Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 499

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 499 with weekend update

  •   9 March 2023
  • 30
  •      
  •   

The Weekend Edition includes a market update (after the editorial) plus Morningstar adds links to two additional articles.

Don't believe what Treasury and others say about a 30% superannuation tax. It is not a 30% tax on large balances, represented by the sum of the existing 15% tax on accumulation funds plus another 15% on balances above $3 million. It is a completely new tax with a different calculation method. If anyone disagrees with this, answer the question: '30% of what?' There is no answer. It's also not a 'doubling of the tax rate', as many journalists are now writing. The new tax is not 2x, it is x plus y.

The implications of taxing unrealised gains are slowly dawning on people, but it's doubtful Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Treasury understood the consequences of their new measurement method when it was proposed. Their first press announcement was incorrect:

"From 2025-26, the concessional tax rate applied to future earnings for balances above $3 million will be 30%."

Consider a simple example. An SMSF holds one asset, an investment property, which delivers taxable income, net of deductions, of $10,000 in a financial year. In an accumulation fund, tax at 15% is $1,500. Assume the property increases in value by $100,000. The new tax is calculated at 15% of $110,000 (income plus unrealised capital gain) with adjustments according to Treasury's formula. That's not another $1,500. These are two different 15% taxes, not a 30% tax.

Chalmers now needs to defend the new tax, including the unrealised gains. In a press doorstop on the weekend, within the space of a few sentences, he said the word 'modest' five times and 'simple' four times. It might be simple for large super funds who do not need to administer it, but it is not simple for the individuals affected. They could receive a large tax liability notice without the cash to pay it, and revaluing unlisted assets will become a major headache.

It's a Shakespearean reminder of Hamlet, where his mother, Gertrude, is asked about the queen in a play who repeatedly states she would not remarry if her husband dies. The famous reply, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" means a point is made so much that the opposite is probably true.

Chalmers has taken comfort from the support given to the new tax by the Managing Director of National Australia Bank, Ross McEwan. However, when interviewed by Patricia Karvellas on ABC’s Radio National on 3 March 2023, McEwan was not asked about the unrealised gains. Did he know the implications or was he still on the 30% bandwagon? 

“Actually, I think $3 million is a lot of money to have a super fund. I'm sure I'll put myself out there and people say, “You should never have said that” but I think $3 million is a lot of money. And a 4% return on that, I'm pretty sure after tax somebody could live on $120,000. It's not a bad sum of money. It's a move that probably needed to be made ... So that's just a reality of where we are. If we're all going to have to play our part to get this economy back into shape, get the debt down to the country. There's lots of decisions we don't like. We get a chance every three-odd years to make a decision.”

How much will support waver as people realise there is far more to this policy than a simple tax on amounts over $3 million?

Following McEwan, Samantha Maiden from News was asked why the Government made such a hasty decision:

"Look, it was a very peculiar thing, right? Because they started this conversation and conversations can be very dangerous. And then, you know, two seconds before they announced it, Anthony Albanese was telling people that they hadn't made a decision then all of a sudden, they had. One of the most extraordinary elements of it is that the Government just doesn't seem to have been very consistently effective about selling it. It's actually other actors in this debate who are far more effective. So for example, that interview that you've just done with the NAB CEO is the best birthday present Jim Chalmers didn't get yesterday.

And you know, this morning, Richard Marles has been on the Today Show with Karl Stefanovic, where he was completely unable to answer questions about how they were going to deal with this profit. So he was asked three times by Karl Stefanovic, it was a GST birthday cake moment if I've ever seen one ... Even though they do have the broken promise thing and I'm not minimising that but it should be something that's not so difficult to sell."

The first major survey question by Newspoll, detailed below, only mentions the $3 million and not the tax on unrealised gains or lack of indexation. The surprise in this result is that one-third either disapprove of the policy or don’t know, which is strong support for no change given only 0.5% of people will be adversely affected.

Then speaking on ABC Radio on 6 March 2023, political commentator Michelle Grattan was asked about the Newspoll survey supporting the Government’s super changes and what it demonstrates. She replied:

“Certainly, it will be a great relief for the Government because the whole issue has blown up into a huge argument, but it does show that the bottom line has cut through and people are accepting this is a fair change, and one that's necessary to make the system sustainable. Having said that, I think that the Government still has a big argument in front of it over the detail of the change and whether that high level of support holds. We'll see as that argument unfolds.”

