Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 28

Reversionary versus non-reversionary income streams

In last week’s article, we examined recent amendments relating to death benefit pensions.

This week, we look at whether a reversionary or non-reversionary pension may be better. The decision is not straightforward and depends on the circumstances of the case.

In the case of a non-reversionary pension, the balance of the pension at the time of the pensioner’s death retains the same taxable and tax free proportions, but amounts which relate to anti-detriment and the proceeds of an insurance policy will have their own taxable and tax free amounts. In some cases, this may be to the advantage of the beneficiary and in others it may not. It all depends on the age of the pensioner at the time of death and whether the superannuation fund may have claimed a tax deduction for insurance premiums. In the case of an SMSF the funding of an anti-detriment payment is an issue which usually involves transfers of amounts from reserves and may result in issues with breaches of the excess concessional contributions caps – to be avoided at any costs.

In the case of a reversionary pension, the proportioning rule retains the taxable and tax free components of the original pension irrespective of whether the proceeds of an insurance policy are added to the pension balance after it has commenced.

Here is a case study to compare how these rules operate for the proceeds of an insurance policy:

Take the example of Ray who is age 58 and his wife Paula who is 55 and was in receipt of a transition to retirement income stream which was reversionary at the time of her death. The balance of Paula’s income stream at that time was $400,000. Under the proportioning rule the income stream was split 80% taxable proportion and 20% tax free proportion. Paula was insured in the fund for $1 million which was paid subsequent to her death. The fund had claimed a tax deduction for the premiums on the policy. Under the rules of the fund the proceeds of any insurance policy may be added to any death benefit at discretion of the trustee. As trustee, Ray exercised the discretion and added it to the pension. Any pension payable to Ray will be taxed on the taxable proportion as he and Paula were under age 60 at the time of Paula’s death.

As the superannuation fund had claimed a tax deduction for the premiums on the policy the amount received from the proceeds of the insurance policy would be treated as a taxable component. However, as it is permissible to add the insurance proceeds to a pension that is already in place then the proportions that applied at the commencement of the pension will continue. This means that the 80% taxable and 20% tax free proportion will continue despite the addition of the insurance component which notionally has a higher taxable component.

If Paula had decided to commence a non-reversionary pension the rules differ due to the changes to the superannuation legislation which were backdated to commence from 1 July 2012. As the pension ceased at the time of Paula’s death the proportions of 80% taxable and 20% tax free will remain with the balance of the pension. This means that the $400,000 being the balance of Paula’s pension account on death will consist of $320,000 taxable and $80,000 tax free amounts. As the proceeds of the insurance policy consist of a taxable component they will be added to the taxable amount. The effect will be to increase the taxable component to $1.32 million and the tax free amount of $80,000 will remain unchanged. Therefore the resulting taxable proportion will be approximately 94% and the tax free component will be approximately 6%. This means that any pension paid will have a greater taxable portion than if Paula had been paid a reversionary pension.

In this case, it would have been better for Paula to have commenced a reversionary pension and Ray receives it as a reversionary on her death. As a general rule, where the proceeds of an insurance policy are expected and will be added to a pension after the death of the original pensioner, a reversionary pension would appear to provide the best results from the point of view of the taxable and tax free proportions. This is relevant prior to both the original pensioner and the reversionary reaching age 60 and subsequently on the death of the reversionary pensioner if the residual amount of the reversionary pension is paid to a non-dependent child as defined for taxation purposes.

Benefits from the changes to the law for non-reversionary pensions

The main benefit arising from the amendment to the law which applies from 1 July 2012 is that trustees of superannuation funds that pay non-reversionary pensions now have greater flexibility to dispose of assets after the death of the pensioner and retain the tax exemption which applied to the pensioner prior to their death.

Similar treatment also applies to the calculation of the tax free and taxable components that applied to the non-reversionary pension. That is, the taxable and tax free proportions applying to the non-reversionary income stream will continue to apply to any lump sum or subsequent pension that arises from the pension assets at the time of death.

While this may sound relatively straightforward, care needs to be taken where amounts from anti-detriment payments or the proceeds of insurance policies are added to the superannuation income stream account. It may turn out in some cases that there may be a greater benefit provided in relation to the taxable and tax free components if a reversionary pension is payable and the proceeds of the insurance policy is added after the reversionary pension has commenced. The reason is that the proportioning rule is not re-calculated despite the fact that technically the proceeds from the insurance policy may include a relatively high taxable component. This, as always, depends on the circumstances of the particular case.

Graeme Colley is the Director Technical & Professional Standards at SPAA, the SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia.

David Powell
August 27, 2013

Graeme thank you for 2 excellent articles on this subject.

SMSF's can avail themselves of significant equity when the threads of these division are bought together.

I've always hit the wall when it comes to the funding issues also. Predominantly because the minimum benefits of a member cannot be eroded.

Mostly I see wasted opportunities because deeds seem invariably to impute the life insurance benefit to the members account.

Creating flexibility for the trustee by NOT doing this goes a long way to helping solve liquidity.

Graeme Colley
August 26, 2013

Thanks for your comments Ramani

If the issue of cross-subsidisation is an issue then I think it should be straightened out. However, the main issue with SMSFs seems to be the funding of the anti-detriment payment.

An article on this would certainly seem worthwhile and could clear up a number of issues.



Ramani Venkatramani
August 23, 2013

Graeme has referred to anti-detriment payments in SMSFs and the use of reserves. I agree caution in not exceeding contribution limits through using reserves is warranted.

Apart from this any SMSF which has more than one member should be able to pay anti-detriment by using fund monies. Somehow a perception has risen that such cross-subsidisation (in a liquidity sense only, as the benefit is a claim on the ATO) is not permitted. In my view this is a particularly revenue-centric view that defeats the legislative intent.

We need more light thrown on this little known benefit which could be worth a lot to members. Happy to co-author a paper on this.


Leave a Comment:



SMSFs must fix death benefit pensions now

The merits of reversionary versus non-reversionary pensions

Keeping track of 'superannuation interest' is critical


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


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?


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?


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.


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.


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?



© 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.