SMSF Strategies

[elbee]

Trading as such is not banned from within a SMSF. Operating a consulting business within a SMSF is also not directly banned.

What the law says is that a super fund must be operated with the sole purpose of providing retirement benefits to its members. The ATO has stated that in its view the carrying on of a business within a SMSF would negate this sole purpose test. The ATO statement is meant as generalised guidance only and is not law. Particular circumstances must be considered case by case.

What is definite is that a super fund can only provide benefits on retirement, it cannot provide immediate benefits. Thus any activity in a SMSF that generates current salaries, fees or dividends to members is not allowable.

 

[awg]

with respect to "trading" within an SMSF.

I basically have 3 investment strategies within my SMSF.

short, medium and long.

short is basically day-trading.( 40trades last week)

In my opinion, no matter how many trades i do, I dont believe the ATO or anyone else could sustain an argument this breached any aspect of SIS regs.

Because the BULK of my assets are medium/long term, I would simply mount the case, that I am maximising my return.

I have past experience in determining cases that require assesment against legislative and administrative appeals.

admin and civil cases are decided on balance of probability after all factors are taken into account. Precedent is used. Each case on its merits.

If I day traded the bulk of my account, I could possibly have a problem.

I would be very interested if any precedents have been published by ATO.

This matter will arise frequently.

my SMSF is in pension phase so very little tax, but if still in accumulation 15% tax, so people will want to claim the cost of data, software etc, as a deduction in their SMSF.

regards tony

 

[CAFA1234]

Trading as such is not banned from within a SMSF. Operating a consulting business within a SMSF is also not directly banned.

What the law says is that a super fund must be operated with the sole purpose of providing retirement benefits to its members. The ATO has stated that in its view the carrying on of a business within a SMSF would negate this sole purpose test. The ATO statement is meant as generalised guidance only and is not law. Particular circumstances must be considered case by case.

What is definite is that a super fund can only provide benefits on retirement, it cannot provide immediate benefits. Thus any activity in a SMSF that generates current salaries, fees or dividends to members is not allowable.

Lets look at an example - if I don't need any income, you think I can operate a consulting business from within my SMSF and say, make $500K pa which would be taxed at only 15%. What if I can make $5m PA? With these assets being built up within my SMSF, I'd have little problem borrowing from a bank for day to day living expenses.

Do you have any knowledge of ATO rulings that allow a consultancy of large scale trading within a SMSF. Unless you have some evidence it is very misleading to suggest hat this is generally OK. How many SMSF's have the asset base to take on the ATO.

You may have technical point, but do you have any accountancy advice to suggest that this is OK?

 

[elbee]

I have not suggested it is generally OK to run a consultancy business from within a SMSF. What I said was that the law does not specifically prevent it and therefore particular circumstances must be considered case by case. The general tax avoidance provisions of the law would probably prevent the type of arrangement you mention.

My comments were aimed at the suggestion made by someone that share trading was not allowed in a SMSF because the ATO would consider it a business and there was some arbitrary limit to the number of trades that can be made.

The point I want to emphasis is that the number of share transactions is irrelevant. What matters is that the fund meets the sole purpose test and that any trading is within the fund's overall investment strategy.

 

[CAFA1234]

I have not suggested it is generally OK to run a consultancy business from within a SMSF. What I said was that the law does not specifically prevent it and therefore particular circumstances must be considered case by case. The general tax avoidance provisions of the law would probably prevent the type of arrangement you mention.

My comments were aimed at the suggestion made by someone that share trading was not allowed in a SMSF because the ATO would consider it a business and there was some arbitrary limit to the number of trades that can be made.

The point I want to emphasis is that the number of share transactions is irrelevant. What matters is that the fund meets the sole purpose test and that any trading is within the fund's overall investment strategy.

Elbee - please help me as I'm now confused. Your post above now says that you have not suggested it is generally OK to run a consultancy business from within a SMSF. Could you clarify and explain when this WOULD be OK as I'm very interested in any technical point that I may have missed. Or are you now agreeing with the assertion that running a business within a SMSF is a no-go for all practicable purposes?

Moving onto share trading. As you may know, there is a semi-technical aspect of what the ATO means by 'trading' - e.g. making a living out of buying and selling shares on a regular basis. yes it is a grey area and one that could be challenged in the courts. I suspect that most of the SMSF readers on this forum do not have the asset base to make this sort of challenge worthwhile.

You assert that the number of share transactions is irrelevant. To use my earlier example, if I trade in and out of the same share for say over 70% of my SMSF value, on a daily / weekly basis would you think that the ATO would consider that as 'trading'. I do.

Please take this in the spirit it is meant - not trying to take issue with your views, just trying to get to a pragmatic and reasonable advice for the 80/90% of users.

 

[Tom Ronalds]

The ATO outlines their position on SMSF running a business on page 17 in their "Roles and Responsibilities of Approved Auditors".

Here's the relevant bit:

AUDIT OF THE SOLE PURPOSE TEST
You must be satisfied that the fund has not contravened the
sole purpose test. You can determine whether a self managed
fund has contravened the test by examining:
the character and purpose of the fund’s investments,
to ensure that:
...
– the fund is not running a business as part of its
investment strategy – A superannuation fund has as its
sole purpose the provision of benefits to members on
retirement or attainment of a certain age, or to dependants
on the death of a member. Therefore, superannuation
funds are generally prohibited from carrying on an active
business as there is an inherent risk in running a business
that may jeopardise members’ benefits. An indicator of a
self managed fund operating a business would be the fund
making payments or claiming a deduction for salary and
wages or other business-related expenditure. Funds that
operate a business may do so to exploit the tax
concessions given to regulated superannuation funds.

<http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/nat11375.pdf>

It is pretty clear that anyone trying to claim the cost of software, data feeds and so on for frequent trading of large volumes of assets within the SMSF would breach the above provision.

It is true that there is no arbitrary "hard limit" on the number of trades allowed; however the ATO can use its discretion in what constitutes a "business" in this context - in the same way it can disallow CGT discounts to those investors who are engaged in the "business" of frequent buying and selling (of properties, shares or whatever). The accountant mentioned earlier is therefore just being prudent - as he should be.

The line between "investing" and "running a business" can thus be a very fine one indeed.

Cheers,

Tom R.

 

[CAFA1234]

The ATO outlines their position on SMSF running a business on page 17 in their "Roles and Responsibilities of Approved Auditors".

It is pretty clear that anyone trying to claim the cost of software, data feeds and so on for frequent trading of large volumes of assets within the SMSF would breach the above provision.

The line between "investing" and "running a business" can thus be a very fine one indeed.

Cheers,

Tom R.

Thanks Tom, clarification appreciated. The ATO example does raise a question - what if there are no salary being paid and no expenses being claimed, just a direct deposit of fees for labour? Are you aware of any rulings or attempts to clarify this sort of situation. My best guess is that the ATO would fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, but I'm often wrong!

 

[Tom Ronalds]

Thanks Tom, clarification appreciated. The ATO example does raise a question - what if there are no salary being paid and no expenses being claimed, just a direct deposit of fees for labour? Are you aware of any rulings or attempts to clarify this sort of situation.

I am not aware of any specific ruling that would deal with that particular matter, but then again, I am not a tax lawyer! ;-)

Common sense would indicate that if all you are doing is depositing fees for your labour, then this is in principle no different from salary sacrificing/making deductible (concessional) contributions of your salary (if substantially self-employed) of up to the allowable limit of $50K/yr. for under 50 year olds & $100K for over 50.

There is nothing stopping you from contributing 100% of your salary/contract fees into super/your SMSF, if this is less than the above limits.

Obviously these "fees for labour" must be earned by you from ordinary employment - or your spouse (if you have a contribution splitting agreement in place and your Deed allows it).

In fact, if you are over 55, you should do exactly this with up to the allowable maximum; subject to overall personal cashflows of course. There are numerous advantages to it.

If your "fees for labour" were day trading profits incurred by trading the SMSF assets, then I think you'd find this could be termed as being employed by your SMSF - which of course is illegal.

My best guess is that the ATO would fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, but I'm often wrong!

Well not if all you are doing is the above (concessional contributions). There's nothing illegal about it.

Unless I am misunderstanding your question.

Cheers.

T. R.

 

[CAFA1234]

I am not aware of any specific ruling that would deal with that particular matter, but then again, I am not a tax lawyer! ;-)

Common sense would indicate that if all you are doing is depositing fees for your labour, then this is in principle no different from salary sacrificing/making deductible (concessional) contributions of your salary (if substantially self-employed) of up to the allowable limit of $50K/yr. for under 50 year olds & $100K for over 50.

There is nothing stopping you from contributing 100% of your salary/contract fees into super/your SMSF, if this is less than the above limits.

Obviously these "fees for labour" must be earned by you from ordinary employment - or your spouse (if you have a contribution splitting agreement in place and your Deed allows it).

In fact, if you are over 55, you should do exactly this with up to the allowable maximum; subject to overall personal cashflows of course. There are numerous advantages to it.

If your "fees for labour" were day trading profits incurred by trading the SMSF assets, then I think you'd find this could be termed as being employed by your SMSF - which of course is illegal.



Well not if all you are doing is the above (concessional contributions). There's nothing illegal about it.

Unless I am misunderstanding your question.

Cheers.

T. R.

Agree with all your valuable points.

I guess I'm interested in the figures when outside of the concessional limits. Can my SMSF 'own' the consultancy business (a limited company registered on, or off shore) and thus be the beneficial owner of the income and be internally taxed at 15% as income. No salary paid, no expenses claimed just a straight pass through. This would allow significant sums to be taxed at 15% and thus in effect.

Where is this different to a SMSF owning shares in BHP? Each business runs, makes money and distributes surplus profits to it's shareholders. I know I'm pushing the envelope in a big way, but I'm sure that by now someone has taken on the ATO and produced a precedent ruling - either way.

 

[Tom Ronalds]

Agree with all your valuable points.

Thank you.

I guess I'm interested in the figures when outside of the concessional limits. Can my SMSF 'own' the consultancy business (a limited company registered on, or off shore) and thus be the beneficial owner of the income and be internally taxed at 15% as income. No salary paid, no expenses claimed just a straight pass through. This would allow significant sums to be taxed at 15% and thus in effect.

Technically it can - provided this is a public company of which you, or another Member of the SMSF, are not a controlling individual. If it fails that test, then the company will be an in-house asset and the SMSF will be prohibited from owning it, unless the overall asset balance of the SMSF is so large that it keeps the company's value at less than 5% of the overall tally.

Certain definitions of what exactly is an in-house asset are currently in a transitional period and will cease to apply from June 2009. This means some investors need to be aware they may subsequently breach the 5% ceiling if they have not made appropriate provisions.

Google "in-house assets" (general definition) and "Part 8 associates" (investment in related structures) - there is plenty of material available on the topic.

Where is this different to a SMSF owning shares in BHP? Each business runs, makes money and distributes surplus profits to it's shareholders. I know I'm pushing the envelope in a big way, but I'm sure that by now someone has taken on the ATO and produced a precedent ruling - either way.

BHP is a publicly listed company. Therefore by its very definition it cannot be an in-house asset.

Cheers.

T. R.

 

[CAFA1234]

Thank you.



Technically it can - provided this is a public company of which you, or another Member of the SMSF, are not a controlling individual. If it fails that test, then the company will be an in-house asset and the SMSF will be prohibited from owning it, unless the overall asset balance of the SMSF is so large that it keeps the company's value at less than 5% of the overall tally.

Certain definitions of what exactly is an in-house asset are currently in a transitional period and will cease to apply from June 2009. This means some investors need to be aware they may subsequently breach the 5% ceiling if they have not made appropriate provisions.

Google "in-house assets" (general definition) and "Part 8 associates" (investment in related structures) - there is plenty of material available on the topic.



BHP is a publicly listed company. Therefore by its very definition it cannot be an in-house asset.

Cheers.

T. R.

Tom - you add significant value in all your posts - thank you.

Hopefully by now you will have put the 'trading' within a SMSF to rest, along with any othger form of business

 

[Julia]

Can anyone offer informed comment on the following?

According to the ATO the Superannuation Industry Supervision Regulations state that the audit for a SMSF must be completed no later than a day before the tax return is lodged.

My accountant was late finishing the financial statements and tax return.
Should have been lodged on 15 May but it was not lodged (electronically) until ten days after that. In the Return document she has completed the Auditor's section and put a 'Yes' in the box which asks "Did the fund comply with all relevant SIS requirements", thus indicating to the ATO that the audit has been completed.

(In the meantime I have paid the tax owing so as not to incur displeasure from the ATO.)

I have said to her that I am unhappy about the way she has gone about this as I really feel uncomfortable being associated with anything which could render the Fund non-compliant. If the audit is supposed to be done before the tax return is lodged then that is what should happen.
All the relevant input material was available to her since the end of the 2006/07 financial year.

Now she is saying it is her 'standard practice' that the fee (which is twice what she estimated) be paid before the audit is done. I have said I find that unacceptable, and that we will not be signing off on the financial statements or the tax return until we see the signed audit.

Has anyone encountered a similar situation? Obviously I will be disputing the fee, she assumes this, and hence her request for the money before I 'get the goods'.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[Tom Ronalds]

Can anyone offer informed comment on the following?

According to the ATO the Superannuation Industry Supervision Regulations state that the audit for a SMSF must be completed no later than a day before the tax return is lodged.

My accountant was late finishing the financial statements and tax return.
Should have been lodged on 15 May but it was not lodged (electronically) until ten days after that. In the Return document she has completed the Auditor's section and put a 'Yes' in the box which asks "Did the fund comply with all relevant SIS requirements", thus indicating to the ATO that the audit has been completed.

Is she herself the nominated Auditor?

If not, then of course she had no right to make a statement like that on the Auditor's behalf. Doubly so, if the audit process has not been completed yet.

(In the meantime I have paid the tax owing so as not to incur displeasure from the ATO.)

Are you comfortable with the amount of tax? Do you have any reason to believe it may not be correct?

I have said to her that I am unhappy about the way she has gone about this as I really feel uncomfortable being associated with anything which could render the Fund non-compliant.

All correct sentiments, but so far, the ATO has generally gone out of its way to avoid making a SMSF non-compliant. As long as the Trustees show willingness to correct their ways, the Commissioner will generally refrain from imposing that sort of penalty.

This may be about to change however, as the ATO has announced it believes it has been too nice for too long and it is now time to move from a purely educational stand to one incorporating stricter enforcement and penalties, where appropriate.

Unfortunately, in my experience many accountants who deal with SMSF clients are not overly educated in general SMSF matters. A bit like financial planners, who just want to get the SMSF money into their preferred wrap platform, many accountants just want to crunch the tax figures, without much regard for compliance.

Many accountants also tend to abuse the one feature of a SMSF that is amongst the best that this structure offers - the benefit of hindsight, where you are able to, for example, amend the structure of your annual contributions once you know your personal tax position, so as to obtain the most tax advantageous outcome. This however also allows a sloppy Trustee/accountant the ability to change many aspects of the SMSF's operation a long time after the actual event - which leads some of them to believe there is no need to do it properly in the first place, because it will get fixed later.

Incidentally, I have come across SMSFs where the Trust Deed could not be located, there never apparently was an Investment Strategy, the Member was years past age 65, not working and yet not drawing a pension (before compulsory cashing was abolished) and yet the Auditor kept happily signing off on the tax returns!

A recent case I have worked with involved a client who believed his SMSF was in a pension stage and therefore internally tax-exempt; yet no documentation existed to show this and his accountant/Auditor both thought they could just manipulate journal entries, rather that make physical drawdowns, to satisfy the minimum pension requirement (this fellow does not need the pension money to live on - he just wanted to save the 15% tax!)

A fund with several million dollars in it tends to save a lot of tax once fully in pension stage and it is not such a hard task to get the paperwork in order & make the annual drawdown - even if you then just contribute the excess cash back in again. Yet the accountant thought there was no need to bother with any of that...!

In such instances of course you could claim this was a breach at the professional/accountant level, and the ATO would/should reserve most of its wrath for the Auditor who signed off on it rather than the Trustee.

But in any case, who needs the hassle, hey?

My advice would be to just find a more skilled/professional accountant.

If the audit is supposed to be done before the tax return is lodged then that is what should happen.

Indeed.

All the relevant input material was available to her since the end of the 2006/07 financial year.

This is what often happens though. Accountants are notorious for falling behind with their work and then there is a mad rush to meet the last available deadline. This is how mistakes are then more likely to occur.

If she can't cope with the workload, she should employ another accountant.

Now she is saying it is her 'standard practice' that the fee (which is twice what she estimated) be paid before the audit is done.

I would be asking how come she was so far out with her fee estimate? Was there something in your returns that had not been obvious/anticipated at the start?

The fees quoted are quoted for a reason; otherwise what's the difference between that and, say, a real estate agent that quotes an outrageous price on your property solely to secure the listing?

I have said I find that unacceptable, and that we will not be signing off on the financial statements or the tax return until we see the signed audit.

I would be also looking closely at the Auditor. If this accountant is sloppy, the Auditor may well also be. Good Auditors will not work with sloppy accountants because it is ultimately their skin on the line, if something is not right.

Has anyone encountered a similar situation?

See above.

Obviously I will be disputing the fee, she assumes this, and hence her request for the money before I 'get the goods'.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Sounds pretty dodgy to me. I would not be paying until the job has been properly completed and, just as you say, I would be questioning why the fee was so far out of the initial estimate.

If the accountant found no unexpected items which would have required the extra work, then there is no justification for the extra fee. Her being inefficient does not qualify.

Cheers,

T. R.

 

[sinic]

I have a SMSF in pension mode this financial year for the first time. In the next week or so I am going to getout an annual minimum pension payment of the 4% as required under the rules. I am then going to recontribute this. Does anyone know how long the money has to leave the SMSF until it can come back ie can I put it back again on the same day ?

I just like to keep everything within the fund so that all earnings are tax free - makes it feel like I am living in Monaco or somewhere.

Is the ATO likely to have a problem with a couple of bank transfers on a single day? Any one have any experience before I ring up the ATO about five times until I get a majority answer that is consistent.

 

[Hyperion]

Just my opinion...

According to the ATO the Superannuation Industry Supervision Regulations state that the audit for a SMSF must be completed no later than a day before the tax return is lodged.

Firstly, I'm not too sure how strict this rule is...

I guess this won't really matter if the accountant is doing the financials, audit and tax return. Like if they have seen all your information, and they know they will be happy to sign off the audit. If the accountant is slightly dodgy they may backdate.

My accountant was late finishing the financial statements and tax return

This often happens unfortunately...

(In the meantime I have paid the tax owing so as not to incur displeasure from the ATO.)

Yes, you should definately do this. Regardless of when you lodge the tax return, you should at least pay an estimate of the tax owing to avoid penalties and GIC. If you overpay, you will get any overpayment back + interest.

Now she is saying it is her 'standard practice' that the fee (which is twice what she estimated) be paid before the audit is done. I have said I find that unacceptable

Hmm this is how the firm I worked did it. Clearly outline in an engagement letter what was our responsibility and what was not covered and then give a fixed quote. If it looked like it was necessary to do work "out of scope" of the original engagement letter, we notify the client to get agreement before we do it. This additional work is normally at our hourly rates. The accountant wants to avoid fee disputes as much as you do.

In reality, we know our clients well enough so we know how much they are willing to pay...

Ask your accountant what they did to add value above and beyond what was included in the fee quote, and to justify the additional cost. Also ask them if they can tell you if they intend to charge over the quote in the future.

I have said I find that unacceptable, and that we will not be signing off on the financial statements or the tax return until we see the signed audit.

I thought that they technically weren't able to do the audit until you signed the financials? We always got the client to sign financial statements and return to us before we did the audit. Happy to be corrected though.


Hyperion

 

[Hyperion]

From your earlier post Julia,

Now I have always had the understanding - and this is what I'd appreciate someone confirming or correcting - that the accountant completes the tax return and the return is then sent out to the auditors for checking.

It is the financial statements which are audited - not the tax return.

 

[Julia]

From your earlier post Julia,



It is the financial statements which are audited - not the tax return.

Yes, thanks Hyperion. Just a careless statement on my part. I did, of course, mean the financial statements.

Tom, thank you so much for detailed and helpful reply which has reassured me I'm not being unreasonable.

The accountant, when I first met her, made much of the fact that she sent the audit out to another firm. When I saw her to collect the financial statements last week she admitted that this arrangement was "a formality, at best" and that she "prepared the financial statements in such a way that she knew the auditors would sign off on them without question", and there would be no problem in their doing this after the return had been lodged. I suggested that this hardly fulfilled the supposed purpose of the audit, i.e. a protection for me that my Fund's statements were correct etc, and she agreed.
Said that was "how she was able to keep costs down". Well she hasn't even done that.

We have emailed her saying definitely that nothing will be signed until the audit is completed.

