Death and Taxes with Super Benefits

There has been a significant amount of focus on the benefits of reversionary pensions since the ATO released draft tax ruling, TR 2011/D3.  The ruling considers the issue of where a pension will cease in the event of death where there is no automatic reversion to a beneficiary.  This reversion will only occur where either:

  • the terms and conditions of the original pension specify a reversionary beneficiary; or
  • a valid binding death benefit nomination exists (with explicit instructions to pay the benefit as a pension)

The ability to continue to pay an income stream to a tax dependant beneficiary will allow for the fund assets to continue to receive concessional tax treatment, rather than have to pay invest those monies outside of superannuation.

Whilst any amount paid as a lump sum to a tax dependant beneficiary is tax-free, regardless of age, the taxation of the benefit as an income streams is somewhat different.  Any taxation of the income stream being paid from the fund to a reversionary beneficiary (or tax dependant) will be based upon both the primary member’s age at death and the age of the beneficiary.

The table below outlines the different levels of taxation where a death benefit is paid as an income stream to a tax dependant:

It is important to remember that income streams can only be paid to tax dependant beneficiaries.  Non-dependants can only receive lump sum amounts, with the taxable components being subject to tax at 15% (taxed element) or 30% (untaxed element).

In addition, where an income stream is paid to a tax dependant child, the pension must cease at age 25, unless they have some prescribed disability).  At this time, the pension must be converted to lump sum and is paid as a tax-free benefit.

NB. According to the ATO website, the final ruling on when a pension commences and ceases (TR 2011/D3) is expected for release on 24 April 2012.

How a re-contribution strategy can save you and your family thousands of dollars

A recontribution (or recycling) strategy is a simple yet highly effective strategy in early retirement that when used effectively can save a member or their beneficiaries many thousands of dollars.

The strategy involves a process of withdrawing benefits from a member’s superannuation account and then making a non-concessional contribution (NCC) of the same money back into the fund.

The primary objective of this popular strategy is to convert all or part of a member’s taxable component into tax-free component.  In order to undertake a recontribution strategy, the member must:

  • have first met a condition of release (with a nil cashing condition) to withdraw benefits (or already have unrestricted non-preserved benefits), plus
  • be eligible to contribute into superannuation.

There are a number of reasons why fund members may wish to undertake a recontribution strategy, including:

  • improving the tax-effectiveness of a superannuation income stream paid up to age 60;
  • reducing the tax impost on death benefits paid to non-dependant beneficiaries; and
  • hedging against legislative risk (transferring benefits to a spouse)

Improving the tax-effectiveness of a superannuation income stream paid up to age 60

A recontribution strategy can be effective for a member receiving an income stream prior to age 60, as any pension is assessable income to the recipient.  Where a member has satisfied a condition or release, they have the ability to withdraw a lump sum and recontribute this amount to improve the tax-free component of the income stream.  From a strategy viewpoint, this taxable component withdrawal is typically taken up to the low rate cap amount ($165,000 for 2011/12), taken in proportion with any tax-free component.

Where an income stream is started after the recontribution, the proportions of the tax-free and taxable components are ‘locked in’ at the commencement date.  These proportions are then used to determine all future income payments and commutations that the member receives.  Subject to the member’s personal tax position and pension amounts to be taken, the recontribution amount may be more effective to operate as a separate interest.  That is, establish two separate pensions, one made up entirely of tax-free component. Reducing the tax impost on death benefits paid to non-dependant beneficiaries.

Since 1 July 2007, benefits received in the form of a lump sum or income stream from age 60 are tax-free in the hands of the recipient.  As a result, the primary driver for a recontribution strategy post age 60 is to improve the tax position of death benefits paid to non-dependent beneficiaries, whether directly or via an estate.  Where a non-dependant beneficiary (i.e. adult kids) receives a lump sum death benefit, they will be taxed on the taxable component at 16.5%.  Therefore, the use of a recontribution strategy can provide a tax saving of up to 16.5 cents in every dollar that is recycled.  For a fund member aged 60 – 64 (having met a condition of release), they could effectively withdraw up to $450,000 of their benefits tax-free and recontribute this amount back into the fund, providing an estate planning benefit of up to $74,250.  Again, it may be beneficial for the member to run a multiple pension strategy as the recontribution will be made up of entirely tax-free component.

