Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 636

Clearing up confusion on how franking credits work

If you open a bank account but refuse to disclose your Tax File Number, the bank is required by law to withhold tax from the interest paid to you. Your personal tax return needs to report all of the interest you earned, not just the after-tax portion you received. Your tax return must include that pre-paid tax, otherwise you would be paying tax twice on the same interest income. If you were not required to pay any tax, you would expect this tax previously withheld by the bank, paid to the ATO on your behalf, to be refunded to you.

How franking credits work

In most countries company profits are taxed twice. The company pays tax on its profits; the after-tax portion is sent to investors as a dividend and is then taxed again as personal income. In Australia, company profits are only taxed once - as personal income for shareholders.

As part-owners of a company, Australian shareholders are responsible for the tax on their share of the total company’s profits, not just the portion they receive as dividends. Therefore, their personal tax return needs to incorporate the pre-paid company tax withheld before they received their dividends.

This is achieved by adding the pre-paid company tax component of the dividend - franking credit – on to the personal taxable income of the dividend sent to the shareholder, who then must pay tax on that larger amount. It means shareholders are required to pay tax on income they never received, but the pre-paid company tax becomes a tax credit in that personal tax return.

With a $100 of company profits, $30 was sent to the ATO as company tax (30%) and $70 was sent to the investor as a dividend. The shareholder’s share of the company’s profit is $100, not $70, and so the shareholder’s taxable income is $100, not $70. That’s why the dividend needs to be “grossed up” - to include the franking credit as part of that personal taxable income. The tax payable on that taxable income of $100 depends on the shareholder’s marginal tax rate.

For shareholders with a marginal tax rate of 45%, they must pay $45 tax on that taxable income of $100 - and they pay more tax finally on that company profit than the company did initially. But the $30 pre-paid company tax becomes a tax credit and they only need to pay an additional $15 tax.

If the shareholder has a 30% marginal tax rate, their tax bill is $30 which is equal to their pre-paid tax credit and they have no more tax to pay. Their dividends are not tax-free; they are tax paid - that’s why it’s called “franking” - just like pre-paid postage.

For shareholders with a marginal tax rate lower than 30%, the tax credit is larger than their tax bill and they get a tax refund, just like a worker whose employer has paid excess tax on their behalf. It is a tax refund because it comes from the ATO, but it is actually an income payment from company profit, due to them as shareholders/owners that was withheld by the ATO until they completed their own tax return, on which no tax is payable.

Figure 1: Flows of tax and franking credits

Source: Parliamentary Budget Office.

It is a fair system

Franking credits are NOT a refund of tax never paid; they are a refund of income never received.

It would be more honest if the income derived from Australian shares were quoted as a pre-tax distribution which is the ‘grossed-up’ income amount of dividend PLUS franking credit - because that is every shareholder’s taxable income. The income distributions derived from every other investment class is quoted on a pre-tax basis.

Franking credits represents the same extra income (and the same pre-paid tax credit) for every shareholder, not just retirees. Note that the grossed-up amount is 42.85% higher than the dividend alone. ($100 compared to $70). Shareholders with high marginal tax rates use that extra income to pay some or all of their tax obligation. Shareholders with low marginal tax rates get some or all of that extra income refunded because they don’t need to pay as much tax.

Parliament has determined that the Future Fund, unions, hospitals, universities, charities, most pensioners and all super funds in pension mode, pay zero tax. For those taxpayers, their taxable income is $100, and their after-tax income is $100 comprised of $70 dividends and $30 franking credit refund. The refund is solely determined by their marginal tax rate.

For Australian taxpayers, franking credits ensure that company profits are always taxed only once, and always taxed as personal income for shareholders at their personal marginal tax rate. The system also ensures that foreign investors always pay tax in Australia at the company tax rate, because it is withheld before they receive their dividends.

The ATO could achieve exactly the same result of taxing company profits as personal income in the hands of shareholders at their marginal tax rate if there was no company tax, and all company profits were simply distributed to shareholders as taxable income, but then foreign investors would pay no tax in Australia.

