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.

 

  •   11 May 2017
  • 2
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Five things SMSF trustees should consider right now

Limits to a will’s power over an SMSF

SMSFs must fix death benefit pensions now

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

The housing slide could become a crash

House prices are sliding across Australia, yet the most dangerous ingredient for a housing crash is still missing. If job losses surge amid growing economic risks, today's correction could become a historic property downturn.

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

Planning

Avoid unnecessary CGT with this estate planning clause

A simple estate plan can create a ticking time bomb. One overlooked clause can pit spouses against children, delay inheritances, and potentially leave a family facing an unexpected tax bill worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Exchange traded products

The hidden trade-off in fixed income ETFs

Some investment trade-offs are immediately visible. Others are embedded in the way a portfolio is constructed. Understanding the difference may explain why similar-looking investments can produce surprisingly different results.

Retirement

The mortgage free retirement is fading

What happens when a generation reaches retirement carrying obligations previous generations largely avoided? New research suggests we may need to rethink both how much we need in retirement and what life could look like.

Retirement

The key question to inspire a confident and purposeful retirement

Most people spend decades planning for retirement. Far fewer plan for what happens when they get there. The difference may explain why so many find the transition harder and less fulfilling than expected, despite careful preparation.

Latest from Morningstar

Making the case for a 'good enough' portfolio

Some investors spend years chasing the perfect strategy. Others choose a path that’s simply good enough and move on. Which approach is more likely to deliver both better outcomes and a happier financial life over the long run?

Investment strategies

Is the US market as expensive as CAPE says?

Many investing ideas survive for decades. But that does not make them right. A famous valuation measure implies that US shares are dangerously expensive, but the evidence may point to a very different conclusion.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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.