"Some SMSF investors buy a coastal or city apartment in their SMSF as an investment while they are working but with an eye to moving in to it when they retire. To do so they must take it out of the fund on retirement. Often they will use the funds from the sale of their home on retirement to buy the property at current market value (Valuation necessary) from the fund. However, the option is there to take the property out as a lump sum in specie transfer if timing makes a purchase strategy unsuitable. It is important that the primary purpose of the property investment is to build wealth to support your retirement income but it's ok to have an ancilliary reason like ensuring a particular area does not get beyond your affordability before retirement. Make sure to research and document the suitability of the investment property as an investment in your minutes"
Can be a useful way to use your super balance. ie the house of your dreams when you turn 60. The problem, a big one is stamp duty. In some[ maybe all?] jurisdictions, stamp duty is not payable if the beneficial owners don't change because of the transaction. This is a lot less complicated if you use a single member fund to buy the house , and transfer it to that member on retirement. Otherwise you can be dumb like me, attempt something like this, and find that because the 2 members balances were not the same , stamp duty payable. You may be able to set up the trust deed so that the asset is sequestered to one person which gets over this problem, even if you have a multi member smsf.
Now, my cunning little plan may be out of date, so checking out whether this is compliant with present laws with an accountant, a must. I would have to agree with pinto , accountants are for organising structures , and making sure you dont stuff up. Mixing up that with straight out investment advice ..... tiger country. I'm sure some do, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
cheers Would be happy for anybody to pick apart what I have said .
