An SMSF where one of the members is a doctor has entered into an arrangement where the SMSF holds the head lease on a building used as a medical centre. The SMSF then has leases in place with various medicos and service providers (eg pathology) The building is owned by an unrelated party.
Is this arrangement ok?
Currently the leasehold is not recorded as an asset of the SMSF. Should a value be accorded to the leasehold in the accounts of the SMSF
To the best of my knowledge the building is NOT owned by a related party
I don't believe there was an acquisition cost for the lease but rather a lease agreement has been entered into between the SMSF and the owner of the premises
The whole of the building is Business Real property
I have requested copies of the head lease and the sub-leases. It may be the case that one of the sub-leases is with a member or associate of the fund
The SMSF receives income from at least 8 separate sub-leases
I believe that the lease should have a value based on future earnings. I am waiting to receive a copy of the lease so as to know the length of the lease and will speak to the accountant regarding valuing the lease
As the head lease is not with a related party I did not think there were NALI and NALE issues but was hoping for some guidance on this
Hi Kathryn
I have not come across this before & I do not think I understand fully what has happened.
The queries I have are:
1) How did the Fund acquire the head lease & who from? (Was it allowed to acquire it if from a related party?)
2) Did it acquire it on a commercial basis? How has the cost been accounted for?
3) Is the Fund leasing an asset to a related party? If yes is that asset business real property?
4) If the SMSF holds the head lease does it receive income re it?
5) If the SMSF holds the head lease and receives income, it has a value, so why is it not recorded in the Fund's accounts as an asset (& what is its value)?
6) Are there any NALI / NALE issues?
If other members can comment on this that would be helpful.
Thanks
SMSF AAA