Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 481

The proposal on capital raisings and franking is misguided

The Government currently proposes two changes to legislation involving franking credits. 

1. Preventing franked distributions when funded by certain capital markets raisings

Federal Treasury recently completed a consultation process on a Bill that amends taxation law to prevent certain franked distributions that are funded by capital raisings. In its background document, Treasury says this on imputation:

"The imputation system has the effect of allowing income tax paid by Australian corporate tax entities to be taken into account when determining the taxation of their resident members on the distributed profit of the entity. When an Australian corporate tax entity distributes profits to its resident members, it can also pass on a credit for income tax it has paid. This is done by franking the distribution ... If an entity is unable to frank a distribution and makes an unfranked distribution instead, the receiving entity includes the amount of the distribution in its assessable income, but it is not entitled to a tax offset."

The Bill proposes an integrity measure to prevent this distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities, such as when distributions are made outside or additional to the company's normal dividend cycle.

2. The 2022 Budget clamp down on off-market buybacks

No specific details other than to “align the treatment of off-market buybacks with on-market buybacks” have been announced, but it is expected that no franked payments will be allowed as part of an off-market buyback (that is, it will be a capital return).

The following article, written as a submission to Treasury before the Budget announcement, explains why the first proposed change above is wrong but the second proposal has merit.

***

1. The proposed legislation [the first item above] on disallowing franking on certain capital raisings is misguided and addresses the wrong problem. It also unnecessarily complicates tax legislation via the discretion given to the ATO to determine when franking of dividends involved is to be disallowed. It is not the (near) simultaneous raising of equity to finance a distribution to shareholders which is the problem. It is the streaming of dividends which should be the concern.

2. A much simpler solution to the problem of preventing streaming of franking credits (with its inherent cost to government tax revenue) would be to abolish the ability of companies to undertake what we have called TOMBS (Tax-driven Off Market Buybacks). Companies wishing to make returns of capital (one component of TOMBS) would still be able to do so via buybacks where the amount involved is treated solely as a return of capital. Companies wishing to pay franked dividends which would reduce their franking account balances (FABs) would be able to do so by way of a special franked dividend paid pro-rata to all shareholders.

There is nothing inherently wrong with raising cash needed to do so by issuing new equity. Under the imputation tax system, company tax paid is meant to be a prepayment of investor level tax, and unused franking credits in a company’s FAB are a withholding of tax credits due to shareholders.

3. The original ATO Taxpayer Alert (TA 2015/2) from which this proposed legislation stems, posed the problem as being the linking of an equity capital raising with:

“[a]t a similar time …, the company makes franked distributions to its shareholders, in a similar amount to the amount of capital raised. This may occur as a special dividend or through an off-market buy-back of shares, where the dividend forms part of the purchase price of the shares.”

The ATO forecast that implementing a ban on these practices (as proposed in the draft legislation) would resulting in a saving to tax revenue in the order of $10 million p.a.

4. This is a trivial amount compared to the cost to tax revenue arising from the use of TOMBS. In our research1 on TOMBS, we estimated that in 2018 the tax revenue cost from TOMBS conducted in that year alone to be in the order of $2 billion. Recent calculations we have made for the years 2019 and 2020 (years which had many fewer TOMBs, partly due to the COVID pandemic in 2020) suggest that the tax cost for those two years together was in the order of $500 million.

These costs arise regardless of whether or not the company needs to undertake an equity issue to finance the cash outflow involved – indicating that the focus of the legislation on the 'near simultaneous' equity raising is addressing a trivial, rather than the real, problem.

5. The ATO Taxpayer Alert also refers to concerns over special franked dividends where the cash outflow is essentially financed by a cash inflow from a separate equity raising. This is misguided. For example, a company may have a positive franking account balance, be legally able to pay a dividend, but not have cash on hand. There is nothing inherently wrong with raising cash via an equity issue to pay a franked dividend. For example, the company may have had a period during which it was profitable and paying tax, but adopting a low dividend payout ratio due to opportunities to profitably invest the available cash flow. Subsequently it may find itself in a position where it is profitable and 'asset rich' but 'cash poor' and wishing to reward existing shareholders for forgoing past dividends and associated franking credits. There is nothing inherently wrong with raising cash via an equity issue to pay a franked special dividend.

6. We conclude that the proposed legislation [proposal one above] is inferior to an alternative course of action which:

a. Effectively bans TOMBS by legislating that off-market share buybacks involve only a return of capital and no dividend component. (This is more consistent with practices found in other jurisdictions. The inclusion of a dividend component is solely an artifact of dividend imputation and willingness of the ATO to allow a franked dividend component).

b. Does not place unnecessary restrictions on the use of special franked dividends by companies – particularly by not precluding simultaneous equity raisings.

