is no evidence to be seen here of bank gouging.

Yes, bank profits in absolute terms are larger than they were before, but so are their businesses.  Just imagine how absurd it would be to criticise a builder for making more money because he built 10 houses a year, rather than 6.

Let’s also consider some of the benefits of a strong banking system to the community which include:

Finally, the table below, sourced prior to the GFC shows the profitability of Australia’s banks compared to other Western countries.

 

Australia has not experienced a bank failure in the modern era (banking collapse defined as an event where ordinary depositors lose their money).  Therefore we need to look overseas at how things can go terribly wrong when banking systems become stressed.

We find it interesting that many of the countries in the table above that harboured banks with low profit margins before the GFC find themselves at the centre of the Euro Debt Crisis today, which is likely to result in the lowering of living standards for the general population in those countries for years to come.

Canberra and the union movement should celebrate our strong banking system and the benefits that it brings to our community.  The media should expose those attempting smear the banking system for political gain as “lightweights”.

Note: Advice contained in this article is general in nature and does not consider your personal situation or needs. Please do not act on this advice until its appropriateness has been determined by a qualified adviser. While the taxation implications of this strategy have been considered, we are not, nor do we purport to be registered tax agents. We strongly recommend you seek detailed tax advice from an appropriately qualified tax agent before proceeding. The information provided is current as at December 2011.  The views expressed in this article are personal views of Mark Draper and are not necessarily the views of the dealer group.

 

 

 

Thursday, 06 October 2011 13:44

Share Markets Look Cheap – Trading On Fear Not Fundamentals

Written by

It is clear that over the longer term what drives share prices is company profits. It is logical that the more profit a company makes, the more valuable it is and therefore the value of the shares increase.

The graph below shows company profits represented by the red line for the last 30 years. The green line is the value of the Australian share market measured by the All Ordinaries index. For the majority of the past 30 years the pricing of the share market has reflected company profits, until the Global Financial Crisis.

You can clearly see a disconnect between the red line and the green line which means that there is a clear disconnect between company profitability and the current share prices.

Ultimately we would argue that the lines will converge, and the most plausible result would be a significant rise in share prices.

Obviously the short term is dominated by the issues in Europe and the US, but arguably once these issues are resolved it is likely that the All Ordinaries index will once again be reflective of company profits.

We have provided another chart that demonstrates the point that the market is currently trading on fear rather than fundamentals.

This chart shows the Equity Risk Premium of the Australian Share market. Equity Risk Premium is defined as

“The excess return that an individual stock or the overall stock market provides over a risk-free rate. This excess return compensates investors for taking on the relatively higher risk of the equity market. The size of the premium will vary as the risk in a particular stock, or in the stock market as a whole, changes; high-risk investments are compensated with a higher premium.”

Generally speaking higher risk premiums result in lower valuations of assets.

What the chart below outlines is what additional premium investors require to invest in the Australian share market. This tells us that there is a very large amount of risk already priced into current share prices. The chart shows that the Australian share market is currently trading a 3 times the average Equity Risk Premium, which implies that the share market appears very cheap. The last time this chart showed such an extreme was in early 2009 – which was followed by a very strong share market rally.

Note: Advice contained in this article is general in nature and does not consider your personal situation or needs. Please do not act on this advice until its appropriateness has been determined by a qualified adviser. While the taxation implications of this strategy have been considered, we are not, nor do we purport to be registered tax agents. We strongly recommend you seek detailed tax advice from an appropriately qualified tax agent before proceeding. The information provided is current as at September 2011.

In a financial world that is currently light on for good news, largely courtesy of Europe and the US, it may surprise you to know that almost 50% of the top 200 Australian companies increased their dividend last financial year.