This week, we take a deep dive into 10 aspects of the new superannuation tax which are receiving less attention, but which show the implementation will be far from straightforward, despite Jim Chalmers' Hamlet-like protestations. Many in his party are wondering whether the angst is worth it for only $2 billion in tax revenue a year.

The splendid chart on the valuation of Klarna, the Buy-Now-Pay-Later business part-owned by the CBA, shows how the unrealised gains tax can hit hard (and we use some local BNPL examples in the related article). As recently as 2019, Klarna raised funds at a $5.5 billion valuation but reached a $60 billion valuation at the start of 2022. Struggling with losses and cash burning, it recently raised $800 million at a valuation of $6.7 billion. Many people choose their SMSFs to hold such assets, potentially creating massive tax liabilities when the value has not really changed over four years. 

***

On the subject of living a long time (that is, superannuation), the latest life expectancy data has good and bad news for Australians. On the bad side, around the world, the pandemic has shortened life expectancy like no other single health issue for many decades, and this has continued into 2022/2023. On the good side, the data below shows Australians have the longest expectancy of any of the data sets in the comparison. Hanging on to decent superannuation balances is important for Aussies as we will live so long.

***

The Australian dollar fell to its lowest level since November 2022 after hawkish commentary from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell contrasted with RBA Governor Philip Lowe's dovish turn. Powell warned of interest rates rises including a possible return to 0.5% levels. He told the US Senate:

"The latest economic data have come in stronger than expected, which suggests that the ultimate level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously anticipated." 

But Phil Lowe told the Australian Financial Review's Business Summit that the Reserve Bank Board had discussed a potential interest rate pause and that rates were already in "restrictive territory". Lowe stressed an important difference between the US and Australia:

“In the US, when the Federal Reserve raises their mortgage rates, if you’ve got an existing mortgage you don’t pay more. In Australia, you do.” 

Graham Hand

Also in this week's edition ...

Ron Bird says the Albanese Government has lost sight of the real purpose of superannuation. Sure, it involves setting aside savings to fund retirement, but these funds come from somewhere. Contributions to superannuation involve sacrificing current consumption with the expectation of being able to consume more in the future. This trade-off should be the focus in making policy, and super is benefitting the wrong people.

The Government is determined to limit early access to super to help pay down a mortgage, much to Jon Kalkman's chagrin. He says younger people should have the option to draw on their super balance, within limits, to assist with their housing needs at the time in their lives when they need it most. Current policy is inequitable and hypocritical as it allows retirees to access their super early to pay off their mortgage.

ATO figures show about 20% of the $890 billion in SMSFs is allocated to cash and term deposits. Vanguard's Jean Bauler says while this is understandable to an extent, more of the money is likely to make its way into bonds given the now attractive yields on offer.

Warren Buffett's partner, Charlie Munger, is famous for applying disciplines outside of finance to give him an edge in markets. James Gruber follows suit by looking at how ecological niches can be applied to stock markets and may help you become a better investor.

Matt Reynolds of Capital Group says the pandemic has permanently changed global supply chains. Businesses are moving away from being too reliant on China or other countries, and that has vast implications for both companies and markets.

Brad Potter of Tyndall says the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act is poised to have a significant impact on the US economy, especially in the renewable energy sector. The Act includes provisions that incentivise the growth of the renewables sector, creating a 'supercycle' of investment and development, and Australia is well placed to benefit.

Earlier this week, to celebrate International Women’s Day, Morningstar's Annika Bradley led an empowering and thought-provoking panel discussion with industry leaders Katie Hudson, Elizabeth Kumaru, and Dr Laura Ryan. They shed light on how to #EmbraceEquity, discussed the importance of financial literacy for women and shared experiences and learnings on investing. If you missed out on the livestream, watch the recording here.

In the weekend update by Morningstar, Josh Peach looks at five overvalued ASX shares to avoid buying today while Susan Dziubinski highlights ten US growth stocks to own for the long term.