Recontribution to a spouse

Prior to the introduction of Simpler Super (pre 1 July 2007), a recontribution from the member to a spouse account was an effective income-splitting strategy.  With the tax-free status of benefits post age 60, this strategy has been somewhat diminished.  It does however have limited application for members where one spouse may be significantly older than the other, for example where one member is under 60 and one member is over 60 years of age.  Centrelink may also be a consideration here with individuals who may qualify for an age pension.  Consideration of the spouse’s age and eligibility to accept the contribution must be considered as part of any recontribution strategy.

The issue of changing government policy is always at the back of people’s minds when it comes to superannuation.  Whilst a withdrawal post 60 as a lump sum or pension is currently tax-free, is it always going to be the case?  A recontribution to a spouse can be used to ‘hedge’ against future legislative risk.

Practically how it must work

To undertake a recontribution strategy, this money must be physically withdrawn from the fund, paid to the member and then deposited back into the fund as a contribution.  An accounting entry is not sufficient; there must be a debit and corresponding credit within the fund’s bank account.

A recontribution strategy can be undertaken when the member is either in accumulation or pension phase.  The tax treatment of any benefits taken need to be considered when determining whether the withdrawal as a lump sum or pension (i.e. under age 60).  Where there is insufficient cashflow to undertake a recontribution, this strategy could be undertaken as an in-specie lump sum (not as in-specie pension payments, unless done as a partial commutation according to TR 2011/D3).  Any recontribution of assets is subject to the exceptions outlined in section 66 of the SIS Act (acquisition of assets from a related party).  Where the lump sum or pension withdrawal is taken by a member under age 60, the appropriate statutory reporting to the Australian Taxation Office will apply, including reporting of benefits on the Fund’s Activity Statement, preparation of PAYG payment summaries, etc.

Tax Office’s view on recontribution strategies

The ATO’s view of recontribution strategies dates back to August 2004, where they issued a media release that stated various straightforward recontribution strategies would not attract the general anti-avoidance provisions (Part IVA) of tax law.

Since the introduction of Simpler Super on 1 July 2007, the ATO’s position on recontribution strategies has been addressed through an industry stakeholder Q&A document, that outlines that where a “…recontribution strategy that is carried out to minimise the tax that might be payable on a death benefit paid to a non-dependant, the Commissioner is very unlikely to apply Part IVA to such an arrangement”.   It is important to note that this view is not legal binding on the ATO and that they would assess each scenario on a case-by-case basis.

Recontribution vs. Anti-detriment payment

An alternative prior to undertaking a recontribution strategy, is to consider whether the beneficiaries would otherwise be eligible to receive an anti-detriment payment (refund of tax paid on contributions).  This is important because a spouse or child or any age (including non-dependent kids) are generally eligible for an anti-detriment payment when a death benefit is paid as a lump sum.  However, as the anti-detriment payment is only paid on the taxable component, using a recontribution strategy to recycle taxable component to tax-free component will reduce or eliminate any anti-detriment entitlement of a deceased member.

Everybody will adopt one of two strategies when it comes to superannuation:

  • the SKI model (spend the kid’s inheritance) or
  • inter-generational wealth transfer

With many people who have built wealth within superannuation now looking for an orderly of transfer of wealth to the next generation, the recontribution strategy can be a valuable tool to maximise the amount that is passed on to future generations.

Can you establish a reversionary pension after a pension has commenced?

