Super co-contrbution for wife
May 21st 2012, 12:45 pm
#1
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
Super co-contrbution for wife
OK, so i read this question posted last year, http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=713694, and the answer seems to be that, if my wife doesnt work, she won't be able to receive the co-contribution, becase she's not "employeed", period.
Personally, i think that's a stupid rule that should be dumped, but apparently the fat idiots in ATO won't do that. So how about this "technical workaround":
My wife goes to do a week of cleaning (or baby-sitting) for a friend, and receives $1000 payment from the friend. Now she can claims she has worked as a "self-employeed cleaner or baby-sitter" and made an income of $1000 for the whole year, 100% ( > 10%) of which is made thru the cleaning or baby-sitting business (can get an ABN for this). Then she can put that $1000 into the super, and receive the additonal $1000 co-contribution from ATO.
Since $1000 is less than the $6000 threshhold, she won't be liable for any income tax payment. This seems to be the perfect solution to this hare-brained rule, but is there a catch?
Personally, i think that's a stupid rule that should be dumped, but apparently the fat idiots in ATO won't do that. So how about this "technical workaround":
My wife goes to do a week of cleaning (or baby-sitting) for a friend, and receives $1000 payment from the friend. Now she can claims she has worked as a "self-employeed cleaner or baby-sitter" and made an income of $1000 for the whole year, 100% ( > 10%) of which is made thru the cleaning or baby-sitting business (can get an ABN for this). Then she can put that $1000 into the super, and receive the additonal $1000 co-contribution from ATO.
Since $1000 is less than the $6000 threshhold, she won't be liable for any income tax payment. This seems to be the perfect solution to this hare-brained rule, but is there a catch?
May 22nd 2012, 2:54 am
#2
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 838
Re: Super co-contrbution for wife
I think you would still have trouble proving that she is working and your not doing this for financial benefit.
The ATO is the one who pays this so it would need a record of her wage , tax paid and super contributions over more than just one week - thats why it isnt paid at June 30 .
The ATO is the one who pays this so it would need a record of her wage , tax paid and super contributions over more than just one week - thats why it isnt paid at June 30 .
May 22nd 2012, 8:37 am
#3
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,217
Re: Super co-contrbution for wife
Iv wondered that, for a stay at home parent, do they not have a Super fund at all??
May 22nd 2012, 1:09 pm
#4
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3
Re: Super co-contrbution for wife
@mulben, yes, i guess you do have a point here. That is, if every co-contribution requires manual review and approval, then somebody might frown at a lady who earns only $1000 a year and contributes all of that money into her super fund.
Having admitted that, the rule doesn't specifically say that someone must be "working" during the financial year to qualify. So technically, they'll have trouble denying her benefit. E.g, had the rule explicitly mentioned that you must be working for at least 30 days during the last financial year to receive co-contribution, then they would have a leg to stand on; but that's not the case. I don't know why, maybe ATO didn't want to come across as being so blatantly biased against "working" moms?
Having admitted that, the rule doesn't specifically say that someone must be "working" during the financial year to qualify. So technically, they'll have trouble denying her benefit. E.g, had the rule explicitly mentioned that you must be working for at least 30 days during the last financial year to receive co-contribution, then they would have a leg to stand on; but that's not the case. I don't know why, maybe ATO didn't want to come across as being so blatantly biased against "working" moms?