Lastly, in this week's white paper, Capital Group explores various scenarios for inflation and interest rates, and the analysis points to one clear conclusion: the importance of investing in fixed income.

***

Weekend market update

Friday was an eventful day on Wall Street with the second-biggest bank failiure ever in the US. Regulators closed Silicon Valley Bank, the 16th largest bank in America.

Unsurprisngly, there was another round of panic buying in short-dated Treasurys as the two-year yields plunged to 4.6%, a stunning 45 basis points below Wednesday’s close, while the long bond rallied to 3.7% from 3.88% the day prior. Stocks sank 1.4% on the S&P 500 to wrap up a brutal minus 4.2% showing for the week and narrow the 2023 advance to less than 2%, while WTI crude rose to near $77 a barrel and gold ripped 2% to $1,872 per ounce.  The VIX rose two points to 24.7 for its most elevated close of the year. 

From AAP Netdesk:

On Friday, the local share market suffered its worst single-day loss in five months after news of Silicon Valley Bank's difficulties broke. The benchmark S&P/ASX200 index on Friday plunged 166.4 points, or 2.28%, to an eight-week low of 7,144.7. The All Ordinaries dropped 166.2 points, or 2.21%, to 7,348.2.

Every sector finished lower except for utilities. Energy was the hardest hit, falling 3.4% as Woodside dropped 3.5% to $34.05.

The heavyweight mining sector fell 3.1%, with BHP down 3.4% to $45.01, Fortescue retreating 2.7% to $21.51 and Rio Tinto losing 3.3% to $117.28.

Financials were down 2.8% with major losses for all the big banks. CBA dropped 3.3% to a near-five-month low of $95.51, NAB fell 3.0% to $29 and Westpac and ANZ both retreated 2.6%, to $21.79 and $23.85 respectively.
Macquarie fell 3.2% to $184.66 and Suncorp dropped 2.8% to $12.62.

In the mining sector, there were also sharp losses among lithium players as the price of the battery metal continued to drop. Liontown fell 8%, Allkem 8.6% and Pilbara 7%.

Piedmont Lithium fell 6.3% as it responded to a critical report by a short seller, Blue Orca Capital, and announced its Quebec lithium mine had produced an initial batch of spodumene concentrate.

Goldminers were a rare spot of green, with Northern Star adding 1.7% and Gold Road Resources climbing 1.4%.

Origin Energy climbed 2.5% to $8.35, bolstering the utility sector, following a report that Brookfield Asset Management and EIG Partners could submit a binding $18.2 billion takeover offer for Australia's largest energy retailer as early as next week.

Booktopia fell 4.2% to 23c after the Federal Court ordered the online bookseller be fined $6 million for breaching Australian consumer law over its returns policy.

From Shane Oliver, AMP:

