Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 201

How to preserve estate money in super

The introduction of the biggest tranche of change in the super rules in a decade will impact the estate plans for many. The changes will affect the amount of a deceased spouse’s super that a surviving spouse can retain in super and the ability to transfer a death benefit pension to another super fund.

In the first of two articles, we will focus on the effect of the transfer balance cap (TBC) on the ability to pay a death benefit as a pension to a surviving spouse.

What happens to a member’s benefit on death?

From a superannuation perspective, the death of a fund member is known as a ‘compulsory cashing event’. The deceased member’s benefit must be ‘cashed’ to a dependent, as defined under the superannuation law, as soon as practical, either as a lump sum or as a pension or a combination (although there are some restrictions on paying a death benefit as a pension).

Who can receive a death benefit pension?

Usually, only a surviving spouse is entitled to receive a death benefit pension. However, a child of the deceased can also be paid a death benefit pension, provided they are under age 18 or aged 18 to 24 and ‘financially dependent’ on the deceased parent. Once a child turns 25, any residual capital balance of the death benefit pension must be paid to them, unless they are ‘disabled’, as defined under the Disability Services Act 1986, then the pension can continue. According to the ATO, there are not many death benefit pensions being paid to children.

What are the changes on 1 July 2017 to death benefit pensions?

Firstly, where a person receives a pension due to the death of their spouse, the value of the pension will count towards their TBC. On 1 July 2017, everyone in retirement phase starts with a TBC of $1.6 million. In effect, the TBC restricts the amount of a deceased member’s benefits that can be retained inside superannuation and paid to the surviving spouse as a pension or income stream. Currently, there is no limit.

What if the death benefit pension breaches the TBC?

If a person exceeds their TBC, the ATO will issue a notice advising of the excess, which will also include an amount of ‘notional earnings’, calculated based on the 90-day bank bill rate plus 7% (for example, it would have been 9.2% for 2015/16). The amount above the surviving spouse’s TBC plus the ‘notional earnings’ must be removed from the death benefit pension account by way of a lump-sum benefit payment, that is, removed from superannuation.

Alternatively, if the surviving spouse has their own pension, they can partially commute it and they have the option of transferring the amount to their accumulation account or withdrawing it from superannuation as a lump sum. Income generated by the partially commuted amount, as part of the accumulation account, will be subject to 15% fund income tax.  However, it will not have been forced out of the superannuation fund. Further, the ‘notional earnings’ amount will be assessable to the surviving spouse and taxed. For a first-time breach of the TBC, the applicable rate is 15%, for a second and subsequent breach, the rate is 30%.

Is there a different treatment for reversionary and non-reversionary pensions?

A reversionary pension is one where a person receives an automatically reverted pension due to the death of a spouse who had already been in receipt of the pension at the time of their passing. There are two points to note about the assessment towards the surviving spouse’s TBC:

  • The value of the deceased member’s pension at the time of their death will be the amount that is applied to the surviving spouse’s TBC, and
  • It will not be applied against the surviving spouse’s TBC until 12 months after the death of the member.

This provides time for the surviving spouse to ascertain whether they have exceeded their TBC due to the death benefit pension and take appropriate action.

Reversionary pension on death and TBC example

Don and Hillary are members of their SMSF. Both are retired and have each commenced account based pensions. Each pension was established as reversionary to each other in the event of their death. The value of their pensions at 30 June 2017 are:

Don      $1,250,000

Hillary   $1,400,000

Soon after 30 June 2017, Don dies and his pension automatically reverts to Hillary. At the time of Don’s passing his pension had the same value of $1,250,000. This will be the amount that will be a credit to Hillary’s transfer balance account 12 months after Don’s death and will count towards her TBC.

Hillary has already used $1.4 million of her $1.6 million TBC when she commenced her own pension and at the time did not think she would have a TBC issue. However, if Hillary takes no action, in 12 months there will be a credit of $1,250,000 in her TBC account, taking her to $2,650,000, exceeding her TBC by $1,050,000. The ATO will issue Hillary with a notice requiring her to remove the excessive amount from her pensions, together with an amount of ‘notional earnings’, that the ATO has calculated. For Hillary, as a first offence for exceeding her TBC, she will pay tax of 15% of the ‘notional earnings’ amount.

Within 12 months of Don’s death, Hillary has the following options to avoid exceeding her TBC:

Option 1 — partially commute Don’s pension

Take a lump-sum death benefit payment of $1,050,000 from Don’s pension (partial commutation). As Hillary was Don’s spouse, she will pay no tax on the lump-sum death benefit payment. She will retain the remaining balance of Don’s pension in the SMSF and receive pension payments, along with her continuing pension.

A year after Don’s death, a credit of $1,250,000 will arise in Hillary’s transfer balance account, together with a debit of $1,050,000 (the partial commutation of Don’s reversionary pension), resulting in a net increase to Hillary’s transfer balance account of $200,000. No excess will arise.

However, this means that Hillary has been forced to remove $1,050,000 from the superannuation environment, where income is taxed at no more than 15%. Being outside superannuation, income will be subject to the applicable tax rate, depending on which tax structure Hillary uses.

Option 2 – partially commute her own pension

Instead of commuting Don’s pension, which requires the commuted amount to be withdrawn from superannuation, Hillary could partially commute her own pension to the extent of $1,050,000. As this is her own pension, she would not be required to remove it from superannuation, but retain it in an accumulation account in her name. This partial commutation of her own pension would also result in a debit to her transfer balance account, reducing her transfer balance account balance from $1.4 million to $350,000.

Hillary retains all of Don’s pension, which reverted to her on his death. A year after his death, a credit of $1,250,000 arises in Hillary’s transfer balance account, increasing her balance to $1.6 million but not in excess.

Again, income earned from Hillary’s accumulation account will be subject to fund 15% tax, while income earned on her pension account and Don’s reversionary pension will be tax-exempt. However, under this option, Hillary has retained all of her and Don’s retirement capital inside of superannuation with a maximum tax rate of 15% on the accumulation account.

Revision of estate plans for superannuation

Although the introduction of the TBC did not initially affect Don and Hillary as they were both under the $1.6 million cap, upon the death of Don, Hillary had to deal with a potential excess-TBC issue. This leads to a review of estate planning for couples where their combined superannuation is more than the TBC, as the original plan may no longer be able to be followed due to the restriction of the TBC. So, dust off the wills, pension documents and death benefit nominations, and see if any changes are required to ensure that your estate plan can still be implemented under the new rules.

In our next article, we discuss the changes to the ability to transfer a death benefit pension to another superannuation fund.


Mark Ellem is Executive Manager, SMSF Technical Services at SuperConcepts, a leading provider of innovative SMSF services, training and administration. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.


Five things SMSF trustees should consider right now

Limits to a will’s power over an SMSF

SMSFs must fix death benefit pensions now


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 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.