 

Jon Kalkman is a former Director of the Australian Investors Association. This article is for general information purposes only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. This article is based on an understanding of the rules at the time of writing and anyone considering changing their circumstances should consult a financial adviser.

 

  •   5 November 2025
  • 31
  •      
  •   
31 Comments
Steve
November 06, 2025

Wholeheartedly agree with Mike's sentiments. Franking has been a feature of our tax system since 1987 and yet we are still having public debates about its efficacy.

"Franking credits are NOT a refund of tax never paid; they are a refund of income never received."
Best line I have heard in relation to franking credits.

12
Steve
November 06, 2025

Worthy effort but too many on the left side are recalcitrant when it comes to learning facts and details. If you earn dividends you are a rich b****** and should pay 90% tax in their eyes. Nothing it seems will change this attitude.

4
Disgruntled
November 07, 2025

The few that say, Tax the rich more, then come into money quantify that statement to.. Tax those that are richer than me, more

JohnS
November 06, 2025

If you were to think of franking credits like a PAYG with holding tax, then all the issues disappear.

Consider a wage earner - the employer estimates what the tax at year end is going to be, and deducts that from his wage. The GROSS is included in income, and tax calculated, and if the tax deducted via PAYG is too high, then the employee gets a refund. If not enough, he has to pay the difference

Exactly the same underlying logic

It doesn't matter what the company tax rate is, it could be anything from 1% to 99% and the result would be the same. The higher the company tax rate, the greater the encouragement for the company to increase their dividend payout ratio, which would probably be a good thing, if issuing of new shares could be done cost effectively (rather than companies unilaterally deciding to "reinvest" their profits by profit retention)

3
Mark B
November 06, 2025

You are right JohnS. However, the people who don't understand Franking Credits are the same people that don't understand PAYG as employees have the money just taken out of their wages!
They are happy if they get a tax return without realising that it's because too much PAYG tax has been deducted by their employer.

1
Kevin
November 06, 2025

Yes Mark,correct Taxed the same as income,they'll refuse to see it. For me the franking credits covered that tax.Then as excess income went into DRP's it didn't . Welcome to the PAYG system ( the old provisional tax). At first it was you owe us $ X,xxx and pay the quarterly tax estimated by the ATO. Next year it will be you owe us $XX,xxx. Highest income happens in retirement,and the highest amount of tax paid happens in retirement,it's great.

JohnS
November 07, 2025

And if the government was to change the imputation system back to the old system (no refund of excess imputation credits) there is a simple way to get the benefit of the imputation credit - sell the shares before the dividends are paid. All other things being equal (eg no day to day share price variation) then the share price drops by the amount of the dividend (plus imputation credit) on the day shares go ex dividend (more or less). Therefore, just sell your shares the day before going ex dividend, and you get the benefit of the imputation credit (or an approximation of it)

The government would be surprised at just how little less imputation credits will change

Martin Mulcare
November 08, 2025

Jon's explanation is perfect for explaining how franking credits work. However, it avoids the question of how company tax should work in principle. His last two paragraphs neatly highlight the reason that this might be revisited. Perhaps corporate entities should be taxed as entities (rather than "taxed only once, and always taxed as personal income for shareholders")? Then, as Paul Keating said when he introduced the original legislation in 1987, the dividend imputation system might be regarded as "the elimination of the double taxation of company dividends". I can understand why many people want to retain the status quo but it doesn't mean that it might not be questioned, especially with reference to the original intent.

3
Ian
November 06, 2025

If I remember rightly, franking was introduced at a time when Investment into property and share market trusts were booming, to protect capital available to companies. Trusts paid no tax, and 100% of the earnings (or thereabouts) was distributed directly to the unit holders who then paid tax at their marginal rate. Prior to franking, dividends were taxed twice, and non-taxable investors still paid the 30% company rate on their dividend income. Franking brought some fairness into the taxing of investment Income.

2
Burrow Smorgasboard
November 06, 2025

The best explanation I've heard yet. Thank you Jon.

