Superannuation community

The Superannuation community is designed for people working across the superannuation industry and has been created to encourage open and interactive conversation.

We will regularly add new topics and resources to engage with the Superannuation community online.

We encourage you to register to participate in online discussions or register your interest to follow activities specific to the Superannuation industry.

The Superannuation community is designed for people working across the superannuation industry and has been created to encourage open and interactive conversation.

We will regularly add new topics and resources to engage with the Superannuation community online.

We encourage you to register to participate in online discussions or register your interest to follow activities specific to the Superannuation industry.

Discussions: All (3) Open (0)
  • CLOSED: Streamlining of release authorities consultation.
    From 1 July 2018 the release authority process for excess contributions and Division 293 liabilities will be consistent and streamlined. The changes will apply to the following release authorities:
    • excess concessional contributions
    • excess non-concessional contributions
    • excess non-concessional contributions tax
    • division 293 due and payable
    • division 293 deferred debt.
    These products will now be streamlined under a common process from 1 July 2018. Which include alignment of the following requirements of providers:
    • Timeframe to make payment
    • Timeframe to return the release authority statement to the ATO
    • Destination for payment of released...
    From 1 July 2018 the release authority process for excess contributions and Division 293 liabilities will be consistent and streamlined. The changes will apply to the following release authorities:
    • excess concessional contributions
    • excess non-concessional contributions
    • excess non-concessional contributions tax
    • division 293 due and payable
    • division 293 deferred debt.
    These products will now be streamlined under a common process from 1 July 2018. Which include alignment of the following requirements of providers:
    • Timeframe to make payment
    • Timeframe to return the release authority statement to the ATO
    • Destination for payment of released amounts
    • Requirement to notify individuals of successful releases

    These changes and how they impact you have been captured in the Streamlining Release Authority Statements presentation and samples for your review and comment on this discussion board.

    Presentation and samples for review and comment

    • Streamlining Release Authority Statements
    • ECC sample release authority
    • ENCC sample release authority
    • Div293 due and payable release authority
    • Div293 deferred debt release authority

    This discussion board will close on 19th of January 2018, when a teleconference will be planned for discussion of these changes and the issues which arise during this process will be discussed.

    Replies Closed
  • CLOSED: Duplicated accounts in the calculation of Total Superannuation Balance (TSB) discussion has ended.

    Accounts consumed twice for TSB where the TBAR and MCS forms are unable to be matched by ATO systems

    There is currently a known issue where an individual’s Total superannuation balance (TSB) includes amounts which have been duplicated. This error is caused by our systems being unable to match Member Contribution Statements (MCS) and Transfer Balance Account Report (TBAR) Forms.

    We have set out below the various scenarios which cause this issue and the action funds may need to take to rectify their member’s TSB.

    Table of contents for: Duplicated accounts in
    ...

    Accounts consumed twice for TSB where the TBAR and MCS forms are unable to be matched by ATO systems

    There is currently a known issue where an individual’s Total superannuation balance (TSB) includes amounts which have been duplicated. This error is caused by our systems being unable to match Member Contribution Statements (MCS) and Transfer Balance Account Report (TBAR) Forms.

    We have set out below the various scenarios which cause this issue and the action funds may need to take to rectify their member’s TSB.

    Table of contents for: Duplicated accounts in the calculation of Total Superannuation Balance (TSB)
    Summary
    Changed identifiers due to MAAS/MATS or Successor Fund Transfer
    MCS Reporting for 2017-18 year
    Current Scenarios – Total Superannuation Balance at 30 June 2017
    Funds have reported the member client identifier on the MCS, but not on the corresponding TBARs. Unique Superannuation Identifier (USI) has been reported on both forms
    Funds have reported the member client identifier on the MCS, but not on the corresponding TBARs. USI has not been reported on the TBAR
    Fund reported the member client identifier on TBARs but not on the FY MCS
    Fund transposed client identifiers
    Fund reported TBAR using a different Fund ABN/TFN
    Fund concatenated client identifiers on TBAR form
    Fund reported a new member account number on the TBAR
    Appendix 1 – Client match options - Proposed system updates to form matching for TSB
    Appendix 2 – rectifying reporting for TSB
    Appendix 3 – Rectifying reporting for MCS
    Discussion Board feedback/Comments

    Summary

    There are currently 7 reporting scenarios identified which result in an incorrect calculation of a member’s total superannuation balance (TSB). Currently the Transfer Balance Account Report (TBAR) and Member Contributions Statement (MCS) forms for an account are matched using:

    • Fund ABN/TFN
    • Member account number, and
    • Member client identifier

    Where this matching is unsuccessful the system identifies these forms as being for separate accounts and consumes a value from both forms. This results in an overestimated member TSB.