  • Global share markets mostly fell over the last week with more hawkish commentary from Fed Chair Powell and worries that problems at two regional US lenders may mean wider issues for banks. This saw US shares fall 4.6% for the week giving up most of their gains for the year to date and Eurozone shares fell 1.8%. Chinese shares also fell 4% but the Japanese share market rose 0.8%. While Australian shares were initially boosted by a less hawkish RBA they succumbed to the global weakness to be down around 1.8% for the week with falls in resources, health and financial shares leading the declines. Bond yields mostly fell helped partly by safe haven demand and in Australia by less hawkish RBA commentary. Oil and metal prices also fell, but the iron ore price rose. With a more hawkish Fed and less hawkish RBA the $A fell as the $US rose.
  • Are we going to see broader systemic problems in US banks? The collapse or closure of two regional US lenders – Silicon Valley Bank which landed to tech start-ups and Silvergate Capital which was a crypto friendly lender have led to concerns that they may reflect the start of broader problems in the US banking system. This is quite possible as Fed rate hike cycles by tightening financial conditions invariably trigger financial stresses (think the tech wreck and GFC) and troubles in start up companies and crypto businesses and nervous depositors in banks who fund them are not that surprising in this environment and given what’s happened to crypto over the last year. At this stage its too early to tell if problems at these lenders reflect just isolated problems or are indicative of wider potential problems impacting the US banking system. Either way banks are likely to see a tougher environment ahead as growth slows and higher rates cause more financial stress for borrowers. And it is a sign that Fed tightening has got traction and the Fed may be close to the top on rates.
  • Fed Chair Powell confirms the Fed has becomes more hawkish in the last month. This reflects the recent run of stronger than expected economic data with inflation falling more slowly than previously indicated. As a result, Powell indicated that the peak level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously expected and if warranted the Fed is prepared to step up the pace of rate hikes again. At its December meeting the Fed dot plot of officials’ interest rate expectations indicated a peak of 5-5.25% but this now looks likely to move up to 5.25-5.5% at this month’s meeting. 
  • It was a different story at the RBA, which in contrast to the Fed has become less hawkish. As expected, the RBA increased the cash rate by another 0.25% taking it to 3.6%. But thanks to a run of softer economic data the RBA wound back its hawkishness from last month that followed the stronger than expected December quarter inflation data. While its still hawkish and repeated its message on the need to get inflation down, it acknowledged recent data that showed slowing growth, some easing in the jobs market, signs of a peak in inflation and reduced risk of a wages breakout. As such it toned back its guidance on the expected outlook for interest rates from several more rate hikes to maybe just one more and opened to door to a pause in rates with Governor Lowe noting that “with monetary policy now in restrictive territory, we are closer to the point where it will be appropriate to pause interest rate increases to allow more time to assess the state of the economy.”

Curated by James Gruber and Leisa Bell

 

Latest updates

PDF version of Firstlinks Newsletter

ASX Listed Bond and Hybrid rate sheet from NAB/nabtrade

Listed Investment Company (LIC) Indicative NTA Report from Bell Potter

LIC (LMI) Monthly Review from Independent Investment Research

Plus updates and announcements on the Sponsor Noticeboard on our website

 

30 Comments
Tom Taylor
March 13, 2023

Regarding tax and unrealised gains.Less than 20% of people have enough to avoid going on the pension.We took the opportunity during the Cooper review to lodge a submission questionning why retirees were forced to draw down all their super. We suggested that alowing families over a few generations accumulate enough to bring down that 80% who need support to 50 or 60% on the government pension would make the government pension sustainable and allow increases for inflation. Of course the treasury view has always about ensuring no one should be financially independent in their old age. These are the same government officials through the sale of the CBA and the establishment of the future fund draw a defined benifit which the ordinary tax paying citizen could only dream of. When Morrison as treasurer brought in the 1.5 Million dollar cap the wife and I saw the writting on the wall for our SMSF that held property. We had two commercial buildings in the fund and over two decades acting as trustees of our SMSF did about 300 hours on Trust law and superannuation not to be bush lawyers or accountants but to understand advice given to us. Fortunately we were at the right age to retire and get out from underneath the dead hand of government. We still went and consulted with a QC who specialised in tax law and super to ensure we complied with super laws when we sold the properties and closed our fund. We note that in the recent Australian survey that 62% of sheeple agree with the governments move on self managed super. People get the governments they deserve and as my long deceased father use to say governments are not there to help but rather to control us by hook or by crook. Taxing unrealised gains is nothing more than sovereign theft under the guise of equity.

D Ramsay
March 13, 2023

"tax imposed on unrealized gains. " - how can anyone , especially the treasurer, even contemplate such a thing ? Convention/fairness has always dictated that "the capital gain on an asset is not taxed until it is sold" - this follows logically because the value of an asset is just conjecture until it is actually sold. Secondly - I read all of the article and comments, but I am left wondering if this grossly unfair calculation applies to accumulation phase only ? (or does it apply to pension phase as well ?). 

Dick
March 13, 2023

I think commentators underestimate that the 30% Tax rate on unrealised gains is a test run for future Capital Gains/Wealth Tax on assets at Valuation each year . This has been Treasury/ATO policy for perhaps thirty years and now they have got it into the system , and very few analysts inititially picked up how pernicious the principle is . Taxation without Income generation . Only Canberra could think that is fair . If they manage to legislate this , then there will be similar moves on other structures and assets .From the perpetrators viewpoint it is also a frontal attack on private investors , and the viability of SMSFs , and therefore favours the centralised Industry Funds .