2
Lyn
November 07, 2025

Jon, though I have always understood franking, this is best explanation I have ever seen including some of your own former articles on same. Almost didn't read but thought let's have look at Comments if still any 'non-believers'. Whoever owns article, you or Firstlinks/Morningstar, should publish wherever the young get their news and knowledge these days so reaches those who doubt the principle, and e/mail it to the politician whom shall remain nameless who couldn't explain it in a televised debate when was asked.
Well done.

2
Richard
November 08, 2025

Hi Jon, you say "As part-owners of a company, Australian shareholders are responsible for the tax on their share of the total company’s profits, not just the portion they receive as dividends. Therefore, their personal tax return needs to incorporate the pre-paid company tax withheld before they received their dividends." But few companies pay out 100% of their profits as dividends, most pay around 70% or less, the company pays company tax on the total profit, the investors are not responsible for all of that, only the gross dividend paid out. This is why many companies have a store of franking credits that they find difficult to pass on to the shareholders.
All up a good explanation other than that small error.

2
Dudley
November 08, 2025


Company paying out 100% of profit results in no change in Franking Account Balance (FAB), after first paying tax to ATO (add to FAB), then paying dividends to shareholders (subtract from FAB).

Company retaining profit (pay out < 100%) results in increase in Franking Account Balance.

Company later paying out retained profit results in a decrease in Franking Account Balance.

Peter Vann
November 06, 2025

RE your closing paragraph

A withholding tax would solve the issue relating to foreign investors.

1
Dudley
November 06, 2025


"A withholding tax would solve the issue relating to foreign investors.":

Which is what Company Tax is.

Wayne Ryan
November 06, 2025

Jon Kalkman's article is a good explanation of the imputation system.

None of that changes the fact that no tax is paid on company income received by tax entities which pay zero tax on their income.

I don't see this as sustainable, but perhaps the problem is the decision not to
tax superannuation income, rather than the imputation system.

1
Dudley
November 06, 2025


"no tax is paid on company income received by tax entities which pay zero tax on their income":
No tax is paid on any income received by tax entities which pay zero tax on their income.

"I don't see this as sustainable, but perhaps the problem is the decision not to tax superannuation income, rather than the imputation system."
The problem, sustainability of Commonwealth debt, is voters voting for spending, not saving.

Close to the moment when the only likely way to avoid a debt death spiral is growth fuelled by more money dilution and hope to out run the debt albeit creepingly.

'Australia's "Debt-Free Day" of 2006 was April 21, 2006, when the Commonwealth government under Treasurer Peter Costello declared that the government had eliminated its net debt for the first time in 30 years. This was achieved through a combination of asset sales, like the sale of Telstra, and budget surpluses. The declaration was significant because the government became a net saver, and it was a major political and economic event in Australia.'

A Local Hero at the time.

4
Maurie
November 07, 2025

I agree Wayne. The problem does not lie in the construct of the imputation system. It is the fact that the shareholder enjoys tax exempt status when the beneficiary is in pension phase (or more correctly, over 60).

Jack
November 07, 2025

Maurice, the owner of the shares and therefore the shareholder and taxpayer who collects the franking credit refund, is the super fund not the member over 60. That taxpayer in pension mode (the super fund) has been tax exempt since 1992 and has nothing to do with members ages.
The tax-free-after-60 arrangement for withdrawals from super has nothing to do with franking credits.
You seen to be confusing the tax paid by the super fund and tax paid by members when they previously withdrew money from their account.
Many people do.

Maurie
November 11, 2025

Sorry Jack if I succeeded in conflating the shareholder with the member. The shareholder I refer to in my post is in fact the fund not the member. The fund holds assets to support the retirement income streams of its members (who have attained preservation age) and therefore entitled to the tax benefits that flow from investments (e.g. franking credits). However, that aside, the point being made is that the problems associated with Commonwealth's revenue collection model does not with the imputation system.

Jon Kalkman
November 07, 2025

Franking credits explain a number of features of the Australian investment landscape. The company tax rate has no impact on the tax that Australian shareholders actually pay on that profit. For each company, however, the company tax determines the portion of the after-tax profits available for the company to reinvest and grow future profits and employment. That explains the frequent calls to lower the company tax rate to encourage more investment.

