Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 648

Is it really ‘your’ super fund?

Many people are encouraged to think that their super fund is much like a bank, where they deposit money, earn interest and draw the money out when they retire.

That is a mistake because super funds are nothing like banks. A super fund is structured as a trust. A trust is legal entity that means someone holds property or assets (e.g. money, shares or real estate) for the benefit of someone else. As I am not a lawyer, what follows is a layperson’s understanding of the topic.

A primer on trusts

A trust is established when someone settles some assets under the care and control of someone who is appointed to manage the assets on behalf of and for the benefit of someone else. If I give you $1 million to care for my children while I undertake a hazardous mission, we have established a trust. I am the settlor, you are the trustee with a special responsibility, and my children are the beneficiaries of this arrangement. We will need to establish a trust deed which sets out the rules under which the trust will operate and what the trustee can and cannot do. This is a legal document, enforceable through the courts. Trust law goes back to the time of the Crusades.

As the trust is a separate legal entity, ownership becomes a really interesting question. Using the example above, I am no longer the owner of these assets as I have gifted them to the trust. My children don’t own these assets either, because they are underage. The trustee doesn’t own these assets because they are merely the custodians and managers of the assets on behalf of my children. To get around the problem, the trustee is considered the legal owner and must complete the tax return on behalf of the trust, but my children are the beneficial owners and collect the income and ultimately, the capital from this trust.

A good example is the way family trusts used to be a great place to hide assets when it came to the age pension. If you didn’t own these assets, those assets couldn’t be counted in the assets test and thus reduce your pension. The law was changed in 2002 to allow Centrelink to look inside a family trust. This law does not establish ownership but determines control of the fund and the source of these assets. If you control the assets in the trust or those assets came from you, all the assets in the trust are considered to be yours for the purposes of the assets test.

There are many different types of trusts. They are particularly useful in making provision for beneficiaries who cannot manage their own affairs, such as children with disabilities. Some trusts are established in your lifetime; others can be established in your will to take effect on your death. Nevertheless, all trusts follow the same principle: assets are managed on behalf of beneficiaries by a trustee.

All superannuation funds are a specific type of trust. That includes industry super funds and self-managed super funds. They all operate under the same superannuation law. Industry super funds are somewhat opaque in that regard as most people would have difficulty in identifying the trustee of their fund. With SMSFs, however, the issue is very real. The fund must have a trust deed and the decision to use personal trustees, or a company (corporate) trustee needs serious consideration.

Super funds are trusts

Because a super fund is legally structured as a trust, not a company or a bank, as a member, I am not an owner nor a shareholder. It means that I do not ‘own’ my wealth held in my super fund. It is merely held ‘in trust’ on my behalf as a beneficiary of the trust. Special laws were required to give the Family Court powers to split superannuation benefits in the case of divorce.

My status as a beneficiary, rather than an owner, has many implications. I do not elect trustees, and I cannot influence trustee decisions. Those assets do not become mine until released by the trustee. The distribution of my super benefits on my death is determined by the trustees, not by my will, because my will can only deal with the assets I actually own.

It also means that with a two-member SMSF, there needs to be special arrangements to ensure there is a trustee in place to make that distribution of super benefits on the death of the second member, otherwise there is no one with authority to operate the fund.

It is the fact that I do not own these assets that puts them beyond reach of creditors in the case of bankruptcy. In an SMSF, all members are trustees and all trustees are members but that does not change the legal relationship between members and the assets in the trust. One common mistake that SMSF trustees make is to regard the fund assets as their own so that they use the SMSF bank account for temporary personal loans. But they forget that any withdrawal from that bank account is a pension or lump sum payment from the fund and any deposit is a contribution governed by the contribution rules.

Most importantly, a super fund is a separate entity for tax purposes with its own tax file number (TFN). That is why, until now, ALL tax payable in superannuation on both contributions and fund earnings are paid by the fund, not the individual member. The proposed Division 296 tax changes, however, will mean that I, as a member, become responsible for the tax liability on the income and capital gains of another tax entity – the super fund.

Issues with the $3 million super tax

Div 296 is not a tax on super funds – it’s an individual tax liability – but it’s a tax based on the growth in assets that I do not own! I do not own the assets in my super fund held in a trust on my behalf. So how can I be held responsible for the tax on these assets?

How can I be responsible for the tax liability of another taxpayer?

 

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.

 

  •   4 February 2026
  • 17
  •      
  •   
17 Comments
Philip - Perth
February 05, 2026

What is it with some people that they simply refuse to accept their own, personal responsibility to pay taxes? 'Splitting hairs' is way too kind...it's more akin to rejecting your status as a national and deciding instead that you deserve none of what comes with accepting your citizenship and beahving as a grateful national.
Paying taxes is what we do to support each other and some will pay little or none - fairly - as they have little or no wealth and income, while others are called upon to pay more because they have more and can bear that load...until they can't, at which point they, too, would pay much less or even none. Give away your wealth if you don't want to pay tax! See how that goes. Otherwise, just stop whining and get on with enjoying life and be grateful for what you have been able to accumulate. FFS.

11
Jon Kalkman
February 05, 2026

Philip, I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be a tax on large super balances of over $5 million. I have been arguing for such a measure for two reasons.
Firstly, it’s a generational equity issue. With the current restrictions on contributions it is simply impossible for young people to accumulate these large super balances. Before 2007, people were able to salary sacrifice up $100,000 annually and contribute an unlimited amount of personal money to a super fund that all became tax-free in retirement.
Secondly, the tax concessions flowing to these large funds continues to prompt uninformed commentators to advocate higher taxes on super pension funds which are already tax-paid. That would impact many retirees with much more modest super balances.
My dispute is with the question of who should be liable for this tax. I get no benefit from the increase in the fund’s investment returns until I withdraw money in retirement and that may never happen if I die before my preservation age.

5
Lachlan Doughty
February 10, 2026

" it’s a generational equity issue" - any increased tax on superannuation assets is unlikely to offer direct benefit to the "younger impoverished generation",, rather the benefit goes to the ATO. Otherwise, Younger generation will receive a tax advantaged injection of wealth when they inherit the estates of their dying parents/grandparents. (suppose an inheritance tax could be reintroduced if that situation does not seem fair.)

Maurie
February 05, 2026

Whining? Interesting response Phillip. I read this article in a totally different way. Rather than complaining about paying tax, my take was that the article was pointing out the obvious flaw in the construct of Div 296 given the nature of trusts. imho, posing a question does not automatically constitute a whinge about having to pay more tax.

17
Shannon
February 07, 2026

Sounds like this may come from someone that works government or had hand outs there whole life and benefit from this set up as others work hard to get ahead and drag along dead weight and government greed

7
Kym
February 10, 2026

Thank you John. As usual a well written and erudite commentary on superannuation and, despite the naysayers, who are more concerned with taxing the so-called rich than legal niceties, your layman's summary of the legal nature of a trust is broadly correct. I can say that because I am a lawyer, with 40 years experience of superannuation, finance and investment.

Of course, the legal origins of trust law, which as you note have developed under English common law over many centuries, are way beyond the ken and care of Chalmers and his hand-picked Treasury bureaucrats pursuing their socialist agenda. I expect him to continue to ride roughshod over established legal and tax practice conventions in pursuit of his agenda, so Div 296, as originally proposed three years ago and wisely rejected by the Senate, and the slightly less abhorrent but still flawed reincarnation now being presented, is just the thin edge of a very nasty wedge. Welcome to the Democratic People's Republic of Australia. Woe betide you if you value hard work and frugality and try to avoid being a financial burden on your fellow citizens by saving enough to support yourself throughout the term of your natural life. Those savings are coveted by the Government and many of your fellow citizens who think they are owed a good living by others.

5
Roger
February 11, 2026

Hear, hear Kym.

Paul
February 12, 2026

So true Kym
I have seen this all my working life

Roger Kilham
February 05, 2026

A bit wild, Jon. Owner or beneficial owner, you are trying to split hairs. In any case, some of your claims are too wide. There's a significant number of Aussies with an SMSF. Typically, the beneficiaries are also the trustees, or they are directors of the private company if a corporate trustee is used. So they have beneficial ownership and control.

2
Warren Bird
February 05, 2026

Agree Roger. The legal structure is often a 'veil' for the economic and financial reality. APRA knows this and thus super fund trustees have to focus on the best financial interests of members in all the decisions they (we) make.
A similar thought process applies to dividend imputation, where the reason why company profits are ultimately taxed at the marginal rates of the individual shareholders is that the corporate structure is a veil. Trust or listed company - sure this creates different legal and tax payment mechanisms, but the financial reality is that in the end it's the beneficiaries or shareholders who earn the income and pay the tax.

Graeme Cant
February 05, 2026

Not really wild, Roger. Nobody doubts that the money taken from an individual's income and placed in the super fund is for the benefit, and ultimately, ownership, of the individual. But Jon is correct that the proposed Div 296 tax raises the question of why super is structured as a trust.
If many beneficiaries ignore the trust rules, and the government has also with divorce, and again intends to ignore the trust structure in the Div 296 tax, why have the structure in the first place? In the US, retirement funds are just a bank account. No legal jiggery-pokery. Just a simple bank account with rules. No need for people with exotic knowledge to be paid to put spells on the simple accumulation of funds for retirement. Australia can't help itself with bureaucracy.

10
Jon Kalkman
February 05, 2026

Roger, and that is precisely the reason trusts are so popular with business people trying to protect their assets from litigation. A trust provides control without ownership and it is what puts your super beyond the reach of creditors.

