Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 632

Meg on SMSFs: Indexation of Division 296 tax isn't enough

Only a few months ago, it seemed this new tax was almost certain to become law (“this new tax” being the highly controversial extra 15% tax on super earnings for those with more than $3 million in super – aka Division 296 tax). At the time, a newly re-elected and confident government was firmly sticking with its intention to reintroduce the bill and get it passed. It seems amazing that we’re now speculating about changes. But here we are.

In recent weeks it seems even the Treasurer’s resolve has wobbled and there is a quiet murmuring of potential change. If the rumours are to be believed, the two aspects of this legislation being reviewed are the two most contentious: the lack of indexation of the $3 million threshold and the taxation of unrealised capital gains.

It’s likely the Treasurer hopes throwing a bone like indexation will take our eyes off the bigger issue of taxing unrealised gains.

It shouldn’t.

Indexation would be nice – and definitely better than nothing - but nowhere near as powerful as we might like to think.

Firstly, indexation would largely benefit those not yet caught by Division 296 tax. For example, if the threshold is indexed to inflation and this is around 3% pa, the threshold would reach $4 million in around 10 years, $5 million in around 18 years and $6 million in around 24 years. This is excellent for someone starting with $1 million today and maximising their super over the next 20 years. Whereas they might be likely to exceed $3 million, the chance of exceeding $5 million - $6 million in that timeframe is far lower. This is because the contribution caps we already have will quickly limit their ability to boost their super with their own money.

For those already in Division 296 tax territory, indexation would definitely result in less tax but is unlikely to have the enormous impact many would assume.

Consider the following example:

  • Bob has $7 million in super initially (including a $2 million pension) – minimum pension payments are drawn each year
  • The $3 million Division 296 tax threshold increases in line with inflation (and let’s say that’s 3% pa)
  • The Fund’s investment return is 8% pa before tax (5% growth, 3% income)

After 10 years, Bob would be around $40,000 wealthier if the $3 million threshold is indexed vs if it remains fixed at $3 million (this has been adjusted for inflation – so it’s $40,000 in “today’s dollars”).

That is certainly a valuable saving. But over that time, how much Division 296 tax has he paid? In this example, he’s paid around $670,000 in Division 296 tax in total even if the threshold has been indexed.

Repeating the same exercise with someone who started with $10 million in super, the saving thanks to indexation is roughly the same (around $40,000). But this time, the Division 296 tax paid during that time is over $1.1 million even if the threshold is indexed.

Why is it having so little impact?

This isn’t the right maths but conceptually, a $100,000 increase in the threshold means the member avoids 15% tax on earnings on an extra $100,000. If earnings (both income and growth) equate to 8% pa (for example), all this person is really saving is 15% x 8% x $100,000 (around $1,200). Of course this compounds over several years and the difference grows each year (ie, the gap between the indexed threshold and $3 million gets bigger) – so after 10 years, it’s a meaningful amount. But it’s around the same saving for everyone (no matter how big their starting balance) and it’s therefore dwarfed by the amount of Division 296 tax the member has actually paid for larger balances.

What does this mean?

Those fighting for change when it comes to Division 296 shouldn’t settle for indexation of the threshold. It’s better than nothing but doesn’t really change the equation for larger balances. And it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue of taxing unrealised gains.

That problem has been well articulated by many people in this debate in that the current structure results in:

  • highly unpredictable tax bills for those with volatile assets – and therefore a tax cost that simply cannot be planned for,
  • tax being imposed at a time when there is no guarantee there will be money available to pay it, and
  • tax being paid on asset growth that subsequently disappears.

Interestingly, my modelling suggests that if the Government found a way to tax actual capital gains when realised (ie the usual approach when it comes to taxing things), they might even raise more revenue.

In particular, without some form of grandfathering, this approach would effectively result in an additional tax being applied to gains that have already accrued (before the introduction of the new tax).

For example, let’s imagine Bob’s $7 million super fund has already built up $2 million in accrued (so far unrealised) capital gains at 30 June 2025.

Under the current approach, the ‘earnings’ taken into account for Division 296 tax would be his fund’s income (3% less tax) plus its growth (5%). Let’s say that amounts to around $540,000. So if Division 296 tax was introduced exactly as planned, he would pay 15% tax on a proportion of this amount (in his case, the proportion happens to be around 60%).

But what if the method switched to a proportion of ‘actual taxable income’ (rather than the earnings amount above). If Bob’s SMSF didn’t sell any assets during the year, his earnings would only be around $210,000 (3% of $7 million).

However, if his fund sold some of its assets and realised (say) $900,000 in capital gains, the Division 296 earnings (on an ‘actual taxable income’ method) might be more like $810,000. This is the fund’s income of $210,000 plus his fund’s capital gains, discounted by one-third (this is the discount super funds normally get for assets held for more than 12 months) - ie $600,000. Again, we can assume Bob would only pay Division 296 tax on a proportion of this amount (to reflect the fact that not all of his super is over $3 million).

This is because if the method was changed and no grandfathering was provided, even the gains Bob’s SMSF has built up before Division 296 tax would be caught. In contrast, Division 296 tax as it stands right now only looks forward – only growth post its introduction is taxed.

Of course, any change in method would need to consider:

  • whether it’s appropriate to consider grandfathering to avoid retrospectively taxing gains that have already built up over many years,
  • how to allow for discounting of capital gains (Division 296 tax as it stands effectively ignores discounting – it simply captures ‘growth’),
  • how to deal with pension accounts (in my examples above I’ve assumed the tax would be applied to a proportion of income ignoring any reduction due to the fact that some of the fund’s normal taxable income is entirely tax exempt because of its pension).

The key, however, is that the government probably could find a way of capturing just as much tax revenue even if it changed the tax. The problem is it would have to wait longer for it to arrive. If Division 296 tax is aligned to actual taxable income, the big tax bills would only really emerge when capital gains were realised.

But at least the people subject to the tax could be guaranteed to have the cash when it happened.

 

Meg Heffron is the Managing Director of Heffron SMSF Solutions, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This is general information only and it does not constitute any recommendation or advice. It does not consider any personal circumstances and is based on an understanding of relevant rules and legislation at the time of writing.

New: The Heffron SMSF 2025/26 Facts and Figures document has been finalised and is available as a free download. Keep it on-hand to access the most recent information to stay up to date.

For more articles and papers from Heffron, please click here.

 


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Meg on SMSFs: negative earnings and the $3 million tax

Meg on SMSFs: watch traps in EOFY contributions

Meg on SMSFs: Adjusting to the new tax on super over $3 million

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are LICs licked?

LICs are continuing to struggle with large discounts and frustrated investors are wondering whether it’s worth holding onto them. This explains why the next 6-12 months will be make or break for many LICs.

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 627 with weekend update

This week, I got the news that my mother has dementia. It came shortly after my father received the same diagnosis. This is a meditation on getting old and my regrets in not getting my parents’ affairs in order sooner.

  • 4 September 2025

5 charts every retiree must see…

Retirement can be daunting for Australians facing financial uncertainty. Understand your goals, longevity challenges, inflation impacts, market risks, and components of retirement income with these crucial charts.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

Super crosses the retirement Rubicon

Australia's superannuation system faces a 'Rubicon' moment, a turning point where the focus is shifting from accumulation phase to retirement readiness, but unfortunately, many funds are not rising to the challenge.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Why I dislike dividend stocks

If you need income then buying dividend stocks makes perfect sense. But if you don’t then it makes little sense because it’s likely to limit building real wealth. Here’s what you should do instead.

Superannuation

Meg on SMSFs: Indexation of Division 296 tax isn't enough

Labor is reviewing the $3 million super tax's most contentious aspects: lack of indexation and the tax on unrealised gains. Those fighting for change shouldn’t just settle for indexation of the threshold.

Shares

Will ASX dividends rise over the next 12 months?

Market forecasts for ASX dividend yields are at a 30-year low amid fears about the economy and the capacity for banks and resource companies to pay higher dividends. This pessimism seems overdone.

Shares

Expensive market valuations may make sense

World share markets seem toppy at first glance, though digging deeper reveals important nuances. While the top 2% of stocks are pricey, they're also growing faster, and the remaining 98% are inexpensive versus history.

Fixed interest

The end of the strong US dollar cycle

The US dollar’s overvaluation, weaker fundamentals, and crowded positioning point to further downside. Diversifying into non-US equities and emerging market debt may offer opportunities for global investors.

Investment strategies

Today’s case for floating rate notes

Market volatility and uncertainty in 2025 prompt the need for a diversified portfolio. Floating Rate Notes offer stability, income, and protection against interest rate risks, making them a valuable investment option.

Strategy

Breaking down recent footy finals by the numbers

In a first, 2025 saw AFL and NRL minor premiers both go out in straight sets. AFL data suggests the pre-finals bye is weakening the stranglehold of top-4 sides more than ever before.

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.