There are clearly two parts to determining the return from investing in shares.  The first is movement in the share price and the second is the dividend paid each year by the company.  Dividends are often overlooked as an important reason to invest in shares, but Platinum Asset Management recently reminded that from 1900 – 2008 the average return from shares was over 6% above the inflation rate and that  dividends contributed 4% of this figure.  (Platinum were quoting figures from the US share market, where dividends are generally lower than Australia)

Total dividends from the Australian market rose by over 9% last year and here is a selection of companies to show the increase in dividends.  This information has been sourced from IRESS.

 

Company 2010 Dividend 2011 Dividend % Increase 2011 Dividend Yield ** Dividend Yield adjusted to include tax credit
Wesfarmers $1.25 $1.50 16.6% 5% 7.1%
CBA $2.90 $3.20 10.3% 7% 10%
Woolworths $1.15 $1.22 6.1% 5% 7.1%
Platinum Asset Mgment $0.22 $.0.25 13.6% 6.75% 9.6%
NAB $1.47 $1.62 10% 7.2% 10.3%
Telstra $0.28 $0.28 No Increase 9.4% 13.4%
QBE $1.28 $1.28 No Increase 10.1% 10.5%

 

** Based on closing price of company as of 12th September 2011.

Not only are the dividends being paid by these companies significantly higher than the current cash rate of 4.75%, but dividends are bankable and can be spent or saved by investors.  Companies that pay fully franked dividends means that the tax has already been paid at a rate of 30% on that dividend.  The right column titled  “Dividend Yield adjusted to include tax credit” includes the value of tax paid by the company on a fully franked dividend.

While share values fluctuate daily, it is the dividend stream that investors can rely on over time paid from rising profits.

 

 

Note: Advice contained in this article is general in nature and does not consider your personal situation or needs. Please do not act on this advice until its appropriateness has been determined by a qualified adviser.  While the taxation implications of this strategy have been considered, we are not, nor do we purport to be registered tax agents. We strongly recommend you seek detailed tax advice from an appropriately qualified tax agent before proceeding.  The information provided is current as at September 2011.

 

Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:03

Dummies Guide to the Debt Crisis

Written by

What's the debt crisis really about? Why is everyone panicked and what should you do about it?

John Addis from Intelligent Investor offers a salutary guide for the worried.

What is sovereign debt?

Sovereign or public debt is the term used to describe money owed not by a nation but by a nation’s government.

Governments issue bonds to finance their debt. Those purchased by its own citizens constitute a domestic debt whilst those borrowed overseas from non-residents are an external debt.

The distinction is important, especially if you happen to be Greek. At the end of 2009, Greek sovereign debt stood at 113% of GDP, 82% of which was external. Interest payments on that debt leave the country, depressing economic activity and making further repayments more difficult.

Italy on the other hand had public debt of 115%, of which only 19% was external. Italy’s interest burden is largely paid to Italians, which is why its problems aren’t as serious as other PIIGS.

The other consideration is the currency in which debt is issued. Whereas most countries have to issue bonds in a foreign currency (typically the US dollar), the United States does not. If the US gets into trouble, it can simply print more dollars to repay debt (something it’s busy doing right now).

Countries carrying a large percentage of external debt don’t have that option, which is why Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain are in more serious trouble.

Is sovereign debt bad?

It depends. Societies’ religious background colours views; many see debt as a moral failing. In Sanskrit, Hebrew and Aramaic, the word for debt and sin are essentially the same so discussions of the subject can sound like a morality play—Debt is bad, we have sinned, we should pay it all back and suffer. We can see the political expression of that in the Tea Party.

But government debt is different. It’s constantly refinanced and investors accept it because the money is invested in health, education, infrastructure and wars, which tend to be economically beneficial. But that’s not to say countries don’t get into trouble from too much debt; they do, quite a lot.

 

So countries do default on their debt?

Conventional wisdom suggests debt defaults are infrequent. History suggests the opposite. In This time it’s different, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff examine ‘default episodes’ over eight centuries and establish that, especially among emerging economies, defaults aren’t exceptional at all.

