However, the Government has reworked the proposed new tax — part of the Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions (BTSC) policy — attempting to make it simpler, fairer, and more practical. After a wave of industry criticism, the revised version keeps the broad policy intent (reducing tax concessions for very large balances) but removes some of the more problematic features. Let’s break down what’s changed and what it means for you. What’s Changing — and Why It’s Simpler The original 2023 proposal aimed to apply an extra 15% tax on “earnings” from super balances above $3 million. The big flaw? “Earnings” included unrealised gains — paper profits on assets like property or shares that hadn’t been sold. This meant some people could have owed tax on increases in value they hadn’t actually received in cash. The reworked model drops unrealised gains from the equation entirely, taxing only realised earnings — actual income and capital gains when assets are sold. This makes the system far more practical and aligned with everyday tax rules. No more worrying about funding a tax bill on assets you haven’t sold. A Fairer, Tiered Approach The new rules introduce a two-tier system for high balances: • Tier 1 ($3m–$10m): Extra 15% tax on earnings from this portion (making a total rate of 30%). • Tier 2 (over $10m): Extra 25% tax on earnings above $10m (for a total rate of 40%). Both thresholds will be indexed annually to inflation ($150,000 steps for the $3m tier and $500,000 for the $10m tier), which should prevent “bracket creep” over time. Importantly, the start date has been pushed back to 1 July 2026, with the first assessments expected in 2027–28. The Government estimates less than 0.5% of Australians will be affected at the $3m level, and fewer than 0.1% at the $10m mark. What This Means in Practice Here are a couple of examples from Treasury to help you get your head around this. Consider Megan, who has a $4.5 million super balance split between an SMSF and an APRA fund. She earns $300,000 in realised income for the year within the super system. The super balance above $3m represents is one-third of the total balance, so she’ll pay $15,000 in additional Division 296 tax (15% × 33.33% × $300,000). Emma, on the other hand, has $12.9 million in her SMSF and $840,000 in earnings. She pays 15% on the Tier 1 portion and an extra 10% on the Tier 2 portion—a total of around $115,000 in extra tax. These examples show how the tax scales up progressively. The ATO will calculate each individual’s total super balance across all funds (SMSFs and APRA funds) and determine the proportionate amount of earnings to be taxed. Why It’s Still Good News (for Most) For many SMSF members, this update is a relief. By removing unrealised gains, it eliminates valuation headaches and liquidity pressures — particularly for those holding property or unlisted assets. That said, individuals with super balances above $10m will face a higher overall rate (up to 40%), which may prompt a rethink of long-term strategies. However, remember that updated legislation relating to this measure hasn’t been introduced to Parliament and things could change before the proposed rules become reality. Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset In addition to introducing the revamped Division 296 tax, the Government has announced that it will increase the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset (LISTO) from $37,000 to $45,000 from 1 July 2027. The maximum payment will also increase to $810. Treasury estimates that the average increase in the LISTO payment will be $410 for affected workers. What to Do Now 1. Check your total super balance (TSB) now and project where it may be by 2026. 2. Seek advice early — strategies like managing liquidity, reviewing asset allocations, and timing asset sales could make a real difference. 3. Stay informed — draft legislation is expected in 2026. We’ll keep you updated through our newsletters. Overall, the Government’s revised approach strikes a more balanced tone: fewer administrative headaches for most, but less generosity for the ultra-wealthy. If your balance is near or above $3 million, now’s the time to plan ahead — not panic.

