Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 190

Is super segregation still possible for SMSFs?

When the Government's recent changes to superannuation laws were under discussion, the prevailing ‘logic’ in the financial advice industry was that a $1.6 million pension cap required segregation of assets in a SMSF between accumulation and pension. However, this logic was overturned in the final legislation.

It initially seemed likely that trustees would need to choose, based on their personal risk and return requirements, what assets to leave in the $1.6 million maximum ‘transfer benefit cap’ pension and what assets would be transferred back to accumulation.

However, the legislation that was eventually passed outlawed segregation for tax purposes inside a super fund.

The Government does not want you to be able to use segregation to manage your tax in your pension fund. It is banning segregation for tax purposes.

Instead, a proportionate method will be used for tax purposes. Simply, all the assets of the fund will be taxed based on the proportion that is in pension and the proportion that is in accumulation (which will be worked out by an actuary). If you have $2 million in super, with $1.6 million in pension and $400,000 in accumulation, then 20% of gains will be taxed at accumulation rates and 80% will be taxed at pension rates.

Segregation historically

Segregation has always been available to SMSFs from a tax perspective, but has not been widely used, mainly because pension funds were allowed to contain an unlimited amount. Most people would generally have their entire super balance in pension, making segregation somewhat irrelevant.

Or they would use the proportionate method anyway, as it is administratively easier (and generally preferred by accountants).

But segregation certainly had its uses and potential benefits. For example, in two-member funds, where only one person was in pension, it might have made sense to have purposefully chosen assets backing the pension for tax reasons, and other assets backing the other member’s accumulation account.

(Note: you will still be able to segregate assets for investment strategies for individual members, but not for the tax paid on earnings by the fund in super/pension.)

Banning segregation from a tax perspective will take away a lot of guesswork, or a lot of crystal ball gazing, from what was likely to be the lot of SMSF trustees post 1 July 2017.

But using segregation did pose opportunities. And, despite what the Government appears intent on trying to achieve, segregation is unlikely to be dead. It might have to take a different form.

Beating the segregation ban

One possible approach is to have two SMSFs.

Under the current legislation, the Government/ATO is aiming to stop SMSF trustees from using segregation within a fund to avoid paying taxes.

But it is difficult to see how the ATO could stop segregation being used effectively across multiple funds under current reporting requirements.

Aaron Dunn of the SMSF Academy took me through the following example.

Let’s take a member with $2.6 million currently in pension in SMSF1, which includes a property worth $1 million. In time for 1 July 2017, the trustee takes the $1 million property and transfers it to a second SMSF (SMSF2).

There has been a CGT event, as it would be considered a disposal by SMSF1, but the transfer occurs while SMSF1 is in pension phase, so there would be no tax to pay.

SMSF1 now has $1.6 million in pension. It then rolls back $1 million from pension to accumulation. The member then has only used $600,000 in pension of the $1.6 million cap.

It then turns on a pension for the $1 million property in SMSF2. This property is now the only asset in the SMSF and is, therefore, effectively segregated. If this is likely to be a high income, or high growth asset, and you’ve chosen it for that reason, then the segregation – according to what the experts currently believe – would have been achieved.

This would appear to be allowable under the new rules, but it’s early days and something that will require extra consideration by the experts.

There will be some extra costs in setting up and running the second SMSF, but if the trustees believe that it will deliver dividends in excess of those costs, then it could be worth it.

Dunn said that it is too early to tell how this will work in regards to reporting (to the ATO) the movements in and out of pension phase for SMSF1 and SMSF2.

So the strategy comes with a 'kids, don’t try this at home' warning. At least not yet. There’s no great rush to, as the new rules don’t hit for five months. But, the best brains in the business are still trying to work their ways through the new laws.

What are the potential downsides?

If the asset being transferred is property, then a potential downside is stamp duty in some states. This is something to check, state by state (potentially with your SMSF accountant). Dunn said that some states will not charge stamp duty when the beneficiaries remain the same, but other states will charge it.

So, even though there might not be any capital gains tax, having to pay up to around 5.5% in stamp duty, if applicable, could turn a good idea into a marginal one.


Bruce Brammall is Managing Director of Bruce Brammall Financial Pty Ltd and Bruce Brammall Lending Pty Ltd. The information contained in this article is general information and does not consider anyone’s specific circumstances. If you are considering a strategy such as mentioned here, consult your adviser.

June 09, 2017

I personally find the whole 4A stuff rather confusing. A few examples:

1. I have two non-SMSF clients that are seeking advice around the $1.6m cap. Their industry funds are forcing them to roll money back to the accumulation phase and have the proceeds go into a separate super account. If I advise them to employ different investment strategies across the pension and accumulation phase, is that tax avoidance?
2. Let’s just say these clients wanted to start a SMSF in the future. Can I set up two SMSFs? Or is it because a SMSF is involved that is tax avoidance? Do I need to consolidate into the one? Am I acting in the clients best interests by combining their accumulation and pension interests in the one fund?
3. If a client rolls their SMSF accumulation interest to a non-SMSF, is that tax avoidance? If it isn’t, how long would the funds need to be in that non-SMSF for it not to be tax avoidance?

I could go on.

Anyway, just my two cents.

February 20, 2017

From my reading the ATO guidance note on this is pretty clear. It looks at total superannuation balances across all funds to determine the taxable split between pension and accumulation, and calculates tax on that basis. All that having two SMSFs will do is increase admin costs and inefficiency in having two funds. While the ATO may struggle to deal with this complicated legislation on a practical basis, this won't last forever.

Jeff Humphreys
February 17, 2017

"Simply, all the assets of the fund will be taxed based on the proportion that is in pension and the proportion that is in accumulation (which will be worked out by an actuary)"

The legislation removes the need for an actuary to do this work - another loophole? albeit with a ‘kids, don’t try this at home’ warning.

Steve Martin
February 16, 2017

Great! Very helpful, thanks for this article! My gut feeling is that segregating by using separate funds may not be a great idea for most of us. Ideally, after 1 July, you would like to grow the tax free pension fund and reduce the taxable income and maximise the asset growth in the accumulation fund. The problem is that you still need to pay the minimum pension from the pension fund, so holding assets in high growth low income assets in the pension fund creates a liquidity problem. Holding the funds in the unsegregated single fund enables the fund to earn sufficient income to pay the minimum pension and the balance of assets in high growth low income assets lifts the value of the pension account as well as the accumulation account. As the legislation has passed, any action to attempt segregation by establishing a new fund to avoid tax has a pretty obvious problem: the possible trigger of the general anti avoidance rule.

Chris Jankowski
February 16, 2017

If you had a $1 million property as the only asset of a superannuation fund in pension phase then it is unlikely that this fund would be able to pay the required minimum pension (typically 5% of assets value) out of the rental income after expenses.

SMSF Trustee
February 16, 2017

One of the many reasons why it should be forbidden for super funds to own more than about 20% of in any one individual fund or asset and no more than 20% in illiquid assets of any kind. All those debates about whether super funds should be able to borrow would be wiped out by such simple risk management rules being required as part of the investment strategy.

May 10, 2017

I am no expert and am just fiddling around. I did a rough calculation and think it is plausible. What happens if you have a rental yield of more than 5%? What I am trying to get at, is what if the rental yield is sufficient to pay the minimum pension payment? That would be ideal, isn't it?1


Leave a Comment:


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?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

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?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.


Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.



© 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.