For shareholders on low or zero marginal tax rates such as super funds and retirees, franking credits explain their fond attachment to Australian equities in their asset allocation because the additional income, on which little or no tax is payable, represents a higher investment return.

For shareholders on high marginal tax rates, the additional income (and associated tax obligation) from franking credits is not always welcome. Many of these shareholders prefer that the company reinvest this profit to grow company earnings and higher share prices in future, rather than distribute this profit as a dividend taxed in the current year.

Higher share prices represent capital gains and are much preferred because CGT has a 50% discount if the asset is held for 12 months or more and the tax only applies when the asset is sold. Consequently, it gives the shareholder discretion over the timing of this tax, preferably delaying it to a time when their personal marginal tax rate is lower.

1
Steve Randle
November 12, 2025

Good clear article about evil franking credits - Lol! Well done Jon!
When the Keating Labor Govt decided to remove the "double taxation of dividends" in order to improve taxation fairness they had a choice. Tax once only at the Company Rate of tax or tax once only at Personal Rates.
More tax is collected on average at Personal Rates so this is why this option probably won.
Collecting an initial downpayment via Company Tax enabled them to grab much of the tax faster and to also tax foreign investors. This system is cunning but makes it confusing as hell to the average person.
In hindsight it might have been simpler to tax once only at Company Tax rates and avoid the div imp system. Perhaps less fair but much simpler. I have never seen the initial design and politics of this discussed much.

1
Dudley
November 12, 2025


"Collecting an initial downpayment via Company Tax enabled them to grab much of the tax faster and to also tax foreign investors."

Companies are less likely to spend the tax owing and not pay. Less hassle.

"confusing as hell to the average person":

Similar to wage taxation. Gross - Tax = Net.

Jon Kalkman
November 12, 2025

“….tax only once at Company Tax rates and avoid the Div imp system.”

That would mean the dividends would arrive as “tax paid, no more to pay.” That would mean every taxpayer would effectively pay 30% (pre-paid) tax on company profits, regardless of their personal tax rates. That would be simple but it wouldn’t be fair.

It would mean some taxpayers would pay 45% marginal tax rate on all their other income but would pay only 30% on their dividends. Conversely, some taxpayers would pay 15% or 0% tax on all their other income but still pay 30% on their dividends. Clearly it can be simple or it can be fair, but not both.

steve
November 12, 2025

Costello once famously said there is always a trade off between simplicity and fairness. He tended towards simplicity in most cases and I agree.
This system was introduced to remove the unfair "double" taxation of dividends.
There would have been nothing inherently unfair about taxing once only at Company level for everyone. The tax would only been paid by the company at the company tax rate - quite logical.
It could then pass to investors with no further tax to pay no matter what their personal tax rate which is irrelevant.

Dudley
November 12, 2025


"There would have been nothing inherently unfair about taxing once only at Company level for everyone. The tax would only been paid by the company at the company tax rate - quite logical."

A partnership is not taxed, the partners are.
A company is a partnership of shareholders

"Taxing once only at Company level" would be different to taxing a partnership.

Tony Dillon
November 12, 2025

Except Steve, that the taxation of dividend income would then be inconsistent with the taxation of other forms of personal income, like interest and rental income for example. The logic of the income tax system is that the person receiving the income should be taxed at their marginal rate, regardless of the source of the income.

1
Vic
November 09, 2025

Before the introduction of franking credits, the after-tax dividends distributed to shareholders were taxed again, hence the term double taxation. In the example of a company distributing $70.00 as a dividend to the shareholder and $30.00 tax to the ATO, it should be just that. The taxpayer should not pay any more tax on the dividend; retirees, pensioners and other groups receive, in addition to their dividend, a further $30.00 from the ATO, a total of $100.00 comprising the $70.00 dividend from the company and $30.00 from the ATO. So the tax from the original $100.00 profit from the company was never retained by the ATO. But the working tradie on $100k per annum will pay an additional $15.00 tax on the dividend, retaining $55.00 of the original dividend distribution by the company. Where is the logic in this system?