    We have identified 250,000 TBAR forms with a reported effective date of 30 June 2017 which have been unable to be matched to a corresponding MCS.

    Changes to this matching process have been proposed which will mitigate the need for re-reporting for an estimated 183,000 accounts. The proposed updated matching process is set out in appendix 1.

    The proposed updates to the matching process will apply to both the 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 calculations of TSB. Where a fund’s reporting does not allow a match under these updates, re-reporting may be required. The proposed updates would be implemented in late September 2018 and existing TSB amounts will be re-calculated for members matched by proposed client match 2 and client match 3.

    Funds with MCS and TBAR information that do not align to the 3 client match options listed in appendix 1 are required to undertake additional reporting to ensure alignment prior to 8 September 2018. This will enable us to confirm data alignment prior to using the TSB amounts.

    From 23 September 2018 the calculated TSB amounts for members will be utilised for the first time to work out eligibility for:

    • the unused concessional contributions cap carry-forward
    • the non-concessional contributions cap and the two- or three-year bring-forward period
    • the government co-contribution
    • the tax offset for spouse contributions.

    For self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF), it will also determine whether the SMSF can use the segregated assets method to calculate exempt current pension income (ECPI).

    Go to Table of contents

    Changed identifiers due to MAAS/MATS or Successor Fund Transfer

    When funds make changes to MCS or TBAR reporting of client or fund identifiers in readiness for on-boarding to Member account attribute service (MAAS)/ Member Account transaction service (MATS), they need to ensure their modified reporting still allows for ATO systems to match MCS forms to TBAR forms.

    The matching process between MCS and TBARs for TSB purposes is confined to financial years; if the identifiers are different between 2016-17 and 2017-18 financial years, there is no adverse effect on total superannuation balance provided those identifiers remain exactly the same on both forms within that financial year.

    Please note that the closing and re-reporting instructions for the MCS in this document apply to fixing TSB issues for 2016-17 and ensuring correct outcomes for 2017-18. The instructions may not be the same for closing off these accounts to change identifiers in preparation for MAAS/MATS requirements. This will depend on the year the change takes place and it is vital that you make contact with us via Super CRT to ensure that you do this correctly as it may differ considerably from instructions in this paper.

    Go to Table of contents

    MCS Reporting for 2017-18 year

    When completing your MCS for the 2017-18 year (due 31 October 2018), please ensure your MCS and TBAR identifiers are aligned. As this reporting occurs after the 8 September critical date for TSB, we want to ensure no further problems are caused by mismatches of MCS and TBAR after that date.

    Current Scenarios – Total Superannuation Balance at 30 June 2017

    1 – Funds have reported the member client identifier on the MCS, but not on the corresponding TBARs. Unique Superannuation Identifier (USI) has been reported on both forms

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier USI
    MCS Reported Reported Reported Reported
    TBAR Reported Reported Not Reported Reported

    Funds who have reported in line with this scenario are currently experiencing duplicated accounts included in TSB. This is a result of the system being unable to match the member client identifier, which has not been reported on the TBAR.

    Proposed updates to the current system matching process are being considered to mitigate re-reporting in this scenario. This scenario would then match using client match 2 being:

    • Fund ABN/TFN
    • USI
    • Member account number

    By not consuming the member client identifier when it is not provided on the TBAR, the system will correctly match these forms to the same account and will rectify the calculation.

    As a result, these TBARs will not need to be re-reported to correct the calculation. However members will see an incorrect TSB on ATO Online until the deployment of the updated matching profile.

    TBAR forms with effective date 30/06/2017 that fit this scenario: 177,280

    Go to Table of contents

    2 – Funds have reported the member client identifier on the MCS, but not on the corresponding TBARs. USI has not been reported on the TBAR

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier USI
    MCS Reported Reported Reported Reported
    TBAR Reported Reported Not Reported Not Reported

    Funds that have reported in line with this scenario are currently experiencing duplicated accounts included in TSB. This is a result of the system being unable to match the member client identifier, which has not been reported on the TBAR.

    However in this scenario, the fund has not included the USI on the TBAR form, as a result these forms will be unable to be matched using client match 2, which will be used for the previous situation.

    2a - Where the member has only one MCS with this member account number for a single fund

    The proposed system matching updates will match these forms to the same account using client match 3 where the member has 1 MCS reported with this member account number for a single fund. This matching uses:

    • Fund ABN/TFN
    • Member account number

    2b - Where the member has more than 1 MCS with this member account number for a single fund

    If a member has more than 1 account with the same member account number within a fund (i.e. multiple accounts which rely on the client identifier or the USI to be unique), the fund will need to re-report to align to one of the client match options. This is a result of the USI and member client identifier being used to differentiate between the accounts, but not being supplied on the TBAR. Without these identifiers our systems cannot match the TBAR forms to their correct MCS forms, which results in incorrect values being consumed and ignored for TSB calculation purposes.