Mark
March 13, 2023

Being taxed on what you own, not what you've earned is already in place with rates and land taxes.

I disagree with it for our Superannuation but acknowledge that taxing this way us not without precedent.

John
March 12, 2023

The Treasury Fact sheet makes no mention of franking credits nor that the first$1.7m, currently- soon to be $1.9m, is supposed to be tax free.
And the proposal does not deal with the issue of still being too generous for funds of $50-$100m.

G41
March 12, 2023

Thanks for a great explanation of why due to the limited availability of Total Member Balances data it's a new tax on unrealised increase in Members Balances which was not the original intention. It's a bad tax that will drive investment away from productive assets and instead into tax free family home consumption but I'm now trying to be constructive; one work around to achieve the original objective would be to let SMSFs with Accumulation Funds elect to be subject to a 30% income tax rate on the pro rata proportion of earnings from greater than $3m balances. Such Members would then be exempt from the new 15% tax on growth. Obviously, this only works if all members have greater than $3m balances and have no other Super balances elsewhere

Graham Hand
March 12, 2023

Hi G41, sorry, that will not work. A policy cannot be targeted at one structure such as SMSFs. It needs to apply to all super funds.

G41
March 13, 2023

The precedent is where SMSFs for members moving from accumulation to pension phase do not trigger a CGT liability that members of say retail funds do. If the proposal gets enacted as per the Treasury Paper, what I suggest is that any super fund including SMSFs (but in practice it will be SMSFs) can elect to be subject to the tiered higher 30% rate probably based on Certifications by an Actuary, so as to exempt their members from the tax on unrealised gains.

Kerrie
March 12, 2023

Easy fixed. Once balance reaches $3 million you have to withdraw any excess same as you can now above your cap.

Alex
March 12, 2023

Kerrie, look at the chart, it would be common to be pushed over the $3m in one year due to an investment windfall only to crash back to say $2m the next. If the amount over $3m is forced out, can it go back in if the balance falls? Not so easy fixed.

Bruce
March 12, 2023


Graham and fellow contributors make excellent points regarding the difficulties implementing tax policies relating to superannuation TSBs. However, because more and more superannuation balances could become liable for tax on unrealized capital gains I envisage most TSBs will be reduced below the threshold and the result will be very little additional revenue to the Commonwealth.

As mentioned in the comments, this decision by the Government indicates panic rather than detailed consideration of all the issues involved. The Labor Party could have waited for those elderly members with large balances to die and maintained the high moral ground by emphasizing that it was the Party that voters could trust when it came to their super. Unlike the other mob who have regularly changed the system, including allowing pre-retirement withdrawals during the pandemic.

I suspect that the long term effect of these changes will be to discourage investment in superannuation because members will lose control of their funds and changes to the rules are being applied retrospectively. Because no one can be certain what changes future governments may make in the next twenty or thirty years - e.g. not allowing lump sum withdrawals until a person reaches 70 years of age; Taxing balances in pension mode; Reducing age pension payments by the amount paid from pension accounts; Using a deeming rate on balances instead of earnings; etc - members will be reluctant to make non concessional contributions and will begin to worry about exceeding the TSB when they retire.

The changes also highlighted that only 80,000 Australians have more than $3 million in their super accounts. This indicates that despite 15 years of economic growth and considerable tax benefits, either government incentives to encourage entrepreneurs to invest in new businesses have failed or, direct investment in property, businesses or other assets offers better returns/and or more control.

If it is the former, the new super changes will further discourage entrepreneurs from working long hours, risking the loss of a business and/or their property to invest in, start or expand a business in the hope of a comfortable retirement. The result will be lower economic growth and less tax revenue than is currently forecast.

The Government would have been better to focus its political capital on addressing tax policy induced distortions in the housing market and directing personal savings to more productive investments.

Despite the generous tax concessions for investors and owner occupiers, Australian residential property is amongst the most expensive in the world. Similar sized apartments in Japan are 2/3 the cost of those in Sydney or Melbourne. Moreover, despite strong demand and a shortage of available housing, industry and retail superannuation funds have avoided investing in this market and have strenuously argued against allowing members to use their super for housing, even though such policies have proved successful in Singapore.

