Adviser reprimanded over incorrect advice by FSCP
The Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) has handed down a written reprimand to an adviser that it said provided incorrect advice on a client’s non-concessional contributions cap.
An adviser, anonymised as “Mr C”, who recommended a client make a superannuation non-concessional contribution more than $100,000 above their non-concessional cap, has received a written reprimand from the panel.
“The relevant provider gave advice in January 2023 recommending a client make a superannuation non-concessional contribution of $329,000 in the 2022–23 financial year when the client’s non-concessional cap for that year was $220,000,” the FSCP said.
“When giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to obtain or take into account the client’s superannuation assets in the client’s PSS pension fund. As a result, the client needed to withdraw $120,735 from their superannuation and pay tax on the associated earning of $13,570.”
The sitting panel determined that it “believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) [of the Corporations Act], specifically they did not demonstrate compliance with Code of Ethics’ value of diligence and Standard 5”.
Standard 5 of the Code of Ethics details that all advice and financial product recommendations that you give to a client must be in the best interests of the client and appropriate to the client’s individual circumstances. You must be satisfied that the client understands your advice, and the benefits, costs and risks of the financial products that you recommend, and you must have reasonable grounds to be satisfied.
Other than taking no action, a written reprimand is the lowest level of action available to the FSCP.
The reprimand will not be published on the Financial Advisers Register; however it is provided to the adviser’s AFSL.
The announcement follows the FSCP reprimanding another adviser earlier this week for failing to ensure their client understood their CGT liability.
According to the FSCP, the relevant provider gave advice to a client in March 2022 that included a recommendation to make a tax-deductible contribution to superannuation to reduce the tax liability from expected capital gains from the planned sale of an investment property.
“The relevant provider was advised of the sale of the property in July 2022 and in August 2022, the relevant provider confirmed the contribution could be made,” it said.
“However, the contract of sale for the property was signed in the 2021–22 financial year and the client did not have taxable income in the 2022–23 financial year to get the benefit of the tax deduction.
“The relevant provider did not explain to the client that the capital gains tax (CGT) liability arises when the contract of sale is signed or take steps to confirm when the contract was signed before implementing the advice.”
AUTHOR
Keith Ford
Recommended for you
Sequoia Financial Group has declined by five financial advisers in the past week, four of whom have opened up a new AFSL, according to Wealth Data.
Insignia Financial chief executive Scott Hartley has detailed whether the firm will be selecting an exclusive bidder for the second phase of due diligence as it awaits revised bids from three private equity players.
Insignia Financial has reported a statutory net loss after tax of $17 million in its first half results, although the firm has noted cost optimisation means this is an improvement from a $50 million loss last year.
With alternative funds being described as “impossible” for fund managers to target towards advisers without the support of BDMs for education, Money Management explores the evolving nature of the distribution role.
