Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
subscribe to our newsletter
Franking credit debate far from over, says KPMG

Franking credit debate far from over, says KPMG

KPMG building
Miranda Brownlee
24 May 2019 — 1 minute read

While the Coalition election victory has eased worries about changes to franking credit refunds, the fiscal consequences of retaining these refunds still needs to be considered, says a big four firm.

The backlash to Labor’s proposal to end cash refund for excess dividend imputation credits in the run up to the federal election has been well documented, but much of the discussion missed out on the tax policy it was trying to address, said KPMG partner Damian Ryan.

“To state the obvious, where the excess is refunded, the federal government is refunding part of the corporate tax base. This is not necessarily wrong. It is, however, a tax policy choice, with longer-term implications for the stability of the revenue base,” said Mr Ryan.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“According to one view of tax policy, the imputation system is to avoid double taxation on the company profit. This would support the view that it provides an offset for the franking credit, but not a refund.

“Another valid view is that an individual (or superannuation fund) should be put in the same situation regardless of whether they derived the income directly, or whether they invested collectively view a company, and received the return via a dividend.

“Both arguments have merit from a tax policy perspective.”

Mr Ryan believes that as the population ages and as more shares are held by retired Australian individuals and superannuation funds with a significant proportion of members in pension phase, the country’s tax base will be strained.

Parliamentary Budget Office figures released by Labor ahead of the election showed that its plan would increase revenue by $58.2 billion over the next 10 years.

“During the election campaign, on one side, refundable franking offsets were described as a ‘tax rort by the big end of town’. On the other side, providing an offset but not a refund was described as a ‘new tax on retirees’. In reality, neither description is accurate,” said Mr Ryan.

“The policy issue is whether income tax at a corporate level is a tax in itself, or rather a prepayment of tax, with the ultimate level of tax dependent upon the tax profile of the individual and the superannuation fund. Either position is defendable from a tax policy perspective – but it comes with fiscal consequences.

“Assuming that the current situation of refundable franking credits continues, then Australia will continue to refund part of its corporate tax base. The other alternatives are to accept the reduced tax base, and correct spending accordingly, or to revisit the tax base, including consumption taxes, which is just as politically difficult.”

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Miranda Brownlee

Miranda Brownlee

 

Miranda Brownlee is the deputy editor of SMSF Adviser, which is the leading source of news, strategy and educational content for professionals working in the SMSF sector.

Since joining the team in 2014, Miranda has been responsible for breaking some of the biggest superannuation stories in Australia, and has reported extensively on technical strategy and legislative updates. Miranda has also directed SMSF Adviser's print publication for several years. 

Miranda also has broad business and financial services reporting experience, having written for titles including Investor Daily, ifa and Accountants Daily.

You can email Miranda on: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Franking credit debate far from over, says KPMG
kpmg building smsf
smsfadviser logo
join the discussion

Do any of your clients have related party LRBAs?

Website Notifications

Get notifications in real-time for staying up to date with content that matters to you.