Jan H
March 12, 2023

There's one thing for sure. This proposal is very confusing. Not even the "experts" can get the maths right. For that reason, this is a bad idea. What staggers me is why the Treasury wonks and Chalmers who has several post-grad degrees couldn't foresee the complications. Clearly, they did not work out the sums before launching the proposal.
What a complete mess!

Irene Y L Tsang
March 12, 2023

Agreed, and too complicated for normal citizens without an Economic or Accounting degree! Especially the unrealistic gain needs to be taxed.

Denial
March 11, 2023

The key issue for those impacted by this policy is they'll have to take the exact opposite approach to accumulating wealth as what a rational investor such as Warren Buffett took. You can no longer benefit from the magic of compounding via a passive buy and hold strategy. Under this policy you're forced to sell a decent portion of your assets prematurely to pay for the assessed tax bill. Do the maths and you can show under base case scenarios Super/SMSF won't be as effective a structure as using a buy and hold outside of super (over the long term - your life).

The tax techos may also recognise the tax harvesting rules prior to year-end may bring you under the ATO and SMSF auditor radar. Curiously also does the unrealised gains component now also get incorporated into the PAYG assessments? What's the bet the consequences haven't been considered?

Ian Lupton
March 10, 2023

In this debate about 30% tax for Super balances over $3M there is a point that no one seems to discuss. From all that’s reported, you will pay 30% on all super balances above $3M including unrealised gains. My concern is that if you have $4M then you will pay 30% on $1M = $300K The following year if the balance is $3.7M (let’s assume no net changes) then you pay tax on $700K = $210K. Balance is now $3.49K. . . and so it goes … so you are effectively being taxed on the same unrealised gains… To me it doesn’t appear as a tax being legislated — its a penalty being awarded for having been over invested in Superannuation. If left in there, in a few years the excess balance above $3M will have all been taken by the ATO. They might just as well take the lot in year one! No other tax we have doesn’t recognise prior tax that has been paid. This is totally different. A penalty. What have I missed.

Graham Hand
March 10, 2023

Hi Ian, "What Have I missed?" Plenty. There is a reason 'non one seems to discuss' and that's because your understanding of the calculation is incorrect. The calculation does not work on the amount over $3 million every year, it works on the change in balance over the year (EOFY minus SOFY). This has been explained in detail in my last two article, this week and last week.

Steve
March 10, 2023

"It is not a doubling of the tax rate as many journalists are now writing". There's the problem, so many so-called journalists are too lazy or dumb to ever research a subject, they just parrot what everyone else is saying. Neck and neck with used car salesmen is our fourth estate these days. And sinking. After all how much detail can you cram into a 30 second segment.

Malcolm
March 09, 2023

So the markets crash and share values fall and you have a realised capital loss on your $3M+ SMSF, can you offset your capital loss against your incurred income on the SMSF balance in excess of $3M?

If you have $4M in your SMSF, I assume it will be only 25% of the realised capital gain that gets tax, I.e 25% of total SMSF income + realised capital gain?

Conversely,, comments to date seem to be focussed on problems with income and capital gains accrued from property ownership in an SMSF but if the share market has a stellar year, the realised capital gain on your $3M+ worth of shares in that FY could be very significant.

If you sell some shares in your $3M+ SMSF in the future, realising a capital gain relative to their initial purchase price, how does one account for the tax you have already paid on those shares over the years that the Chalmers tax system has been in force? Do we now need to keep a record of the annual realised capital gains/losses on every single asset that the SMSF holds.

Capital Gains for assets held in a SMSF for more than 12 months are currently taxed at 10% (after the 33% discount) if the CG is liable for the 15% tax rate. So is the realised CG under the Chalmers tax scheme, reduced by 33% for assets held for more than 12 months and 0% if held for less than 12 months. I assume the 33% discount is applied to the 30% tax on the realised capital gain so an effective tax rate of 20% on the realised CG and 30% on the accrued income?

Am I just stupid or is this all a bit confusing? No need to answer, I’m depressed enough as it is!