Her invoice does not include any specific cost for the audit. There is no separate account to come from the auditor (who is apparently her ex-employer). Should I ask for the account to be itemised more clearly so as to show the cost of audit? Or doesn't it matter at this stage?
I am getting fed up with the whole damn thing. The tax paid seems about right for the profit for that year. I have already found a new accountant for next year. Have considered making a complaint to CPA Australia but doubt whether it's really worth the negative energy involved.

 

[Hyperion]

I think you will find most accountants have a preferred auditor whom they regularly use. Like your accountant said, to do otherwise would be extremely expensive.

Right now your accountant prepares financials and gets auditor to rubber stamp pretty much. If you wanted a completely independent auditor, they would essentially have to do all the work the initial accountant did all over again, effectively doubling the cost. Keep in mind, preparing the accounts properly is no easy exercise.

I think it all pretty much comes down to how much you trust your accountant. A preferred auditor in itself is not a problem. Or hardly a problem worth avoiding in any case (due to difficulty in getting one + added expense)

I don't know how much your accountant charges, but anything under a few thousand for SMSF work is fairly reasonable for a good accountant IMO.

Hyperion

 

[Julia]

I think you will find most accountants have a preferred auditor whom they regularly use. Like your accountant said, to do otherwise would be extremely expensive.

Right now your accountant prepares financials and gets auditor to rubber stamp pretty much. If you wanted a completely independent auditor, they would essentially have to do all the work the initial accountant did all over again, effectively doubling the cost. Keep in mind, preparing the accounts properly is no easy exercise.

Thanks, Hyperion. The audit is supposed to be my reassurance that the work has been done correctly. Simply 'rubber stamping' doesn't reassure me at all.

I think it all pretty much comes down to how much you trust your accountant. A preferred auditor in itself is not a problem. Or hardly a problem worth avoiding in any case (due to difficulty in getting one + added expense)

Well, obviously I don't trust her orI I wouldn't be having these concerns. She made two significant mistakes last year and they were things I was able to pick up. I don't know enough about the whole accounting process to know whether she has done the work correctly this year, and am therefore dependent on a properly independent audit to show this. It seems no such independent audit actually occurs.

 

[Tom Ronalds]

I have a SMSF in pension mode this financial year for the first time. In the next week or so I am going to getout an annual minimum pension payment of the 4% as required under the rules. I am then going to recontribute this. Does anyone know how long the money has to leave the SMSF until it can come back ie can I put it back again on the same day ?

There is no specific time lag that needs to be considered for the re-contribution. It just needs to be clear that you have taken the pension payment out - typically this can be documented by your SMSF working account's bank statement.

I just like to keep everything within the fund so that all earnings are tax free - makes it feel like I am living in Monaco or somewhere.

The amount you re-contribute will henceforth form a separate, accumulation portion of your SMSF Member interest. Any earnings accrued on it will consequently be taxable at the usual rate of 15% (or 10% for capital gains on assets held for more than 12 months).

If you want to have the full 100% of your Member interest free of tax going forward, you will need to either commence a second account based pension (ABP), using the re-contributed amount, or you will need to commute the existing pension back to accumulation stage, merge with the re-contributed amount and commence a new ABP with the consolidated amount.

Either of these operations requires a specific set of instructions from you to the Trustee and a specific set of notes/paperwork to document this. If you choose to commute and merge, then of particular importance will be the calculation of the adjusted tax free/taxable components applicable to the new pension.

Obviously if you are over 60 years old, the tax free/taxable component is of no specific consequence to you personally, but you have an obligation as a Trustee to properly calculate and record them. Failing to do so may disadvantage your eventual beneficiaries with regards to the eventual death benefit ETP taxation.

Be aware also that commuting the existing pension may in certain instances result in a lower anti-detriment provision (refund of contribution tax paid over your lifetime) in case of your premature death (this is assuming your SMSF Trust Deed allows for anti-detriment). It generally pays to consult with an appropriately qualified specialist so as to work out whether this is the case or not in your instance. Alas, do not as a rule expect your accountant to even know what a superannuation anti-detriment provision is, let alone calculate it for you.

Is the ATO likely to have a problem with a couple of bank transfers on a single day? Any one have any experience before I ring up the ATO about five times until I get a majority answer that is consistent.

See above.

Be sure to also record what type of re-contribution you are making - i.e. concessional (if this is required and you qualify) or non-concessional (most cases).

Be careful also that you do not exceed the respective contribution caps.

Cheers.

T. R.