Unfortunately, a recent tribunal case shows it’s not that simple. In Wannberg v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] ARTA 1561, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) upheld the ATO’s decision to deny nearly $100,000 in medical deductions. The case is a stark reminder that the tax system draws a sharp line between earning income and dealing with your health. The Story Behind the Case The taxpayer, Mr Wannberg, had left the workforce due to severe mental and physical health issues caused by years of abuse. His TPD pension from his super fund was his only income. In 2024, he applied to the ATO for a private ruling, asking whether about $98,000 in medical expenses – including psychotherapy, residential treatment, and dental work – could be claimed as deductions. His argument was heartfelt and logical: these treatments were essential to manage his disabilities and sustain his eligibility for the pension. He compared his situation to a 2010 High Court case (Anstis), where a student was allowed to deduct self-education costs linked to her Youth Allowance. But the ATO said no – and the tribunal agreed. Why the Deductions Failed The key issue came down to a single piece of tax legislation: section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. To be deductible, an expense must be incurred “in gaining or producing your assessable income” and must not be of a private or domestic nature. The tribunal found no direct link – or “nexus” – between the medical treatments and the pension income. The TPD pension was payable because of his disability, not because of any ongoing effort to maintain it. As the tribunal put it, the medical costs helped him live with his condition, but didn’t produce the pension. In other words, while staying healthy might be personally essential, it doesn’t make those expenses tax-deductible. The costs were considered private in nature – similar to most therapy, medical, or dental bills. What This Means for You This decision offers a few key takeaways for anyone receiving disability pensions, super income streams, or other support payments: • Understand the “nexus” test: An expense must directly help you earn your income. Medical costs for managing a condition usually don’t meet that test. • Recognise the private line: Even if a treatment relates to your ability to work, it’s likely still “private” unless it directly relates to producing income. • Treatment vs assessment: Some taxpayers are required to obtain certificates from medical practitioners to maintain a licence so that they can continue with their current income producing activities. These costs are often deductible, unless the individual receives medical treatment. • Plan for non-deductible costs: If you rely on disability or super pensions, factor medical expenses into your financial plan. Consider insurance options, offsets, or rebates (like private health or Medicare levy exemptions) to ease the load. • Seek advice early: Before spending large sums, get an ATO private ruling or professional advice. The Wannberg case is a tough reminder that the tax law cares more about how income is produced than how life is lived. The system draws a firm line between personal wellbeing and income generation – and unfortunately, even genuine medical needs often fall on the wrong side of that line. If you’re unsure whether an expense might be deductible, don’t guess. Talk to us first. We can help you plan ahead, stay compliant, and make the most of the rules that do work in your favour.

Outside of Government organisations, the financial services sector was the most targeted industry in Australia in FY 2024/25, with the cost of these cybercrimes increasing up to 55% for small and medium businesses. People: The Biggest Cyber Risk But where does your cyber strategy start, and how do you know what the risks are? The biggest risk to Australian businesses is its people. More than 85% of all cybersecurity incidents are caused by human error. The top three incident types all rely on staff and business decisions to gain access into systems, meaning it is more important than ever to conduct regular staff training. Staff training should focus on identifying phishing attempts, understanding what to look for in malicious emails and content and how to maintain healthy password practices. Technology and Updates: Don’t Let Legacy Systems Create Weaknesses Another considerable business risk is legacy hardware and software being used in your environment. It might seem like a small frustration, turning your computer off for updates regularly, and using the latest versions of software, replacing hardware to align with required standards, but it works to close the gaps of security vulnerabilities. Recommendations aligned with the Australian Signals Directorate’s Essential 8 Framework are that all critical vendor patches are applied within 48 hours of release, and any non-critical patches are applied within two weeks. This method applies to networking equipment, third party vendor software and device operating systems. Recently, Microsoft have made the Windows 10 Operating System End of Life (EOL) which means that devices still running on this operating system can no longer receive security updates, a vulnerability that malicious actors will no doubt use to their advantage. Visibility and Monitoring: Detecting Threats Early Realistically, you cannot defend what you cannot see. An important safeguard is event logging, reporting and alerting being setup in your environment. Just by way of example, the average breach for financial services businesses in Australia takes 288 days to detect. 288 days of unmitigated breaches, access to customer and staff data, contact lists, patterns of behaviour and possibly already setting up rules and routing inside the environment that the business is entirely unaware of. Setting up appropriate logging and alerts to ensure that you are notified when something risky, like logging in from Australia at 10am and Japan at 11am, is happening inside your environment. Understanding when unauthorised access to systems has occurred is critical in being able to then assess the potential scope of an incident, so it can then be managed. The Importance of a Cyber Incident Response Plan A Cyber Incident Response Plan (CIRP) might seem like another piece of paper, but it is critical in defining the steps that your organisation needs to take to act, mitigate and respond to a cyber event. An adequate CIRP will include several critical components, but the incident management team, detection methods, incident categorisation, evidence process and resolution plans form the baseline of what will help an organisation act swiftly, and appropriately for the event type. A CIRP that has been tested regularly ensures that in the event of a cybersecurity incident, your organisation has a prioritised and effective response that deals with the technical concerns, the potential data breaches and any ongoing communications required either internally or externally with customers and stakeholders. Protecting Your Business, Clients, and Reputation In today’s digital world, it is never more important for businesses to ensure their data, systems, staff and clients are protected from threats. Cybersecurity and risk strategies are critical in this landscape and should consider different components, including staff training, technology strategies, data and information handling policies, and incident response plans. Considering cybersecurity as a business strategy is how organisations will survive, and thrive, and ensure that their reputation, financial security and customers are protected.