The impact of  ATO draft tax ruling, TR 2011/D3 has sparked a significant amount of interest in how income streams are structured for SMSF members, in particular with those who have not originally included a tax dependant reversionary beneficiary in the original terms & conditions of the pension.  The draft ruling states that a pension will cease upon the death of the member unless a:

  • reversionary beneficiary has been included within the original terms & conditions of the pension; or
  • valid Binding Death Benefit Nomination (BDBN) existed.

There is some debate within the industry as to which take precedent? A reversionary pension or a valid binding death benefit nomination (BDBN)?  Industry views vary based on some of the following arguments:

  • The is a view that reversionary pension documentation is not actually binding on the trustee?  If the reversion is not binding, the argument is that the BDBN is therefore more likely to bind the trustee and take precedence over the reversionary pension;
  • A valid reversionary pension will override the BDBN because the act of reversion automatically transfers the pension to the reversionary beneficiary.  A BDBN cannot apply because no death benefit arises; and
  • A BDBN will not be effective where making the pension reversionary (i.e., because it represents a fundamental change to the terms & conditions of the pension).

According to the Australian Taxation Office, as outlined within the minutes of the March 2010 NTLG Superannuation Technical Sub-group:

“There are no SIS Act or SISR provisions that are relevant to determining which nomination an SMSF trustee is to give precedence where a deceased pension member had both a valid reversionary nomination and a valid BDBN in existence at the same time of the member’s death.  

While section 59 of the SIS Act and Regulation 6.17A of the SISR place restrictions on superannuation entity trustees accepting BDBNs from a member, as explained in SMSF Determination SMSFD 2008/3, the Commissioner is of the view that those provisions do not have any application to SMSFs. It must also be remembered that section 59 of the SIS Act and regulation 6.17A of the SISR are necessary because of the general trust law principle that beneficiaries cannot direct trustees in the performance of their trust. 

 “If the governing rules of a SMSF authorise a death benefit nomination, the trustee must follow the fund’s rules and the general trust law and any other legislation which may be relevant.

 Notwithstanding those observations, the ATO’s view is that a pension that is a genuine reversionary pension, that is, one which under the terms and conditions established at the commencement of the pension reverts to a nominated (or determinable) beneficiary must be paid to the reversioner. It is only where a trustee may exercise its discretion as which beneficiary is paid the deceased member’s benefits and/or the form in which the benefits are payable that a death benefit nomination is relevant.”

Comments made within these ATO NTLG Super Sub-group technical minutes as outlined above state that a reversionary beneficiary must be nominated at the commencement of the income stream.  It is a requirement for a reversionary beneficiary to be specifically identified at the time the pension commences.   Currently we have no further guidance (nor law) from the Commissioner on this issue.  There are a range of pensions-related matters including exempt current pension income (ECPI) that the ATO is currently considering to provide further guidance on.

I’ve setup a pension with no reversionary beneficiary, how can I change this?

I see many SMSF pensions established without a reversionary beneficiary.  Much of this has to do with either:

  • the legacy of the RBL system whereby the majority of pensions had no reversionary – this was predominantly due to lower deductible amounts (the tax deduction was lower as the deductible amount was calculated on the longer life expectancy, typically the wife); or
  • a lack of understanding around pension-related matters (competency).

You cannot simply add to or amend the original pension documentation to include a reversionary beneficiary.  It is my belief that the pension must cease (rollback / full commutation) and then a new income stream be commenced.  

If the fund is running multiple pensions for a member, you do need to consider the timing of when to rollback these pensions.  Remember that a SMSF member when in accumulation can only have one superannuation interest (i.e. the components of the multiple pensions will amalgamate back into one), so you do not want to ‘contaminate’ any high tax-free proportion income streams.

If you want to rely on a binding death benefit nomination for the pension to revert, you must meet some very strict requirements in the form and substance with which this nomination form must take…  In my view, making amendments to an existing income stream seems like a simpler way to go.

Find out more about this topic in the SMSF Pensions Webinar – last chance to register

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers