Under the Superannuation Schemes Act a fund has to be set up "principally for the purpose of providing retirement benefits."
Government Actuary, Geoff Rashbrooke won't disclose the identity of the scheme, or details about why it is being deregistered, other than it is of "sufficient size to be relevant", and in his view it wasn't complying with the act.
Interpretation of what the principally for retirement clause of the act means has been a contentious issue for the savings industry ever since the actuary released a discussion paper in March outlining his views on the definition.
In that paper he suggested a super scheme would only met the terms of the act its non-retirement benefits formed only a relatively small proportion of the benefit payment from a scheme.
Schemes that paid out non-retirement benefits of more than about 10 per cent would face deregistration, he proposed.
This proposal has been overwhelming opposed by the savings industry, including the Association of Superannuation Funds, the Investment Savings and Insurance Association and providers.
A number of main concerns were raised, including:
Rashbrooke plans to issue a substantive response to the criticisms, however he won't do that until the current move to deregister a scheme is completed. Currently the promoters of the scheme have lodged an objection to deregistration. A final decision is about a month away.
Rashbrooke says the deregistration is in some ways a test case. He says there are a number of other schemes that could be targeted for deregistration.
| « News Round Up | Get your tax questions answered online » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved