Just had a look at the ATO legal database for 2008 its seems the...

Just had a look at the ATO legal database for 2008 its seems the following example was cited as not being in breach of the Sole Purpose Test.

'SMSF trustees lease a residential property to a family member at market rent and on the same terms and conditions as applied to previous unrelated tenants who have leased the residential property over the years it has been owned by the SMSF'.

Really dont think we are that far removed from this example. I'm not surprised the ATO didnt Appeal, given in substance the ruling seems to be pretty much there.

Ref:http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=SFR/SMSFR20081/NAT/ATO/00001