Between 1300 and 1799 the emerging economies of France and Spain defaulted eight and six times respectively. In the 19th century alone Spain defaulted seven times. From the Great Depression of the 1930s to the 1950s, nearly half of all countries were in default or ‘restructuring’—a euphemism for default—representing almost 40% of global GDP.

More recently, there was a wave of defaults in the 1980s and 90s, including Russia in 1998 then Argentina, which defaulted on part of its external debt in 2002. Countries default all the time, even in Asia and Europe.

Ominously, Reinhart and Rogoff remark that ‘whereas one and two decade lulls in defaults are not at all uncommon, each lull has invariably been followed by a new wave of default.’ The period between 2003 and 2007 was one such lull. We all know what happened next.

Also, we should remember that most defaults aren’t about an inability to pay but, at least in a democracy, a lack of political will to do so. The alternatives to default are austerity measures—cutbacks on government services—and tax increases. Neither are big vote winners. It’s much easier for politicians to punish those (non-voting) horrible, dirty foreigners stupid enough to lend them money in the first place.

What are the consequences of default?

Let’s take Argentina as an example. After its $132bn default in 2002, investors fled the country, causing a currency collapse (in fact, in anticipation of default they were leaving in droves before it). The value of the countries’ exports plummeted despite the currency falling. Without financing, the government was forced to cut expenditure, slashing state pensions. Private sector wages fell, too.

Unemployment soared to 20%, inflation skyrocketed as the cost of imports rose and the government printed money, debasing the currency further. In a year, the economy shrunk by an incredible 13% and about a quarter of the population resorted to bartering. Bartering!

The long term consequences are most evident in the credit ratings and rates on Argentinean bonds. Japan is carrying debt of 225% of GDP, the highest in the world. It pays 1% on its 10-year bonds. Argentina, with debt standing at 52% of GDP, pays 10%. Argentina has a credit rating of B; Japan AAA. Much of that differential is explained by Argentina’s default. Investors want a higher return for trusting them again.

 

Why the panic now?

Firstly, no one’s panicking about Australia—quite the opposite in fact. The problems are in the largest economies of the developed nations. And it’s not debt per se that’s the problem—it’s the extent of it and what it’s been used for.

In 2006 the average debt level of the G7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US) was 84% of GDP—not bad enough to send us all to the great margin loan in the sky. By 2010 it was 112%, the highest level since World War II.

Those averages disguise some alarming figures. In the United States debt has risen from under 60% of GDP to well over 100% in 2010. According to the IMF, in 2010 Japan, Greece, Italy, Belgium, Singapore, Ireland, the US, France, Portugal, Canada, the UK and Germany carried government debt of 75% or more, far greater than economic powerhouses like Malawi (40%) and Uzbekistan (10.4%).

For debtor countries especially, the GFC made matters far worse. Bank bailouts resulted in private debt being made public and, in an attempt to kick start slumping economies, massive fiscal stimulus packages were undertaken. Government debt increased hugely as a consequence.

 

How can countries fix their debt problems?

The first option is economic growth. If GDP is increasing at a rate faster than the increase in national debt, although the debt is rising in absolute terms, as a percentage of GDP it’s falling. That’s good.

Countries like the United States, the UK and Japan, which can take on more debt cheaply, have this option. For Spain and Italy, with 10-year bond rates around 5%, it’s a remote possibility. For Greece, with a 10-year bond rate of 17%, it’s out of the question.

Reducing debt by cutting government expenditure and increasing revenues is the second policy choice. The UK in particular is following this strategy, favouring cutbacks over tax increases.

The trouble is that increasing taxes and cutting back on government expenditures at a time when economic conditions are already shaky can make things worse. In that sense, these two options conflict.

The third policy option is to inflate the problem away. Inflation reduces in real terms the debt owed, which is why indebted governments have a big incentive to encourage inflation. Although governments won’t admit to it, policies like quantitative easing (see Quantitative easing made easy) have this as one of their aims.