Accounting tasks don’t have to eat into your business time. With the right cloud accounting software and setup, you can save time and money – while also getting tighter control over your finances. #accounting #software #finance

As the trustee believed the income was classified as interest (this was challenged successfully by the ATO), the trustee assumed that the income would be subject to a final Australian tax at 10%, under the non-resident withholding rules. This was clearly more favourable than having the income taxed in the hands of Australian resident beneficiaries at higher marginal rates. However, the ATO argued that the distribution resolutions were invalid and the Tribunal agreed. Why? The main reason was a lack of evidence to prove that the distribution decisions were made before the end of the relevant financial years. While there were some documents that were purportedly dated and signed “30 June”, the Tribunal wasn’t convinced that the decisions were actually made before year-end and it was more likely that these documents were prepared on a retrospective basis. The evidence suggested the decisions were probably made many months after year-end, once the accountant had finalised the financial statements. The outcome was that default beneficiaries (all Australian residents) were taxed on the income at higher rates. Timing of trust resolution decisions is critical For a trust distribution to be effective for tax purposes, trustees must reach a decision on how income will be allocated by 30 June each year (or sometimes earlier, depending on the trust deed). It might be OK to prepare the formal paperwork later, but those documents must reflect a genuine decision made before year-end. For example, let’s say a trust has a corporate trustee with multiple directors. The directors meet at a particular location on 29 June and make formal decisions about how the income of the trust will be appointed to beneficiaries for that year. Someone keeps handwritten notes of the meeting and the decisions that are made. On 5 July the minutes are typed up and signed. The ATO indicates that this will normally be acceptable, but subject to any specific requirements in the trust deed. If the ATO believes the decision was made after 30 June (or documents were backdated), the resolution can be declared invalid. In that case, you might find that one or more default beneficiaries are taxed on the taxable income of the trust or the trustee is taxed at penalty rates. This could be an unexpected and costly tax outcome and could also lead to other problems in terms of who is really entitled to the cash. Broader lessons – it’s not just about trust distributions The timing issue is not confined just to trust distribution situations. Other areas of the tax system also turn on when a decision or agreement is actually made, not just when it is eventually recorded. For example, if a private company makes a loan to a shareholder in a given year, that loan must be repaid in full or placed under a complying Division 7A loan agreement by the earlier of the due date or lodgement date of the company’s tax return for the year of the loan. If not, a deemed unfranked dividend can be triggered for tax purposes. If a complying loan agreement is put in place then minimum annual repayments normally need to be made to avoid deemed dividends being recognised for tax purposes. A common way to deal with loan repayments is by using a set-off arrangement involving dividends that have been declared by the company. However, in order for the set-off arrangement to be valid there are a number of steps that need to be followed before the relevant deadline. The ATO will typically want to see evidence which proves: · When the dividend was declared; and · When the parties agreed to set-off the dividend against the loan balance. If there isn’t sufficient evidence to prove that these steps were taken by the relevant deadline then you might find that there is a taxable unfranked deemed dividend that needs to be recognised by the borrower in their tax return. Documenting decisions before year-end The key lesson from cases like Goldenville is that documentation shouldn’t be an afterthought — lack of contemporaneous documentation can fundamentally change the tax outcome. What normally matters most is when the relevant decision is actually made, not when the paperwork is drafted. In practice, this often means: · Check relevant deadlines and what needs to occur before that deadline. · If a decision needs to be made before the deadline, ensure that a formal process is followed to do this. For example, determine whether certain individuals need to hold a meeting or whether a circular resolution could be used. · Produce contemporaneous evidence of the fact that the decision has been made. You might consider sending a brief email to your accountant or lawyer explaining the decision that has been made before the relevant deadline , basically providing a time-stamped record of the decision. · Finalise paperwork: formal minutes of meetings can sometimes be prepared after year-end, but they must accurately reflect the earlier decision. Thinking carefully about timing — and building a habit of producing clear evidence of decisions as they are made — is often the difference between a tax planning strategy working as intended and an expensive dispute with the ATO.