6
OldbutSane
February 05, 2026

MY understanding is that the Div 296 tax will be assessed by the ATO at an individual level as it is impossible to determine the amount where someone has more than one super fund. The individual then has the choice to pay this amount personally or from one of their super fund(s), just like the 30% payable on contributions where income is above a certain limit (Div 293, I think). Can't see the problem with this.

2
Old super hand
February 05, 2026

Be careful what you wish for Jon. If there is no capacity for the tax to be paid by the member with funds outside their SMSF then the tax might require the sale of an asset within the fund. Very awkward if it is your business premises, amongst other things. There also is the precedent of Div 293, where the tax assessment can be paid either way.

Agree with Roger about the splitting of hairs as well.

1
Barry
February 09, 2026

You say that you are not a lawyer, so there are a couple of things wrong with this article. You say: "As the trust is a separate legal entity". No, trusts are not a legal entity. All that trusts are is a relationship between the trustee and the beneficiaries. Trusts are not a legal entity; they are a relationship. The trustee is the legal entity. The other thing that's wrong is that you say: "The trustee doesn’t own these assets". Yes, it does. The trustee is the one who owns the assets. A trust cannot own any assets because a trust is just a relationship. It is not a legal entity that can own anything. The trustee is the one who owns the assets.

1
Jon Kalkman
February 09, 2026

Barry
According to your interpretation, the assets in the trust are owned by the trustee. So, you agree that the trust assets are not owned by the beneficiaries of the trust - in this case, the members of the super fund.
Then why are beneficiaries responsible for the tax on income from trust assets they do not own. You have proved my point.
I have been a trustee of an SMSF for 18 years. As such I sign off on the trust tax return and any tax refund is deposited in the trust bank account. As a beneficiary, my personal tax file number, and personal bank account are never involved. That distinction is critical.

3
 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Hey baby boomers, pension is not a dirty word

The dynamics of the Australian superannuation system

Meg on SMSFs: Last word on Div 296 for a while

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Building a lazy ETF portfolio in 2026

What are the best ways to build a simple portfolio from scratch? I’ve addressed this issue before but think it’s worth revisiting given markets and the world have since changed, throwing up new challenges and things to consider.

Ray Dalio on 2025’s real story, Trump, and what’s next

The renowned investor says 2025’s real story wasn’t AI or US stocks but the shift away from American assets and a collapse in the value of money. And he outlines how to best position portfolios for what’s ahead.

13 million spare bedrooms: Rethinking Australia’s housing shortfall

We don’t have a housing shortage; we have housing misallocation. This explores why so many bedrooms go unused, what’s been tried before, and five things to unlock housing capacity – no new building required.

21 reasons we’re nearing the end of a secular bull market

Nearly all the indicators an investor would look for suggest that this secular bull market is approaching its end. My models forecast that the US is set for 0% annual returns over the next decade.

Making sense of record high markets as the world catches fire

The post-World War Two economic system is unravelling, leading to huge shifts in currency, bond and commodity markets, yet stocks seem oblivious to the chaos. This looks to history as a guide for what’s next.

3 ways to fix Australia’s affordability crisis

Our cost-of-living pressures go beyond the RBA: surging house prices, excessive migration, and expanding government programs, including the NDIS, are fuelling inflation, demanding bold, structural solutions.

Latest Updates

Property

How cutting the CGT discount could help rebalance housing market

A more rational taxation system that supports home ownership but discourages asset speculation could provide greater financial support to first home buyers.

Investment strategies

The Ozempic moment for SaaS

Every investing cycle has its Ozempic moment, a narrative shock so compelling that the market briefly forgets that incumbents can and do adapt to transformative technology like AI.

Superannuation

Meg on SMSFs: Last word on Div 296 for a while

The best way to deal with the incoming Division 296 tax on superannuation is likely doing nothing. Earnings will be taxed regardless of where the money sits, so here are some important considerations.

Investment strategies

If people talk about a bubble, it’s unlikely to crash soon

It is almost impossible to identify a bubble in real time, and history shows they last far longer than we think, giving investors (perhaps misplaced) hope and short-sellers seemingly endless pain before the share price collapses.

Investment strategies

Seismic shifts that could drive private markets

Dealmaking appears to be on the mend, but investors could be well served to look through near-term trends toward six major themes that we think may drive private markets for years to come.

Latest from Morningstar

Corporations are winning the stock market. Here’s a new plan for everyone else

Retail investors have the worst trading record, according to a study of trading performance. Institutional investors weren't at the top either. Here are 6 ways to improve your odds.

Infrastructure

The bull case for Melbourne

A counterpoint to today’s prevailing narrative that Melbourne is the capital of a failing state defined by its strained public finances, COVID hangover and an opposition obsessed with undermining its own credibility.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 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.