Malcolm
March 09, 2023

I didn’t pay suffice to attention in my previous comment to my use of realised and unrealised capital gain so the comment below is a corrected version.

So the markets crash and share values fall and you have a unrealised capital loss on your $3M+ SMSF, can you offset your capital loss against your incurred income on the SMSF balance in excess of $3M?

If you have $4M in your SMSF, I assume it will be only 25% of the unrealised capital gain that gets tax, I.e 25% of total SMSF income + unrealised capital gain?

Conversely,, comments to date seem to be focussed on problems with income and unrealised capital gains accrued from property ownership in an SMSF but if the share market has a stellar year, the unrealised capital gain on your $3M+ worth of shares in that FY could be very significant.

If you sell some shares in your $3M+ SMSF in the future, realising a capital gain relative to their initial purchase price, how does one account for the tax you have already paid on the unrealised capital gain accrued on those shares over the years that the Chalmers tax system has been in force? Do we now need to keep a record of the annual unrealised capital gains/losses on every single asset that the SMSF holds.

Capital Gains for assets held in a SMSF for more than 12 months are currently taxed at 10% (after the 33% discount) if the CG is liable for the 15% tax rate. So is the unrealised CG under the Chalmers tax scheme, reduced by 33% for assets held for more than 12 months and 0% if held for less than 12 months. I assume the 33% discount is applied to the 30% tax on the unrealised capital gain so an effective tax rate of 20% on the unrealised CG and 30% on the accrued income?

Am I just stupid or is this all a bit confusing? No need to answer, I’m depressed enough as it is!

Jeff Wain
March 09, 2023

Thanks for the update Graham. Good article. Close but no cigar. :)

You state "... but the new tax is imposed on the full $115,000 (income plus unrealised capital gain) according to the formula" which is still not correct. The 15% rate is only applied to the proportion of the closing TSB in excess of $3m. I encourage you to model some scenarios and you will identify that the effective tax rate under the new proposal can be substantially lower than the misguided Treasury & Media headlines suggest.

None of the above overrides the fact that the proposal violates the most basic principles of good tax policy.

Finlay
March 09, 2023

I must be having a seniors moment. If this hypothetical fund earns $10,000 after deductions and has an unrealized capital gain of $100,000, then isn’t the earnings figure on which the new tax is levied $110,000, not $115,000? After two cups of coffee I still couldn’t find the missing $5,000.
Just as well I’ve got an advisor.

Graham Hand
March 09, 2023

Thanks, Finlay, you are correct. I've had 15% and 15 at the top of my brain for two weeks. I've fixed the article.

Graham Hand
March 09, 2023

Hi Jeff, that is why I used the qualification "according to the formula". I've already been accused of using too many formulas in this article, I can't spell out the exact calculation every time.

Ray Cameron
March 09, 2023

How will a defined benefit superannuation be taxed re the $3m limit? The Transfer Balance Cap was calculated on 16 times the annual pension , so 16 x say $200,000 is $3.2m. Most longer serving and higher ranking politicians an public servants will get an annual pension well over $200k.

Darryl
March 09, 2023

It is probably justified to tax a large balance more, but the way the tax is structured is the most ridiculous thing. Not only does it tax unrealised capital gains, it only taxes part of the fund balance increase. For instance, the tax rates are not 30%, they are actually: $3M balance = 15% $4M balance = 18.75% $6M balance = 22.5% $100M balance = 29.55% The tax rate never actually reaches 30%!!! Furthermore, - if $3M is too much to have in super, then why is there not a provision to withdraw the excess balance? - Why is the $3M not being indexed? This is the problem when the gov brings in a rushed policy without consultation and thinking through and understanding the consequences.

Vincent
March 09, 2023

Agreed. Just like the rushed "put up to $1m into super quickly before I change my mind and don't worry about the long term ramifications of this clearly stupid decision". Or how about, "let's make withdrawals in pension phase tax free and don't worry about imputation refunds or the longer term effects on a bloated fiscal deficit". Poor policy making all around. Focus on purpose of superannuation and then fit policy to achieve that outcome. Focus on tax effective estate planning and fit policy (outside of the super system) around that. Pretty simple.

