Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 211

And we’re off: super tax risks post 1 July

We had about eight months to prepare for the most significant tax changes to superannuation in a decade. While the major amendments reduce concessional contributions for some people and increase them for others, the two most important changes reduce the tax shelter of superannuation for the wealthy.

It is easy to see why these were needed. Under the pre-2007 tax system, the rules provided incentives to put as much post-tax wealth into a super fund as possible. There were tax penalties for taking out more than was considered reasonable. Yet, when they transitioned to the post-2007 system of exempting from tax all benefits from age 60, they ignored how much was accumulated under those old rules.

Now there are limits on tax-exempt pensions with a $1.6 million starting amount, and the same $1.6 million in superannuation is an eligibility condition for non-concessional contributions.

The practical consequences of the super changes

There are now two main risks for both investors and their advisers:

First, for exempt pension income in accounts, other than in a SMSF, that exceed the $1.6 million cap, anyone affected will now have to decide which assets should receive the tax exemption and which should be taxed at 15% on their income. Broadly, it should be decided on whether the assets are tax sheltered anyway, such as imputation credits on dividends or the one-third discount on capital gains.

Also, if there is more in super than the tax-exempt limit, decisions must be made whether to hold the excess assets inside a superannuation fund or outside. Issues include whether the income from assets transferred outside can be sheltered using the progressive personal tax rates rather than the fixed 15% rate applicable in a fund will be important. There is also the potential for income splitting between partners to further use the progressive tax rate shelter. Remember that the tax-free threshold for individuals is $18,200, and then the marginal tax rate is 19% up to $37,000.

Second, the new eligibility conditions throw up contribution timing and even due diligence risks for financial planners and other professionals who are advising their clients.

A couple of examples will demonstrate the point. Eligibility to contribute non-concessional contributions and some concessional contributions now depends on the member’s account balance on the prior 30 June. While that looks straightforward, the issue of valuing illiquid assets in SMSFs could prove problematic. What if the only assets are real estate? Will a drive-by valuation suffice?

And what about transitional arrangements for balances that are close to but less than the $1.6 million cap? For example, someone with more than $1.5 million but less than $1.6 million at 30 June 2017 is entitled to the $100,000 non-concessional cap in 2017/2018, but not the bring forward ability. For balances between $1.4 million and $1.5 million, the non-concessional cap in 2017/2018 is $200,000 and the bring forward period is only two years. There are rules about bring forwards triggered as far back as 2014/2015, and the impact on co-contributions, tax offsets for spouse contributions and the role of segregated assets.

As ever in super, the devil is in the detail.

Even in the non-SMSF world, it will be risky when advising on contributions for members early in a financial year. The ATO has advised that, with the fund reporting systems currently in place, the ATO will not be certain of the member’s prior 30 June account balance until November of the following financial year.

And then there are ‘legacy’ pension problems. Some people commenced their working life in jobs that traditionally gave them a deferred pension payable at, say 55 or 60 years of age. This was common in the public sector or large corporates. That deferred pension picked up in those early career choices a long time ago is probably worth ‘two and sixpence’ in the scheme of things. They sit in the bottom drawer and simply don’t factor into real retirement planning. Now, unfortunately, they do factor, as the value of those deferred pensions is included in the ability to make contributions where their total superannuation balance is a factor. That, obviously, creates due diligence issues and, indeed, risks.

Welcome to the new world of tax planning around the pension income exemption and risky advice about non-concessional contributions.


Gordon Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in taxation and superannuation law at the Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales. This article summarises the major points, it does not consider the needs of any individual and does not summarise all aspects of the legislation.

Graham Hand
July 21, 2017

Hi Rob and others, Gordon has written a detailed explanation which we will post as an article so it is not lost in the comments. Thanks, Graha

July 21, 2017

I refer to Gordon Mackenzie’s article and wish to get some clarification.

He discusses Risks,and the First risk deals with deciding which assets should receive the tax exemption and which should be taxed at 15%.

His premise is that the Fund member has in excess of $1.6 million in his account – so there is a pension account with $1.6 million which will be tax exempt,and an Accumulation account with the balance taxed at 15%

My query relates to his suggestion of segregation of assets. My understanding is that for “tax “ purposes there is now no such concept as “segregation” -tax will simply be determined on a “proportional” basis.

So,is Gordon suggesting there will still be segregation for tax purposes??,or is he alluding to some other strategy that is applied purely for accounting purposes and how this might affect the growth of the two account balances moving forward??

I am a little confused and would appreciate some feedback

July 20, 2017

I agree with Gordon’s comments on the ‘legacy’ pension problems. Those of us who accepted lower remuneration during our working lives in return for a defined benefit pension are caught between a rock and a hard place. Unlike members with funds in SMSFs, a portion of the notional value of the pension (say $400k) cannot be withdrawn and transferred to a spouse’s fund; the notional value cannot be reduced thereby preventing a defined benefit pensioner couple with a notional value of say $850k from claiming a pension card; and unlike members of SMSFs, the income is taxed at marginal rates (less 10%).

Graham Hand
July 20, 2017

Gordon has clarified that the sentence was supposed to apply to funds other than an SMSF, so we have added this qualification. The inability to calculate the exempt income with segregation is restricted to SMSFs where a member has >$1.6M in their Total Superannuation Balance.

damon carter
July 20, 2017

Bob is spot on. For balance over $1.6 million my understanding is you cannot segregate the assets, so in the future the assets will be assigned using the proportional method! Can Mr Mackenzie clarify this for our enlightenment?

July 20, 2017

You say: "for accounts that exceed the $1.6 million cap, anyone affected will now have to decide which assets should receive the tax exemption and which should be taxed at 15% on their income."

This implies segregation of assets can be used to decide which assets can be used to support the pension from the $1.6m transfer balance cap, with the balance of assets rolled back into the accumulation phase. This is not right, is it? Or am I missing something?

July 20, 2017

Crazy complex this stuff. What about 'Events-Based Reporting'? All superannuation funds, including SMSFs, will be required to report transfer balance cap debits and credits to the ATO on an events basis. Yeh, over one million SMSF trustees know that.


Leave a Comment:



OK Boomer: fessing up that we’ve had it good

Why extra super contributions tax may catch you too

Hey Mr Bowen, the franking credit is part of my taxable income


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?

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Let's make this clear again ... franking credits are fair

Critics of franking credits are missing the main point. The taxable income of shareholders/taxpayers must also include the company tax previously paid to the ATO before the dividend was distributed. It is fair.

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?

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Joe Hockey on the big investment influences on Australia

Former Treasurer Joe Hockey became Australia's Ambassador to the US and he now runs an office in Washington, giving him a unique perspective on geopolitical issues. They have never been so important for investors.

Investment strategies

The tipping point for investing in decarbonisation

Throughout time, transformative technology has changed the course of human history, but it is easy to be lulled into believing new technology will also transform investment returns. Where's the tipping point?

Exchange traded products

The options to gain equity exposure with less risk

Equity investing pays off over long terms but comes with risks in the short term that many people cannot tolerate, especially retirees preserving capital. There are ways to invest in stocks with little downside.

Exchange traded products

8 ways LIC bonus options can benefit investors

Bonus options issued by Listed Investment Companies (LICs) deliver many advantages but there is a potential dilutionary impact if options are exercised well below the share price. This must be factored in.


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?

Investment strategies

Three demographic themes shaping investments for the future

Focussing on companies that will benefit from slow moving, long duration and highly predictable demographic trends can help investors predict future opportunities. Three main themes stand out.

Fixed interest

It's not high return/risk equities versus low return/risk bonds

High-yield bonds carry more risk than investment grade but they offer higher income returns. An allocation to high-yield bonds in a portfolio - alongside equities and other bonds – is worth considering.



© 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.