Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 306

Franking policy may increase corporate tax avoidance

The heated debate continues regarding Labor’s proposed removal of refundable franking credits. The primary focus is the impact of the change on retirees, SMSF trustees in pension phase and low-income earners. Attention has also been given to the policy’s potential impact on asset allocation, investment in Australian companies and even the value of shares of some Australian companies.

However, one potential consequence that has flown under the radar but would indirectly impact all Australians, is the possibility for a rise in corporate tax avoidance.

The extent of corporate tax avoidance in Australia

Accusations of tax avoidance have thrust many publicly-listed companies into the spotlight in recent years. In 2014, the Tax Justice Network and United Voice accused Australian listed companies of tax avoidance on an industrial scale claiming that the federal government is short-changed by $8.4 billion annually in corporate tax revenue. A more recent study in 2018 by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US found that in 2015, multinationals shifted roughly $15.5 billion (US$12 billion) in profits out of Australia and into tax havens. This equates to approximately $4.7 billion in lost company tax revenue to the Australian Budget.

While exact numbers are elusive, it is clear the public perception in Australia is that many companies, and large multinationals in particular, do not pay their ‘fair share’ of tax. And there is no other time when public perception matters most than election time.

Regulatory response from the Australian government

Australian governments have implemented several initiatives in recent years designed to combat corporate tax avoidance including the diverted profits tax, multinational anti-avoidance law, and the adoption of many of the OECD’s base erosion and profit-shifting reforms e.g. country-by-country reporting. In 2018, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claimed its Tax Avoidance Taskforce had netted $5.6 billion in additional tax in the first two years including extra tax raised through the aforementioned initiatives.

However, despite these targeted initiatives, Australia’s current dividend imputation (including full franking credit refundability) also plays an important role in curtailing corporate tax avoidance.

Role of dividend imputation system in mitigating corporate tax avoidance

The introduction of full franking credit refundability from 1 July 2000 enhances shareholder’s after-tax returns and provides stronger incentives for firms to pay company tax (minimise tax avoidance) to generate valuable franking credits for distribution to shareholders.

Clearly, the change was especially attractive to resident taxpayers whose marginal tax rate is less than the statutory company tax rate of 30%, such as Australian superannuation funds in pension where earnings are tax-free, or accumulation phase, where earnings taxed at 15%. Superannuation funds are major investors in Australian listed companies and seek to maximise after-tax returns for members.

Indeed, in 2013 two UNSW academics, Gordon Mackenzie and Margaret McKerchar, interviewed Chief Investment Officers of 22 Australian superannuation funds and found that 71% claim to actively-manage franking credits as part of their overall investment strategy.

Academic research confirms impact of franking

Academic research shows that the dividend imputation and corporate tax avoidance in Australia are inextricably linked. In 2013, researchers at ANU investigated large publicly-listed Australian firms in the 1999-2003 period and found that firms distributing franked dividends adopt a more conservative tax strategy compared to firms that do not pay franked dividends. More recently, in 2018, researchers at UTS found that in the 2004-2015 period, firms paying partly-franked or fully-franked dividends are less likely to engage in tax avoidance compared to firms that pay unfranked dividends or firms that pay no dividends at all.

Recent research conducted at UNSW takes a different approach. We analysed the impact that the introduction of full franking credit refundability from 1 July 2000 had on the level of corporate tax avoidance in the years following the change, 2001 to 2004. Consistent with the results of the prior studies, we find that following the introduction of the new rule, Australian dividend-paying firms significantly reduce tax avoidance relative to foreign firms listed in Australia and Australian non dividend-paying firms. The findings are even more pronounced for firms paying fully-franked dividends.

The results of all three studies are consistent with the notion that firms undertake less tax avoidance in the post 1 July 2000 period given the presence of stronger incentives for them to pay corporate tax.

Unintended consequence?

Interestingly, there was no mention of the possible impact Labor’s policy may have on corporate tax avoidance in the recent Report on the inquiry into the implications of removing refundable credits by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics delivered in April 2019. At a time when corporate tax avoidance is especially on-the-nose with the public, this policy change has the potential to exacerbate the problem.

It is surprising that the incumbent Government has made little attempt to communicate this to the electorate and explain that this policy may undermine some of the good work it has done in recent years to safeguard revenue and preserve tax system integrity.

Possible policy compromise?

This forgotten element of the system adds to the debate and highlights one of the broader benefits of the current rules that are not related to individual investor financial circumstances. However, it does provide new weight to arguments for a modification to Labor’s policy such as including a cap on franking credit refunds so that the policy intent is better achieved and to minimise the impact on low-income earners. Perhaps such a compromise would result in the best of both worlds.


Dr Rodney Brown is a Lecturer in Taxation and Business Law at the University of NSW Business School, including the Master of Tax and Financial Planning course. He completed his PhD at the London School of Economics after working as a financial planner in Sydney. This article is general information based on a current understanding of tax law and Labor’s proposal, and it does not consider the circumstances of any individual.


A fair go in favour of Labor’s franking policy

Franking credits lament: was it worth it?

Two Labor policies facing inadequate scrutiny


Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Latest Updates


How to enjoy your retirement

Amid thousands of comments, tips include developing interests to keep occupied, planning in advance to have enough money, stay connected with friends and the community ... should you defer retirement or just do it?


Results from our retirement experiences survey

Retirement is a good experience if you plan for it and manage your time, but freedom from money worries is key. Many retirees enjoy managing their money but SMSFs are not for everyone. Each retirement is different.


Why short-termism is both a travesty and an opportunity

On any given day, whether the stockmarket rises or falls is a coin toss, but stay invested for 10 years and the odds are excellent. It's at times of market selloffs that opportunities present for long-term investors.

Investment strategies

Fear is good if you are not part of the herd

If you feel fear when the market loses its head, you become part of the herd. Develop habits to embrace the fear. Identify the cause, decide if you need to take action and own the result without looking back. 

No excuses: Plan now for recession

The signs of a coming recession are building, especially in the US. In personal and business decisions, it's time to be more conservative and engage in risk management until some of the uncertainty is resolved. 


The fall of Volt Bank removes another bank competitor

The startup banks were supposed to challenge the lazy, oligopolistic major banks, but 86 400, Xinja and now Volt have gone. Why did Volt disappear so quickly when it had gained deposit support and name recognition?


Three main challenges to online ads and ‘surveillance capitalism’

Surveillance capitalism refers to the collection and use of consumer data to further profits. Will a renewed focus on privacy change the online-ad business model, or is it too entrenched?



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.