Denial
March 13, 2023

If it's justified, then why don't they look to implement a more progressive and rational policy of taxing on pensions? This is a fundamentally flawed attack on how to create wealth via buying good assets over the long term. Its a tax on assets rather than tax on income. You have to sell your good assets to pay to tax bill ever year. Not sure if people really appreciate how this impacts long term compounding? It's a dead end for wealth accumulation in SMSF and as such a very short-sighted policy. This contrasts with taxing the pension income side, which is exactly where most of the assets and income will be held with an aging population. To suggest this is not politically motivated policy would require one to admit this Government is completely clueless about its unintended consequences for the long term.

Peter Lucas
March 09, 2023

Thank you for the article, an excellent explanation of the proposed super tax. The simple reason unrealised gains are not currently taxed is because it would be unworkable, as Marles proved in the interview.

I'm happy to bet this aspect of the changes will quietly fade and we will not see tax imposed on unrealised gains.

Richard Lyon
March 11, 2023

I'm happy to take that bet!

This large balance surcharge calculation would be almost unworkable if it was based on the individual's share of actual earnings (income net of deductions, plus realised gains net of realised losses), across all the funds in which that person has an account. But the ATO has enough information to determine that person's total super balance (TSB) at 30 June each year. The ATO also knows the total withdrawals (W) and contributions (C) for that person, so it can calculate a proxy for total earnings (E) as E = TSB(eoy) + W - C - TSB(boy). [eoy and boy are the end and beginning of the year, respectively] No new information is required.

Imagine the outcry if every fund had to supply the ATO details of every member's net taxable earnings (where "taxable" refers to the current rules). That detail would be required for 100% of members, in order to apply a surcharge to 0.5% of them.

So this is a clever solution that avoids a further impost on super funds, other than that they need to have the capacity to charge the surcharge to the member's account if so requested.

What should perhaps be debated are the following:

(1) The proportion of E to which the 15% surcharge rate is applied is found as [TSB(eoy) - $3M]/TSB(eoy). If a person has $4M TSB at the start of the year, which grows to $5M over the year with no contributions or withdrawals, the 15% rate will apply to 40% [(5 - 3)/5] of that growth, giving a surcharge of $60k. Had the proportion been determined at the start of the year, it would have been 25% [(4 - 3)/4], giving a surcharge of $37,500.
It seems more obviously reasonable to take an average proportion (32.5% in this case), which is still a simple calculation.

(2) The 15% surcharge rate seems arbitrary. It may be a reasonable number, but it's worth some discussion.

By the way, a person's super balance is net of tax provisions, most notably the DITL for unrealised gains. So, the full URG is not part of the earnings (E above) to a proportion of which the surcharge will be applied.

Denial
March 11, 2023

I'll take the bet also it gets scrapped based on less technical tax issues. It impacts your ability to investment and compound returns. Investing large amounts of your income into super versus passively investing in a buy and hold strategy outside of super becomes marginal.

 

Leave a Comment:


banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Vale Graham Hand

It’s with heavy hearts that we announce Firstlinks’ co-founder and former Managing Editor, Graham Hand, has died aged 66. Graham was a legendary figure in the finance industry and here are three tributes to him.

The nuts and bolts of family trusts

There are well over 800,000 family trusts in Australia, controlling more than $3 trillion of assets. Here's a guide on whether a family trust may have a place in your individual investment strategy.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 583 with weekend update

Investing guru Howard Marks says he had two epiphanies while visiting Australia recently: the two major asset classes aren’t what you think they are, and one key decision matters above all else when building portfolios.

  • 24 October 2024

Warren Buffett is preparing for a bear market. Should you?

Berkshire Hathaway’s third quarter earnings update reveals Buffett is selling stocks and building record cash reserves. Here’s a look at his track record in calling market tops and whether you should follow his lead and dial down risk.

Preserving wealth through generations is hard

How have so many wealthy families through history managed to squander their fortunes? This looks at the lessons from these families and offers several solutions to making and keeping money over the long-term.

A big win for bank customers against scammers

A recent ruling from The Australian Financial Complaints Authority may herald a new era for financial scams. For the first time, a bank is being forced to reimburse a customer for the amount they were scammed.

Sponsors

© 2024 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.