#10122
Awan Hammad
Participant

    Hi Lynda

     

    If I understand the issue, higher stamp duty has been paid but the extra amount was not paid by the Fund. If this has occured then yes the extra amount should be taken up as payable by the Fund as it is its liability.

    I assume the extra stamp duty is approximately $8,000 and on that basis I would not take up interest owing based on it not being a material amount (assuming not a long time has elapsed since it was paid).

    The auditor may be concerned about the original valuation so ideally you would review the valuation for being reasonable re the initial valuation and review on what basis the State Revenue Office came up with a higher valuation.

    If the correct value was not paid by the Fund for the property you may have a breach of section 109 of SIS (arm’s length transactions) and have NALE (non arm’s length expenditure) issues.

     

    Thanks

    The Auditors Institute

    LOGIN

    New to this site? Sign Up

    We have upgraded our website for a better experience.

    Because of this upgrade, all members need to change their password to access their account by clicking the Forgot Password button below.

    Thank you and we look forward to your continued support!