Peter Burgess, chief executive of the SMSF Association, told SMSF Adviser he believes that from the exchange in the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on Thursday that the government is either intending to reintroduce the $3 million super tax legislation unchanged or “put it on the back burner for now”.
“You would think if they’re going to introduce it unchanged, that would be a very bold and unpopular move by the Treasurer, given all the reports of backroom discontent about this legislation,” Burgess said.
“All the unintended consequences that have been raised, you would think it would be very bold for the government to proceed with this legislation unchanged.”
Burgess said that from what was said in the Senate estimates yesterday, there was no formal direction to Treasury to start drafting amendments.
“If the government was going to introduce this legislation anytime soon, the next opportunity will be at the end of this month, [which means] they’ve got to reintroduce it as is,” he said.
“The only other alternative is that they press pause on it and that seems to be the more likely outcome right now. If these reports are accurate, and they are doing some modelling on some alternatives, I just worry that it’s walking down on modifications to indexation.”
He continued that there was no easy fix to the taxing of unrealised capital gains, and to do so would mean the government would have to “go back to the drawing board and start again”.
“If they don’t want to do that, the only thing they can do to settle down the backbenchers and the Greens is to index it and hope it’s enough to keep them satisfied.”
“It certainly doesn’t address the main issue of taxing unrealised gains.”
In Senate estimates on Thursday, Industry Minister Tim Ayres said the Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions bill was still government policy, but he admitted there was “lots of engagement about the prospective legislation”.
Greens senator Nick McKim raised the issue of the Div 296 super tax in the estimates committee, asking Treasury’s deputy secretary of the revenue division, Diane Brown, whether Treasury was working on any amendments to the draft legislation.
“That’s a decision of government whether there are amendments, but we will continue to talk to stakeholders, as we do. That’s quite common that we have those conversations until the bill is legislated, and even during the passage of the bill, talk to stakeholders,” Brown said.
McKim highlighted the public interest in the legislation and asked for clarification as to whether the government had asked Treasury to make any amendments.
“They’re doing that work in the context of what’s been described to you. Very clearly, the government’s policy position is as described,” Ayres said.
Brown continued that Treasury has “provided a lot of advice on that legislation,” and as it remains outstanding, it is not surprising the government wants to understand stakeholder concerns.
McKim further questioned whether Treasury had reviewed alternate models that had been put forward and compared the income they may generate to the current proposal.
Brown said, although she would prefer not to indicate what work Treasury is doing, “it’s reasonable and wouldn’t be surprising” for it to want to understand concerns that people have raised.
“As part of that, we may have looked at what might be the impact on revenue as a result of suggestions,” she said.
“I don’t think we’ve done it [analysis of different models]. Stakeholders have raised concerns with us. For us to understand it better, we might have done some modelling, and that is for us to provide good advice to government. In terms of government requests to us, again, I think that kind of goes to it would affect our ability to provide advice to government if we’re always indicating what government has asked us to do.”
However, questioned further, Brown admitted that she can “think of one instance” where Treasury has modelled an alternative for the government to understand it better.
“I’m not suggesting there’s any government request, or whether we did that, I’m not sure,” she said.
“We’re just trying to understand the implications more fully of stakeholders.”
Ayres said that Treasury is “doing their work and understanding all sorts of permutations” and interactions between the tax system, incomes and asset prices.
Burgess said the SMSFA has reached out to Treasury but has not yet received any feedback.
“We’ve offered our assistance in helping with any amendments they may be making,” he said.
The National Farmers’ Federation said it was encouraged by comments in Senate estimates yesterday that the Treasury department is considering concerns raised about the proposed super tax.
It said it had taken note that officials took on notice to answer if they had explicitly modelled the number of agricultural businesses that would be impacted.
The NFF has consistently raised concerns about the impact of the bill, in particular the taxing of unrealised gains on assets held in SMSFs, given that thousands of family farms hold assets in their SMSFs.
Modelling, including from the University of Adelaide, has shown that more than 3,500 SMSFs holding farming land would be impacted on day one of this tax being implemented, and this number will only grow.
Another 14,000 currently below the $3 million superannuation threshold face the same fate if property values grow, given the threshold is not currently indexed.
It added that farmers are not alone, with an estimated 13,000 small business owners with real property assets, such as shopfronts, restaurants and warehouses, also to be immediately impacted.
The NFF has been advocating on this issue for nearly two years, and has been joined by a coalition of small business, accounting and superannuation bodies united in their concern regarding the taxation of unrealised capital gains.
Waiting for Division 297!