Backlash building against plans to tax unrealised capital gains
The government’s proposed tax calculation for the $3 million threshold will see additional burdens placed on SMSF professionals.
Earlier this month, Treasurer Jim Chalmers released the details for his new tax regime that would apply a 15 per cent tax rate to the increase in the value of the relevant part of each fund, rather than taxing capital gains only when assets are sold.
According to Tony Negline, superannuation and financial services leader for CAANZ, it has never been seen in Australia.
Denmark is planning to introduce a similar scheme this year called the ‘mark to market’ taxation of real estate capital gains.
“Effectively, the way the policy will work as the Government has announced it, it that they will be taxing unrealised gains,” Mr Negline said.
“The other addition to that is, say, if your account balance at the end of the financial year 2022 is $100,000 and this year is $90,000, you won’t get a tax credit, it will just carry forward so you will not get a credit for the loss.
“Super fund members who have this problem can either pay the tax themselves or get their super fund to pay it, but if the funds pay it, it has to have the cashflow available to do that.”
Mr Negline said presently super funds send member account balance data to the ATO at the end of each year and the idea behind this new way of doing things is to reduce the amount of administration work.
“Effectively, the ATO is saying ‘we have the data so we can do it’”.
The current estimate is that this will raise around $2 billion over forward estimates – around $500 million each year.
“Every super fund will have to report data so they will have to change disclosure documents, answer questions from members, check everything is correct, change their software, so it is going to be a lot more expensive for the funds,” he said.
“At moment, the associations of large funds have come out in favour of the policy, and I don’t recall any coming out against it.
“But like all of us, they want to see the detail.
“On the whole, small funds, especially in the SMSF, would be against it, and a lot of the work that has to be done will fall back on administrators and accountants.”
However, David Busoli, principal and SMSF specialist mentor, said opposition to the government’s proposed super tax is growing rapidly, not so much for its imposition but for its methodology.
“This ‘equity’ measure seeks to impose a non-indexed cap. It is disingenuous of the Government to state that the measure will ‘only’ effect 80,000 members when they well know that bracket creep will cause that number to grow by a multiple in under 10 years,” he said.
“Indexation is not negotiable. It is mandatory. Anything less makes a mockery of the concept of equity.”
Mr Busoli said the second major problem is the proposed formula.
“It does not impose an additional 15 per cent tax on the income of high-balance members. It is not based on taxable income at all,” he said.
“It is a new type of wealth tax that includes unrealised gains. This method has been proposed because it is easy to calculate and does not require any changes to existing systems.
“Convenience does not equal fairness. It would not be particularly onerous for an additional field to be incorporated into fund financials which species the pre-tax income attributable to each superannuation interest.
“It’s a software issue – and a rather easy one at that. The ATO could then impose an additional 15 per cent tax on this amount. The result would be what the government announced – not what their proposed methodology would achieve.”
He added that with a focus on the handful of members with balances in excess of $100 million the government initially had the opposition on the back foot but the pendulum is swinging back.
“The government needs to remember how John Hewson lost the unlosable [sic] election in 1993 when he could not explain how his proposed GST on food would affect the price of a birthday cake,” he said.
- Can't wait for them to apply this scenario to personal property investments - I mean, why not get their share of your property capital gain today.
This is a rabbit hole.0 - The formula is a problem for SMSF due to the unrealised gains issue however, it could be mitigated (somewhat) by deploying tax effect accounting. However, this is pushing public policy initiatives to the private sector for implementation rather than Treasury finishing the design job past a thought bubble.
Although APRA Funds have to use tax effect accounting, they don't have to report individual member pension drawings so they (should have) a problem with the formula also. Unless systems changes are required, we will have the disparity that an APRA Fund member in the new earnings surcharge threshold could manipulate the end TSB by additional drawings that won't be added back to the formula.
In order to correct this formula, SMSFs are better placed to simply report an additional label on the annual return as all the rest of the data required is present. The industry just needs ATO to update the annual return (as well as Treasury to change the formula to deduct unrealised gains). You would hope that the ATO data collation systems would be capable of distinguishing SMSF data from APRA data, after all, they come through different systems.
As to APRA funds, unless a change to the required reporting in the MATS system is made to require pension info, the formula is not able to proceed. Although simple to state the problem, I understand that to collate and report individual pension data would be an enormous uplift for APRA Funds and, as we keep hearing, they have a skinny portion of the 0.5% of members the earning surcharge will scoop up at implementation.
It would seem, overall, a better solution (to target super members for additional taxation) would be to simply restart the taxing of end benefits. Pensions included in taxable income would receive a 15% tax offset to recognise fund tax on contributions and earnings over the life of the balance build. Lower income individuals could be given more generous offsets, as they do now. The tax system is already set-up to pick and choose tax imposition across individuals. This earnings surcharge requires systems changes but Treasury has decided the round peg can be forced into a square hole?
Another important issue with this proposed earnings surcharge, It is too soon to be adding yet more complexity to the super systems. It is only 5 years on from the significant structural changes brought about with Super17. The impact across all the super sectors was enormous. It is time for Treasury to be honest with its modelling and publicly state how soon big super balance will be a thing of the past due to the Super17 changes. I suspect 10 years will see most of the withering on the vine. But this is not about anything but an easy target for funding sources (revenue measures) to band-aide the structural Budget deficit (its political). As it is piecemeal, Treasury will be back soon enough as the Budget deficit will still be a problem.0 - Although I'm not is the 80k of people over $3m it does douse my enthusiasm for really giving this thing a crack. This tax grab undermines confidence in the system, you don't know what is coming next.0
- The methodology is flawed simple. I have seen examples of the proposal whereby a balance fluctuates wildly creating a 15 % tax on the movement when the balance doesn't actually change over a longer period. It would also be a lot more palatable if the politicians also looked at their own perks.0