Currency devaluations have much the same effect, which is why the US dollar and UK pound are at historically low levels. Lower exchange rates also benefit economic recovery, making exports cheaper and imports relatively more expensive. In the aftermath of the GFC, Iceland, as well as letting private banks collapse, used a currency devaluation to great effect.

Unfortunately, indebted European countries tied to the Euro at a rate set largely by Germans aren’t able to do this. That’s why the situation in Europe, where the problems are structural and immediate, is more pressing than in it is the United States.

Remember also that a currency’s value is relative; countries can’t all devalue at the same time. With a troubled US and Europe, and half of the rest of the world pegged to the US dollar, devaluation is unlikely to do the trick.

 

We’ll be okay because of China, right?

Not necessarily. The United States and Europe are China’s two biggest markets. If things take a turn for the worse in those economies, China will be affected.

China is an export-driven nation; domestic consumption is insufficient to compensate for another deep recession in the US and Europe. If that were to occur, we could expect to see a rapid fall in commodity prices, the local currency and our terms of trade.

China also has its own problems, including massive (and under-reported) local government debt, social unrest and inflation concerns. It’s not the beacon of economic stability it’s made out to be.

 

What are the chances of a double-dip recession?

The global economy is three years into a debt recession, which tend to last longer and are more severe than normal recessions. Charles R Morris in The Trillion Dollar Meltdown said, ‘A credit bubble is different. Credit is the air that financial markets breathe, and when the air is poisoned, there’s no place to hide.’

We’re all breathing toxic air and it needs cleaning. That takes time. Look at the Japanese and their lost decade. We can expect a few more problems yet, although that doesn’t mean we’re going to face Japan-style problems.

 

How does this affect my investment strategy?

 

First, don’t panic. Corporate debt is much lower, corporate profits much higher. The banks have been recapitalised. This might feel like 2007 all over again but it doesn’t look like it.

Second, understand that the local currency isn’t the safe haven it appears. A weak US dollar and an unsustainable and risky Chinese stimulus program make it look that way. Australia remains a small economy heavily reliant on the financial and resources sectors. That's why investors should consider overseas exposure.

Pricing power is also going to be important. That means—and we’re going to sound like a broken record here—that you should buy best of breed companies and hold some cash—volatile markets are likely to be the norm.

Also, be more demanding with your valuation estimates. If a company reaches fair value then consider selling it for cheaper stocks (it's sensible to swap cheap for cheaper still). As we’ve already seen, a volatile environment offers plenty of opportunities for patient investors.

Nevertheless, prepare for a world of lower growth. Dividends will become more important and low interest rates more prevalent. That should influence the stocks you buy and sell. In the latest Platinum Quarterly Report, Kerr Nielson posits that more than two thirds of the total real return from equities in the period 1900 to 2008 came from dividends. There’s no reason why the next 90-odd years won’t follow a similar pattern.

Finally, acknowledge that humans have an amazing capacity to muddle through. Crises pass and problems are solved, after which we forget they existed in the first place, thus creating the conditions for them to happen all over again. We are indeed a strange mob.

This article has been reproduced with permission from Intelligent Investor – their website is www.intelligientinvestor.com.au

 

Note: Advice contained in this article is general in nature and does not consider your personal situation or needs. Please do not act on this advice until its appropriateness has been determined by a qualified adviser.  While the taxation implications of this strategy have been considered, we are not, nor do we purport to be registered tax agents. We strongly recommend you seek detailed tax advice from an appropriately qualified tax agent before proceeding.  The information provided is current as at August 2011.

 

 

Monday, 22 August 2011 20:14

Small Business CGT Concessions Overview

Written by

In many cases, proceeds from the sale of a business form a large part of a small business owner’s retirement funds. Maximising the return on sale is therefore important to ensure a comfortable retirement

Tax concessions are available to small business owners who are selling business assets if certain basic conditions are met. A summary of these tax concessions and the basic criteria that must be met is summarised below.

As this is a complicated area, we recommend individuals obtain tax advice specific to their business structure and arrangements..

