There’s been a wave of media attention and, understandably, some strong emotional reactions. Words like “double taxing” and “raiding your super” trigger fear, frustration, and even outrage. The best response isn’t to panic; it’s to plan. In this article, we break down what’s really proposed under Division 296, why it matters to investors, and how…
There’s been a wave of media attention and, understandably, some strong emotional reactions. Words like “double taxing” and “raiding your super” trigger fear, frustration, and even outrage. The best response isn’t to panic; it’s to plan.
In this article, we break down what’s really proposed under Division 296, why it matters to investors, and how you can respond with confidence. With the government scrambling for cash and their eye on the country’s super, your best path forward is one built on real insight from experienced experts and a strategy tailored to your financial goals.
It’s time to take control of your future. Let’s unpack what the proposed changes mean and how you can make smart, strategic moves now to protect and grow your wealth.
Division 296 is a proposed new tax targeting Australians with super balances above $3 million. If passed into law:
Mavis is a retiree with a Total Super Balance (TSB) of $3.2 million as at 30 June 2026. One year earlier, on 30 June 2025, her balance was $3.0 million. During the financial year, she made a contribution of $30,000, of which $25,500 remained after the standard 15% contributions tax. She didn’t make any withdrawals during the year.
To determine how Division 296 would affect her, we calculate her earnings by taking the increase in her balance and subtracting her net contributions. That gives $174,500 in earnings. However, since only 6.25% of her super balance is above the $3 million threshold, only that proportion of her earnings is subject to the new tax. That means $10,906.25 of her earnings would be taxed under Division 296.
At 15%, this results in a tax bill of $1,635.94, payable by Mavis personally or from her super account. The critical point? This tax applies even though Mavis hasn’t touched the money, and a portion of that gain may not even be realised.
Here are the biggest red flags and why they matter:
The $3 million cap isn’t adjusted for inflation. Over time, more Australians, especially those in growth-focused SMSFs, will be captured by this tax despite not being “wealthy” by today’s standards.
Paying tax on “paper” profits that haven’t been realised poses major cash flow risks. For rural landholders, this could force premature asset sales just to meet tax obligations.
How are assets going to be valued? Who decides? And what happens if values fall the next year? Currently, it looks like you may carry forward a loss, but not receive a tax refund. That’s hardly equitable treatment.
If you’re under preservation age (60 or 65, depending on your circumstances), you can’t just withdraw funds to get below the $3 million threshold. You’re locked in.
Perhaps most controversial of all, defined benefit schemes (like those for public servants and politicians) are excluded. The same rules don’t apply to everyone.
It’s a layered hit, and one that requires expert guidance to manage effectively.
We don’t do cookie-cutter solutions. We bring together a team of specialists to help you navigate:
Investor Property and Optiwise Wealth Advisory are both part of the Optiwise Property Group family. Together, our teams collaborate across strategy, finance, and property to deliver tailored, forward-thinking outcomes for our clients, ensuring every piece of your financial future fits together seamlessly.
If the rules are going to change, and they likely will, you want to understand the game and play it well, not sit on the sidelines waiting for the next blow.
Let’s build a strategy that works for you, not against you.
Get in touch today to talk about your SMSF and property strategy. We’re here to help you make the right move, before the government makes it for you.