Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 244

Retained profits a conspiracy against super and pension funds

In Part 1 of this series, we showed that the company tax rate has no impact on the amount of after-tax dividend received by an Australian shareholder.

This Part 2 examines whether a company should retain earnings or pay them as dividends to shareholders. Fund managers often advise that it is best for companies to retain profits and redeploy the capital to generate attractive returns. This advice ignores the tax implications for different types of investor.

Better for superannuation and pension funds to receive dividends

Retaining after-tax profits in a company in Australia means that from each $100 in company profit before tax, $70 is reinvested by the company (after the 30% tax). The cost to a shareholder of investing that $70 in the company is the forgone after-tax dividend.

This is $53 or $65.50 for an individual after tax, depending on the personal tax rate. This might seem a good deal for these shareholders, but the deal becomes less than favourable when capital gains tax (CGT) is taken into account.

For a superannuation or other low tax-paying shareholder, however, the retention by the company is singularly unattractive. The cost to the shareholder of investing that $70 is the foregone after-tax dividend of $100 if the shareholder is a pension fund or $85 if the shareholder is a superannuation fund.  Neither of these represent an attractive means of adding $70 to their investment in the company.  Companies do need to retain capital in order to continue to operate and to expand but retaining some of their after-tax earnings is an easy and indeed lazy way for the directors to grow capital.

CGT implications make it even worse

Consideration of CGT does not improve the position. Retaining an after-tax profit of $70 within the company rather than distributing it as an increased franked dividend only makes sense if it increases the value of the company by at least $70. For CGT purposes, the retained after-tax profit does not change the cost base for future calculation of CGT.

If the shareholding is sold having held the shares for more than 12 months, the position becomes:

Consider the ‘dividend after tax’ scenario modelled in the table last week, reproduced below.

The impact on a shareholder of investing $70 into an Australian company because the company did not distribute a dividend and retained the $70 will be:

  • individual shareholder on a marginal tax rate of 47% - instead of receiving an after-tax dividend of $53, the after-tax benefit if sold at that time would be $54, or close to a line-ball.
  • individual shareholder on a marginal tax rate of 34.5% - instead of receiving an after-tax dividend of $65.50, the after-tax benefit if sold at that time would be $58.
  • superannuation fund shareholder on a tax rate of 15% - instead of receiving an after-tax dividend of $85 the after-tax benefit if sold at that time would be $63.
  • pension fund shareholder on a tax rate of zero - instead of receiving an after-tax dividend of $100 the after-tax benefit if sold at that time would be $70.

Both the superannuation fund and pension funds would be significantly better off if the company distributed the profits rather than retained then in the company, and then raised new capital as required in other ways, including from the shareholders who received the dividends.

The case for dividend reinvestment rather than retaining earnings

Retained after-tax earnings is an easy and lazy way for company directors to increase or retain capital but it is a conspiracy against low tax-paying Australian shareholders. The alternatives would be for the directors to justify the need to raise capital by a share offer to shareholders and the market.

Of course, directors could encourage dividend reinvestment by making it more attractive. With dividend reinvestment, the company retains the after-tax amount of $70 but the benefit of the franking credit is distributed to the shareholders.

Further, for tax purposes, the shareholder has invested $70 in the company and this is reflected as an increase in the cost base for future CGT purposes whenever the shares are sold. The company’s value has still increased by $70 but so has the cost base so there is no immediate CGT liability if the shares are sold at this time.

Company directors should be asked why they do not seem concerned at the tax inefficiency of retaining after-tax profits.

(Note that no comment is made here on the proposed Labor Party policy to stop refunds of excess franking credit. Labor is not proposing an end to dividend imputation, and there is too much uncertainty about whether Labor will be elected, whether they will change their policy or whether they can pass it into legislation).

 

Graham Horrocks is an actuary specialising in financial planning and superannuation, and a former General Manager, Research & Quality Assurance, with Ord Minnett. Since 1999, he has been an independent financial adviser. The article was reviewed by Geoff Walker, former Chief Actuary at the State Bank of New South Wales and winner of the 1989 JASSA Prize for published research on the implications of the then relatively-new dividend imputation system.

RELATED ARTICLES

What might the Tax White Paper say on imputation and CGT?

How to prevent excessive superannuation balances

Selling your holiday home? You may be able to pay less tax

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

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.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

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.