Claims of Div 296 tax consultation 'confusing': SMSF Association

The Self-managed Superannuation Fund Association has cast doubt over claims by Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers that the government conducted “heaps of consultation” in the lead up to its proposed 15 per cent tax on superannuation balances exceeding $3 million.

SMSF Association chief executive Peter Burgess hit back at the claims, saying that what the Treasurer described as ‘consultation’ to media was “not genuine consultation but a procedural formality”.

The evidence that the government didn’t take its consultation seriously, Burgess explained in a press release, is in the complete disregard it showed for the information it received describing the flawed nature of the proposed new tax. It can only be concluded, the association believes, that the government had made up its mind on the matter before the consultation began.

“It started with a fixed proposal to tax unrealised gains and not index the cap, and there was no deviation from these positions – despite compelling evidence of its potential deleterious impact on the wider economy,” Burgess said. “The absence of significant adjustments or receptivity to alternative views indicates that the consultation was merely a process to endorse a pre-decided policy position instead of a genuine effort to consider other views.”

Chalmers defended taxing unrealised superannuation gains above $3 million – a major sticking point of the new proposed tax – by saying the practice occurs in other part of the taxation system. Burgess, however, said the government is conflating unrealised taxation with deeming, and the tactic will only serve to muddy the water.

“In some parts of the superannuation system deemed income rates are applied which differ fundamentally from taxing unrealised capital gains,” Burgess said. “By drawing a parallel between these distinct approaches, the statement confuses the public about prevailing financial practices within the system and how capital gains are conventionally treated and taxed, thus undermining trust in the system’s fairness and transparency.”

Burgess also shot down the Treasurer’s assertion that the proposed tax on unrealised gains wouldn’t place and undue burden on SMSFs because of their existing requirement to maintain liquidity for tax obligations.

“While it is standard for laws to require liquidity to meet existing tax liabilities, the new policy introduces a liquidity demand far beyond what anyone could anticipate or plan for,” he said.

“By imposing taxes on unrealised gains, the policy compels asset holders to ensure liquidity levels that might necessitate the premature sale of assets – a requirement out of step with traditional practices where taxes are only imposed upon the realisation of a capital gain.

“The abrupt and severe nature of these demands can disrupt financial planning across various sectors, placing undue strain on individuals and businesses unprepared for such drastic measures”.