    TBAR forms with effective date 30/06/2017 that fit this scenario: 1,735

    Go to Table of contents

    3 – Fund reported the member client identifier on TBARs but not on the FY MCS

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier USI
    MCS Reported Reported Not Reported Reported
    TBAR Reported Reported Reported Reported

    Funds who have reported in line with this scenario are currently experiencing duplicated accounts included in TSB. This is a result of the system being unable to match the member client identifier, which has not been reported on the TBAR.

    3a - If the combination of USI and Member account number is unique in a single fund

    The proposed system updates to the current matching process will match these forms using client match 2:

    • Fund ABN/TFN
    • USI, and
    • Member account number.

    3b - If the combination of USI and Member account number is NOT unique in a single fund

    The fund will need to amend their reporting to ensure the reported data is unique to one individual.

    TBAR forms with effective date 30/06/2017 that fit this scenario: 49,039

    Go to Table of contents

    4 – Fund transposed client identifiers

    4a – Fund transposed client identifiers on the TBAR

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier
    MCS Reported Reported Reported
    TBAR Reported Client identifier Account number

    In this scenario, when reporting on the TBAR, the fund has transposed the member account number and the member client identifier.

    This results in the system being unable to match these accounts and consumes both forms, duplicating the value included in the individual’s TSB.

    The proposed updates to the system matching will not fix this error. The fund is required to re-report to align with a client match option (see Appendix 1).

    4b – Fund transposed client identifiers on the MCS

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier
    MCS Reported Client identifier Account number
    TBAR Reported Reported Reported

    In this scenario, when reporting on the MCS, the fund has transposed the member account number and the member client identifier.

    This results in the system being unable to match these accounts and consumes both forms, duplicating the value included in the individual’s TSB.

    The proposed updates to the system matching will not fix this error. The fund is required to re-report report to align with a client match option (see Appendix 1).

    TBAR forms with effective date 30/06/2017 that fit scenarios 4a & 4b: 987

    Go to Table of contents

    5 – Fund reported TBAR using a different Fund ABN/TFN

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier
    MCS Reported Reported Reported
    TBAR Incorrect Reported Reported

    This error has occurred where the incorrect fund ABN/TFN is used provided on the TBAR form. Funds in this scenario will experience duplication of this account as the Fund ABN/TFN is used in all matching profiles.

    The updated matching solution will not correct this reporting error, even where the USI matches on both forms. Funds need to re-report to align with a client match option (see Appendix 1).

    No current data on how many TBAR forms fit this scenario

    Go to Table of contents

    6 – Fund concatenated client identifiers on TBAR form

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier USI
    MCS Reported Reported Reported Reported
    TBAR Reported Combined MAN & MCI Not Reported Reported

    These funds have concatenated the member account number and member client identifier when reporting on the TBAR.

    The two identifiers may have been combined to create a unique combination of member account number and USI. However the system is unable to match the client identifiers to the MCS and will create duplication in the member’s TSB.

    The proposed update to the system matching will not fix this error. All matching options for accumulation MCS & TBARs require the member account number to be matched. Funds in this scenario will need to re-report to align with a client match option (see Appendix 1).

    Where the forms are both in retirement phase and the MCS account balance = 0, then the member’s TSB will not be inflated. However, the account will display twice on the member’s ATO Online Super Accounts page until MAAS data is utilised to display fund memberships.

    TBAR forms with effective date 30/06/2017 that fit this scenario: 4,358

    Go to Table of contents

    7- Fund reported a new member account number on the TBAR

    Form Fund ABN/TFN Member Account Number Member Client Identifier USI
    MCS Reported Reported Reported Reported
    TBAR Reported New Reported Reported

    Funds in this scenario have reported on their TBAR a member account number which does not match the member account number reported for the account on the corresponding MCS. This will cause a duplication of this account in TSB as member account number is used in all matching processes used for TSB.

    The duplication caused by this change will not be rectified by the update to the matching process. Funds will need to re-report to align with a client match option (see Appendix 1).

    TBAR forms with effective date 30/06/2017 that fit this scenario: 502

    Go to Table of contents

    Appendix 1 – Client match options - Proposed system updates to form matching for TSB

    MCS matching occurs with TBAR to determine if MCS or TBAR data is utilised for TSB calculation.

    Matching logic 2016-17 and 2017-18 FY - Client TBAR to MCS matching order:

    1. Fund ABN/TFN, Member Account number, Member client identifier (Current)
    ELSE
    1. Fund ABN/TFN, USI, Member Account number (Proposed change)
    ELSE
    1. Fund ABN/TFN, Member account number (Only if member has 1 MCS with this account number in Accumulation phase) (Proposed change)
    ELSE
    1. Fund must re-report to align to one of the above for both MCS and TBAR - If MCS re-reporting occurs to align to one of the matching solutions above, closing of old accounts may be required.

    Go to Table of contents

    Appendix 2 – rectifying reporting for TSB

    When identifiers on TBAR are to be updated to allow for successful matching:

    1. The existing TBAR must be cancelled first, this is achieved by submitting an identical TBAR form, with the exception that the label “TBAR cancellation” is reported as ‘Y’.
    2. A new TBAR must then be submitted in a separate file which includes the updated identifiers. The TBAR cancellation label must be reported as ‘N’.
    3. If you are lodging a large volumes of TBAR cancellations please contact the ATO so that we can closely monitor the processing of the cancellations. This will ensure any issues we have processing your cancellations can be resolved prior to you lodging the new TBARs.

    Principles when re-reporting TBAR

    • The cancellation TBAR must be processed before re-report TBAR. Failure to do so will result in both forms suspending in our systems. It is essential to lodge the cancellations and re-report in separate data files in BDE.
    • The cancellation TBAR and re-report TBAR must be reported on the same day and separated by a couple of hours if possible. If these are received on separate days the affected members may experience incorrect determinations and commutation authorities being issued to them.

    Go to Table of contents

    Appendix 3 – Rectifying reporting for MCS

    If a fund has reported the identifiers in the MCS as per previous years but reported TBAR with different identifiers and intends for the TBAR identifiers to endure, the old MCS will need to be closed and a new MCS lodged to match the identifiers in the TBAR.

    This will involve closing off the old identifiers in that year and re-reporting that specific year again with new identifiers. No changes to contributions details will be necessary; the following steps should be followed:

    1. If the fund is not using the member account number reported on the original MCS for any other accounts, report a closed account for the existing identifiers using SuperTICK (STIC) with a closed date of 30 June in that year. I.e. for the 2016-17 MCS use 30/06/2017. This will ensure that the balance on that specific MCS is not used for total super balance purposes.

    2. If the fund is exempt from using STIC to close these accounts or if the fund is retaining any account with that same member account number then STIC cannot be used as it will close ALL accounts with the same member account number. In these instances, the original MCS can be amended with a status of closed and the account balance amended to $0. The contributions information should not be amended.

    3. After completing either step 1 or 2, a new MCS is then to be lodged for the relevant year with the updated client identifiers and the account balance which had previously been reported on the now closed MCS. No contributions information should be reported on the new MCS.

    Principles when updating identifiers on MCS

    • The reporting of the new MCS with new identifiers is best processed on the same day or soon after the closed account to ensure members do not receive incorrect total super balance outcomes and for ease of downstream processes such as government payments. This closing and re-reporting will not affect other determinations and assessments as the contributions will not be amended or re-reported.

    Go to Table of contents

    Next steps:

    We’d like your feedback on the scenarios below and encourage you to participate in a discussion to ask questions or add comments about the remediation that will be required from some funds to correct their members TSB calculation.

    After this post closes on Friday 4 May, 2018, funds that are currently affected by the duplication will be contacted by the ATO to discuss what action the fund may need to take. Please provide your feedback or comments via the Comments dialogue box below:

    "This paper is provided to enable APRA-regulated funds to align their MCS and TBAR reports."
    Replies Closed
  • CLOSED: Draft Legislative Instrument for review has concluded.
    Update: Friday 27 April, 2018

    Your feedback and comments will be collated and then incorporated as part of the finalised LI document which is proposed to take effect from 1 July, 2018.
    We are seeking feedback on the draft Legislative Instrument (LI) for PAYG withholding variation to the rate of withholding for income stream beneficiaries who turn 60 during the financial year. The previous LI was sunset in accordance with the Legislation Act in 2017. We have included the explanatory statement that accompanies this LI.

    This instrument provides for a more accurate amount of...
    Update: Friday 27 April, 2018

    Your feedback and comments will be collated and then incorporated as part of the finalised LI document which is proposed to take effect from 1 July, 2018.
    We are seeking feedback on the draft Legislative Instrument (LI) for PAYG withholding variation to the rate of withholding for income stream beneficiaries who turn 60 during the financial year. The previous LI was sunset in accordance with the Legislation Act in 2017. We have included the explanatory statement that accompanies this LI.

    This instrument provides for a more accurate amount of withholding for the relevant payees by taking into account all their circumstances.

    We are seeking your feedback on the examples provided within the draft legislative instrument document to ensure that they are clear and concise, as well as addressing any questions you may have.

    Your feedback and comments will be collated and then incorporated as part of the finalised LI document which is proposed to take effect from 1 July, 2018.

    Please provide your feedback, comments or questions by COB Thursday 26 April, 2018 via the Comments dialogue box below:
    Replies Closed