 

Submission to the Treasury Consultation, September 2022 by Christine Brown, Emeritus Professor of Finance, Monash University and Kevin Davis, Emeritus Professor of Finance, The University of Melbourne.

1 Christine Brown and Kevin Davis “Tax-driven Off Market Buybacks (TOMBs): Time to Lay them to Rest” Australian Tax Forum, 35, 2, Jun 2020: 232-257.

 

Christine Brown and is Emeritus Professor of Finance at Monash University and Kevin Davis is Emeritus Professor of Finance at The University of Melbourne. Kevin’s free e-text reference book 'Bank and Financial Institution Management in Australia' is available on his website. Kevin was also a member of the Financial Systems Inquiry ('The Murray Report') in 2014.

 

2 Comments
John
October 29, 2022

I worry that any playing with Franking dividend policy is the thin edge of the wedge. I have said before govt means tested the pension and the will "means test" super. I mean by that they "will find a way to get more or give less". I can't believe some people don't see the big picture.

JOHN L M
October 26, 2022

Thank you The biggest problem with the elimination of franking credits from dividends where it is deemed to have been in any part due to a capital raising [as arbitrarily at the complete discretion of the ATO] is that it was drafted in 2016, never enacted, never then intended to be retrospective, and still has the original date of 19/12/2016. It is the retrospectivity now included that is potentially an entrapment of innocent taxpayers, who paid as required under existing legislation. If the franking credits already included are reversed, all super funds, all university endowments, research insitutions and major charities [cancer funds, heart foundation, flying doctor, red cross etc] , with investments eg from bequests and donations; private schools; land councils etc., would need to be reassessed and pay back franking credits. And ALP could not play favorites as in 2019 proposals re franking -- e g exempt Industry super funds while penalising SMSFs. If the actions are deemed now retrospectively to be illegal, the government could not then authorize certain institutions to behave illegally

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Retained profits a conspiracy against super and pension funds

The potential and perils of increasing franking credits

The when and why of four million Australian retirees

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever, updated

This time last year, I highlighted 16 ASX stocks that investors could own indefinitely. One year on, I look at whether there should be any changes to the list of stocks as well as which companies are worth buying now. 

UniSuper’s boss flags a potential correction ahead

The CIO of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, John Pearce, suggests the odds favour a flat year for markets, with the possibility of a correction of 10% or more. However, he’ll use any dip as a buying opportunity.

2025-26 super thresholds – key changes and implications

The ABS recently released figures which are used to determine key superannuation rates and thresholds that will apply from 1 July 2025. This outlines the rates and thresholds that are changing and those that aren’t.  

Is Gen X ready for retirement?

With the arrival of the new year, the first members of ‘Generation X’ turned 60, marking the start of the MTV generation’s collective journey towards retirement. Are Gen Xers and our retirement system ready for the transition?

Why the $5.4 trillion wealth transfer is a generational tragedy

The intergenerational wealth transfer, largely driven by a housing boom, exacerbates economic inequality, stifles productivity, and impedes social mobility. Solutions lie in addressing the housing problem, not taxing wealth.

What Warren Buffett isn’t saying speaks volumes

Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter has been fixture for avid investors for decades. In his latest letter, Buffett is reticent on many key topics, but his actions rather than words are sending clear signals to investors.

Latest Updates

Investing

Designing a life, with money to spare

Are you living your life by default or by design? It strikes me that many people are doing the former and living according to others’ expectations of them, leading to poor choices including with their finances.

Investment strategies

A closer look at defensive assets for turbulent times

After the recent market slump, it's a good time to brush up on the defensive asset classes – what they are, why hold them, and how they can both deliver on your goals and increase the reliability of your desired outcomes.

Financial planning

Are lifetime income streams the answer or just the easy way out?

Lately, there's been a push by Government for lifetime income streams as a solution to retirement income challenges. We run the numbers on these products to see whether they deliver on what they promise.

Shares

Is it time to buy the Big Four banks?

The stellar run of the major ASX banks last year left many investors scratching their heads. After a recent share price pullback, has value emerged in these banks, or is it best to steer clear of them?

Investment strategies

The useful role that subordinated debt can play in your portfolio

If you’re struggling to replace the hybrid exposure in your portfolio, you’re not alone. Subordinated debt is an option, and here is a guide on what it is and how it can fit into your investment mix.

Shares

Europe is back and small caps there offer significant opportunities

Trump’s moves on tariffs, defence, and Ukraine, have awoken European Governments after a decade of lethargy. European small cap manager, Alantra Asset Management, says it could herald a new era for the continent.

Shares

Lessons from the rise and fall of founder-led companies

Founder-led companies often attract investors due to leaders' personal stakes and long-term vision. But founder presence alone does not guarantee success, and the challenge is to identify which ones will succeed in the long term.

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.