 

The four CGT concessions.

The four small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions are:

  • 15-year exemption – this concession totally exempts any capital gain made upon sale of the business asset. To be eligible, a small business entity must have continuously owned the CGT asset for a minimum of 15 years and, at the time of disposal, the individual is 55 or over and the disposal is connected to their retirement, or the individual is permanently incapacitated. If the business operates as a company or under a trust structure then the entity must have a ‘significant individual’ for any period or periods totalling 15 years during the period of ownership.
  • The 50% active assets reduction – a 50% reduction of a capital gain.
  • The retirement exemption – an exemption of capital gains up to a lifetime limit of $500,000. If the recipient is under 55, the amount must be paid into a superannuation fund and normal preservation rules apply.
  • The rollover concession – a deferral of a capital gain if a replacement asset is acquired. The deferred capital gain may later crystallise when the replacement asset is sold or its use changes.
  • If an asset is being sold by an individual and the asset has been held for more than 12 months, the capital gain must first be reduced using the 50% discount before applying any of the above mentioned small business CGT concessions.

 

The eligibility conditions?

To be eligible to use the small business CGT concessions, an individual (or entity) must first satisfy several basic conditions:

  • the $6 million net asset value test or the $2 million • aggregated turnover test
  • the active asset test, an
  • if the business operates as a company or under a trust structure, it must also meet the 20% significant individual test.

 

$6 million net asset value test?

A business that meets the $6 million net asset test is considered a small business by the ATO. To meet this test, the net value of CGT assets of the individual and certain related entities must be less than $6 million.

The net value of CGT assets is the market value of those assets less any liabilities relating to those assets.

Certain assets are excluded from the test, such as assets held for personal use and enjoyment, superannuation entitlements and the value of life insurance policies.

 

$2 million aggregated turnover test

A business that fails the $6 million net asset value test can still be considered a small business by the ATO if it meets the $2 million aggregated turnover test.

To meet this test, the aggregated turnover of the individual plus any affiliated or connected business entities must be less than $2 million.

There are three methods for determining aggregated turnover:

  • using the previous year’s aggregated turnover
  • estimating the current year’s aggregated turnover, or
  • using the actual current year’s turnover

 

Active asset test

A CGT asset is an active asset if it is owned by the individual (or entity) and it is used, or held ready for use, in a business carried on by the individual (or entity), the individual’s affiliate, their spouse or child, or a connected entity.

The asset does not need to have been active at the time of disposal, but it must have been active for the lesser of 71/2 years or half of the period of ownership.

If the asset being sold is a share in a company or unit in a trust, an 80% look-through test applies, meaning that the shares or units will be considered active assets if at least 80% of the market value of the underlying assets of the company or trust are active assets.


Significant individual test

If a business is run through a company or trust structure, one of the following additional basic conditions must be satisfied just before the CGT event:

  • the entity claiming the concession must be a CGT concession stakeholder in the company or trust, or
  • the CGT concession stakeholders in the company or trust together have a small business participation percentage in the entity of at least 90% (the 90% test).

An individual is a CGT concession stakeholder of a company or trust if they are a significant individual, or the spouse of a significant individual where the spouse has a small business participation percentage in the company or trust. This participation percentage can be held directly or indirectly through one or more interposed entities.

An individual is a significant individual in a company or trust if they have a small business participation percentage in the company or trust of at least 20%. The 20% can be made up of direct and indirect percentages.

 

Note: Any advice contained in this flyer is general in nature and does not consider your particular situation or needs. Please do not act on this advice until its appropriateness has been determined by a qualified adviser. We are not, nor do we purport to be registered tax agents. We strongly recommend you seek detailed tax advice from an appropriately qualified tax agent.

 

For more information about the Small Business CGT Concessions or to arrange a no-cost, no-obligation first consultation, please contact:

 

GEM Capital

Phone Number: 08 8273 3222

 

http://www.gemcapital.com.au/