“Members who are seeking to restructure or rebalance their superannuation arrangements are exploring strategies that include contributions tapering, pension commencements to manage transfer balance cap space, and, in a few cases, investigating options outside the super system altogether,” Banton said.

“While Div 296 is not an SMSF audit issue, market valuations will be carefully scrutinised along with cost base histories to ensure that assets continue to be valued fairly. It's fair to say that while most trustees aren't making drastic moves just yet, the more proactive advisers and high-balance members are treating this as a ‘warning shot’ to get their affairs in order before the details unfold. Once the legislation is finalised, we expect that the pace of strategic planning will accelerate quickly.”

Naz Randeria, managing director of Reliance Auditing Services, said while most are holding off on major structural changes until the final legislation is confirmed, she is seeing a shift towards early-stage strategy work, particularly in relation to managing TSBs, which are expected to be a key factor in determining exposure to the new tax.

“Leading into 30 June, we observed a clear increase in activity. Key areas of focus have included ensuring asset valuations are friendly yet defensible — backed by supportable data — and exploring opportunities to restructure balances within the fund, including rebalancing between members to optimise future tax outcomes,” Randeria said.

“There is also growing interest in bringing forward intergenerational wealth transfers, particularly where the benefit of tax credits may otherwise lapse on the death of a member.”

A particularly valuable strategy being implemented involves admitting adult children as members of the SMSF.

“In these cases, parents are progressively drawing lump sums to reduce their balances and gifting those amounts to their children, who then contribute them back into the fund. Subject to contribution cap limits, this approach is expected to continue over future years, with the longer-term objective of smoothing intergenerational wealth transfer and significantly diluting the Div 296 impact through redistribution of member balances.”

“Many trustees are also re-evaluating investment strategies — reducing exposure to volatile or high-growth assets within the SMSF and moving them to non-super structures, while shifting lower-growth assets into the fund. Others are implementing tax-effect accounting as a means to reduce their TSB in a legitimate and supportable way. This type of granular planning reflects a growing sophistication in how trustees and advisers are preparing for a more complex tax landscape.”

Randeria added that another area receiving close attention is the broader impact of Div 296 on the fund’s effective tax rate.

“Modelling is underway to assess not only income and unrealised gains, but also how the tax may affect refunds of franking credits allocated to members.”

“This is prompting advisers to take a more holistic view of rebalancing strategies and withdrawal timing, particularly during FY2025–26. Where the projected impact is minimal, many funds are choosing to maintain their existing structure.

“Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Each SMSF will require a tailored strategy based on its structure, member balances, and long-term objectives. Trustees, advisers, and accountants are wisely avoiding knee-jerk reactions, recognising that while early planning is prudent, acting too quickly – before legislation is finalised – may lead to suboptimal outcomes. A measured, well-informed approach grounded in data and detailed modelling will be critical in navigating the transition.”

Tim Miller, head of technical and education for Smarter SMSF, said while they are seeing lots of questions about the likelihood of Div 296 commencing from 1 July 2025, most conversations are around confirming that action needs to be taken before 30 June 2026 where the objective is to avoid or certainly reduce any Div 296 liability.

“There was some consideration given to pre-30 June 2025 drawdowns to lower the starting balances and inevitably the proportion of the earnings attributable to amounts over $3 million, which will of course dictate what the tax liability will be.”

“However, there was a focus on whether clients who are obtaining 30 June valuations should report them at the higher end of the valuation scale if that meant there was less growth during the 2025-26 year. So the reality for us has been how clients should prepare for its introduction rather than any significant action to reduce balances.”

He added that in most instances, the questions have been more about a refresher of how and when the tax is calculated, which is ultimately the emphasis on the balance at the end of the new financial year.

Nicholas Ali, head of SMSF technical services for Neo Super, said the general mood with his clients is one of anger at the government for punishing them financially for saving for their own retirement.

“Our client demographic is diverse, but all of those older members with super balances over $3 million have worked extremely hard to build their retirement nest eggs. They have judiciously followed the rules and pride themselves on the fact they will never be a burden on the welfare net in retirement,” he said.

“They are also dismayed that they are being hit with more tax in retirement when they have paid more than their fair share accumulating wealth over their working lives.”

He continued that younger clients who are aspirational have determined that, without indexation, they will also be hit with Div 296.

“Whilst they acknowledge it is highly likely at some point in time the cap will be indexed, they are more concerned with governments seeing their superannuation as a pot of money to fund government spending or to pay for government largesse,” Ali said.

“They are growing weary and suspicious of governments of all persuasions changing the super rules, and with preservation meaning the money cannot be accessed for decades, younger clients are starting to think they may be better off investing in other ways that provide accessibility and tax effectiveness.”

Ali added that regarding Div 296, all of his clients think it is unfair to tax paper gains.

“Clients of all stripes state, ‘What if I pay tax on assets that end up in a real loss position?’ The big concern with unrealised gains tax is that it sets a precedent for the government to then go after other asset classes and they all remember the Prime Minister stating categorically he would not make any changes to superannuation, so no one trusts what a government says,” he said.

“It is disappointing Australians think governments are not true to their word. They are also cynical and think the tax raises fairness issues in that those in government have their super benefits taxed differently.”

Clients with large balances who can access them are looking at ways to not just minimise Div 296, but are sharply focused on other, more onerous taxes, like death benefits tax.

“Unfortunately, many clients have one partner in a couple that has more in super than the other, so strategies to even up benefits are proving to be popular, along with using lower marginal tax rate arrangements, like personal tax rates for those that put all their money into super.”