Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 211

Pension income and segregation in an SMSF

[This article is a response to comments on my previous article requesting clarification on the treatment of segregated assets in superannuation.]

Prior to the 1 July 2017 amendments, any superannuation fund, including an SMSF, had a choice of two methods for calculating the amount of its income that was exempt from tax based on which assets of the fund supported a pension.

Briefly, previously the trustee could use:

 

  • the proportionate method, generally calculated as fund income from assets supporting a pension divided by total fund income. More technically, a formula called a liabilities calculation used the ratio of pension liabilities of the fund to total benefit liabilities.

 

 

  • the segregating of assets supporting a pension. The anti avoidance rules around this second method meant that the value of the asset segregated for pension payments cannot exceed the value of the member’s account. For example, say a fund has an apartment in the Gold Coast with a market value of $600,000 but the value of the pension member’s account was only $500,000, the anti avoidance rule prevented the fund segregating that asset.

 

 

Other comments about these two methods

Surprisingly the majority of SMSFs used the proportionate method. The reason we found that surprising (and we have had the benefit of talking, under Chatham House rules, to over 600 experienced SMSF practitioners who have attended our SMSF Specialisation Programme over the last four years) is that fund trustees who use that method are ‘giving up’ some valuable tax planning functionality.

For example, and subject to general anti-avoidance rules, segregating an asset with a large unrealised gain and then disposing of it means that 100% of the gain is exempt, whereas only a proportion would have been exempt had they used the proportion method.

Specialists tell us the reasons most SMSFs don’t use segregation are administration hassle and costs. The income of a segregated asset has to be accounted for separately, say, in a separate bank account. Also, the cost of managing segregation, compared to the ease of getting an actuarial certificate for the proportionate method, cannot be justified.

What is the change after 1 July?

In effect, an SMSF that has at least one member who has a superannuation accumulation of $1.6 million cannot use the segregated asset method.

It is not a blanket ban on SMSFs using this method. It is where at least one member in pension mode has a superannuation accumulation of at least $1.6 million.

Note it’s not $1.6 million in pension mode, as in the Transfer Balance Cap, it’s $1.6 million in superannuation. The rules use the Total Superannuation Balance measure and not the Transfer Balance Cap measure in calculating the $1.6 million. That means in that it will be all superannuation accounts of a member, either in accumulation or pension, plus the value of any deferred pensions, which are included in the Total Superannuation Balance calculation. And it’s not just the members’ balance in the SMSF that is included, it’s all their superannuation accounts.

What that also means is that an SMSF where no member has more than $1.6 million Total Superannuation Balance can still use this segregated method when paying a pension.

Blanket ban, anyone?

Go figure! It’ supposed to be an anti-tax avoidance measure but it only applies, among other reasons, if at least one member has at least a $1.6 million Total Superannuation Balance, but you can still use it if they don’t.

OK, the rule only affects SMSFs and the reason they haven’t removed it for all funds is that, while most non-SMSFs will also use the proportionate method if they pool all members’ funds, some very large funds have separate pools for accumulation members and for pension members. The income from the pension pool can use the segregated asset method.

For the record, here is the legislation

The exempting rule for segregated assets (section 295-385) now excludes assets from using the segregated asset method called ‘disregarded small fund assets”. The Amending Act says:

4  At the end of section 295-385

Add: (7)  Also, *disregarded small fund assets are not segregated current pension assets.

9  At the end of section 295-395

Add: (3)  However, *disregarded small fund assets are not segregated non-current assets.

Here is the definition of disregarded small fund assets in the Amending Act, and note ‘2(c)(i)’ which is the Total Superannuation Balance condition.

5  After section 295-385

Insert: 295-387  Disregarded small fund assets.

(1)  The assets of a *complying superannuation fund are disregarded small fund assets at all times in an income year if the fund is covered by subsection (2) for the income year.

(2)  A *complying superannuation fund is covered by this subsection for an income year if:

(a)  any of these requirements are satisfied:

(i)  the fund is a *self managed superannuation fund at a time during the income year;

(ii)  there are less than 5 *members of the fund at a time during the income year; and

(b)  at a time during the income year, there is at least one *superannuation interest in the fund that is in the *retirement phase; and

(c)  just before the start of the income year:

(i)  a person has a *total superannuation balance that exceeds $1.6 million; and

(ii)  the person is the *retirement phase recipient of a *superannuation income stream (whether or not the fund is the *superannuation income stream provider for the superannuation income stream); and

(d)  at a time during the income year, the person has a superannuation interest in the fund (whether or not the superannuation interest is the superannuation interest mentioned in paragraph (b)).

 

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 as understood by the author, it does not consider the needs of any individual and does not consider all aspects of the legislation.


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Check tax exemption on income from super pension assets

Are two SMSFs worth the bother?

SMSFs and the pension cap: a case study

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

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.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates

Retirement

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?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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. 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.