Dudley
November 09, 2025


"Where is the logic in this system":
Same logic where "the working tradie" has $30.00 tax deducted from gross wage of $100.00 and paid to ATO.

"So the tax from the original $100.00 profit from the company was never retained by the ATO."
$30.00 was retained by ATO. Company informs ATO to credit (impute) specific shareholder with $30 tax paid.

"working tradie on $100k per annum will pay an additional $15.00 tax on the dividend, retaining $55.00 of the original dividend distribution by the company.":

"working tradie" pays:
$20,788.00 on $100,000.00 income,
$20,818.00 on $100,100.00 income (+ $70 dividend + $30 tax (franking) credit).

Difference:
$30.00 on $100.00

Marginal tax rate is:
= (20818 - 20788) / (100100 / 100000)
= 29.97002997% (
= 30%

"working tradie" pays no additional tax on the gross dividend, extra tax is 30 and tax credit is $30:
= 30 - 30
= $0.00



Maurie
November 11, 2025

At the end of the day, a franking credit is a tax credit. Tax credits and tax rebates have been an integral part of the Australian tax system since WW2. The essential difference: tax credits are refundable to taxpayer; tax rebates are not (can only reduce tax payable). Prior to 2000, excess franking credits were not refundable which based on the construct of the tax system was a bit of an odd outcome. The changes made to the imputation system by Costello in 2000 simply put franking credits on equal footing with all other forms of tax credits (PAYG, Foreign Tax Credits).

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Should we change the company tax rate?

Are franking credits back in Labor's sights?

The proposal on capital raisings and franking is misguided

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The growing debt burden of retiring Australians

More Australians are retiring with larger mortgages and less super. This paper explores how unlocking housing wealth can help ease the nation’s growing retirement cashflow crunch.

LICs vs ETFs – which perform best?

With investor sentiment shifting and ETFs surging ahead, we pit Australia’s biggest LICs against their ETF rivals to see which delivers better returns over the short and long term. The results are revealing.

Warren Buffett's final lesson

I’ve long seen Buffett as a flawed genius: a great investor though a man with shortcomings. With his final letter to Berkshire shareholders, I reflect on how my views of Buffett have changed and the legacy he leaves.

Family trusts: Are they still worth it?

Family trusts remain a core structure for wealth management, but rising ATO scrutiny and complex compliance raise questions about their ongoing value. Are the benefits still worth the administrative burden?

13 ways to save money on your tax - legally

Thoughtful tax planning is a cornerstone of successful investing. This highlights 13 legal ways that you can reduce tax, preserve capital, and enhance long-term wealth across super, property, and shares.

Why it’s time to ditch the retirement journey

Retirement isn’t a clean financial arc. Income shocks, health costs and family pressures hit at random, exposing the limits of age-based planning and the myth of a predictable “retirement journey".

Latest Updates

Financial planning

How much does it really cost to raise a child?

With fertility rates at a record low, many say young people aren’t having kids because they’re too expensive. Turns out, it’s not that simple and there are likely other factors at play.

Exchange traded products

Passive ETF investors may be in for a rude shock

Passive ETFs have become wildly popular just as markets, especially the US, reach extreme valuations. For long-term investors, these ETFs make sense, though if you're investing in them to chase performance, look out below.

Shares

Bank reporting season scorecard November 2025

The Big Four banks shrugged off doomsayers with their recent results, posting low loan losses, solid margins, and rising dividends. It underscores their resilience, but lofty valuations mean it’s time to be selective. 

Investment strategies

The real winners from the AI rush

AI is booming, but like the 19th-century gold rush, the real profits may go to those supplying the tools and energy, not the companies at the centre of the rush.

Economy

Why economic forecasts are rarely right (but we still need them)

Economic experts, including the RBA, get plenty of forecasts wrong, but that doesn't make such forecasts worthless. The key isn't to predict perfectly – it's to understand the range of possibilities and plan accordingly.

Strategy

13 reflections on wealth and philanthropy

Wealth keeps growing, yet few ask “how much is enough?” or what their kids truly need. After 23 years in philanthropy, I’ve seen how unexamined wealth can limit impact, and why Australia needs a stronger giving culture.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.