Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 578

Meg on SMSFs: At last, movement on legacy pensions

About. Bloody. Time.

Draft regulations released this week provide – finally – the framework for unwinding legacy pensions cleanly and simply for members who choose to do so. It seems amazing that a mere six pages (plus one line) of legislation took this long to come about but...at least we have something to consult about now.

'Legacy pensions' is the generic term used for certain old-style pensions that are generally no longer available in SMSFs. Some of these are market linked, lifetime complying or life expectancy complying pensions which carry strict restrictions.

One of these restrictions is that they can’t be commuted and simply cashed out or turned into account-based pensions at will. Instead, they can only be commuted if the money is used to acquire another legacy pension or if the ATO forces the commutation (more on this later).

For years now, successive governments have promised to make life simpler for members who locked into these pensions back at the turn of the century when tax rules were very different. Yesterday’s draft regulations provide new rules which would allow that to happen, essentially removing the requirement that a commuted legacy pension must be turned into another legacy pension. 

(If you’re wondering why flexi pensions aren’t mentioned, it’s because they don’t need extra rules – they can already be commuted at any time, for any reason and the member can do anything with the commutation amount. Their particular challenge is that they generally release a lot of reserves which create other problems. Fortunately the Government is also proposing changes there – read our separate article here.)

The catches

There are of course some catches:

  • there is a limited window to use this new opportunity - 5 years from when the Regulations come into force, and
  • it only removes the requirement to keep the commuted amount in the “legacy pension family” if the pension is commuted in full.

In other words, even these new changes wouldn’t allow someone to keep half of their market linked pension in place and turn half of it into an account-based pension.

Why the time limit? Who knows. It seems odd that something so long in the making would have a deadline. And it will definitely create a class of people who “miss out” by not getting the right advice quickly enough to act on it. But at least this opens up some new opportunities for a lot of people.

Of course, commuting any pension and starting a new one has implications for the member’s transfer balance cap. Commuting a pension effectively adds back some or all of the amount of the transfer balance cap that’s been used in the past, and starting a new one causes a new amount to be checked against the transfer balance cap.

Interestingly, the new regulations don’t propose any change to how the transfer balance cap works for unwinding legacy pensions. In practice, that means someone with (say) a market linked pension won’t be able to simply turn it into an account-based pension.

In fact, if the market linked pension is large enough, they will find if they commute the whole market linked pension they won’t be able to put even a single dollar back into an account-based pension. It will be a big decision. But for many people looking for more flexibility, or concerned about the estate planning implications of remaining locked into their legacy pension, it will be the right choice.

We have yet to see what changes the Government will make to the Social Security rules. This will be vital for anyone who started one of these pensions to allow some or all of their pension to be excluded from the assets test for the age pension.

Significant consequences apply for people who commute these pensions without complying with all the rules (which, among other things, include moving the money to a new legacy pension). We assume the Government will also address this – it will be an essential extra step before anyone concerned about the age pension makes a change.

What to do

There is a lot more to unpack here in terms of what members with legacy pensions should actually do.

People with large legacy pensions already have a mechanism to unwind them. For some time now, they’ve been able to do so as long as they’re willing to deliberately change their pensions to trigger an excess relative to their transfer balance cap.

Taking that step effectively meant the ATO directed them to unwind their legacy pension – one of the few times it was possible to commute the pension without any restrictions on what the member did with the money. All this latest announcement will do for people in this position, assuming it’s enacted, is shorten the process and make it cheaper (they won’t have the tax cost of creating their temporary transfer balance cap excess).

For those potentially impacted by the proposed $3 million cap, stopping their complying lifetime or life expectancy pension after 1 July 2025 could have adverse tax implications. Hopefully the draft Regulations will be finalised quickly so appropriate action can be taken in time. And as mentioned earlier, those impacted by the age pension still need some further change.

But for others – whose legacy pension wasn’t large enough to enable them to create an excess relative to their transfer balance cap – this will provide a brand-new opportunity to end their legacy pension. All of this requires only a few lines of legislation.

The rest of the proposed regulations make extra changes to the way in which reserves are handled. Since reserves are often released when defined benefit pensions are commuted or simply end, making these changes at the same time makes sense.

The changes proposed actually do a whole lot more than just help unwind complying lifetime and complying life expectancy pensions – they are even relevant for the other type of legacy pension (flexi pensions) and even people whose pensions have simply ended rather than being formally commuted. We’ve got a whole separate article on that – click here to read it.

 

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.

Looking for more information on this topic? Come along to next week's Quarterly Technical Webinar where Leigh Mansell and Lyn Formica will talk through the proposed changes.

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

 


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Meg on SMSFs: Winding up SMSFs paying a pension requires care

Tips when taking large withdrawals from super

Can your SMSF buy a retirement home for you now?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

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.