Home / Super booster / Super and tax / Division 296 super tax explained (including calculator)

Division 296 super tax explained (including calculator)

Important

Division 296 has not yet been legislated and the details below may change if legislation is amended or not passed.

On 13 October 2025 the government announced changes to the proposed legislation.

The details contained in the following guide (and the calculator) relate to the new proposal.

If the Albanese Government has their way, a new tax will be charged on investment growth that occurs next financial year in super balances above $3 million (Division 296 tax).

If your balance is above $3 million on 30 June 2027, you will be among the first to receive an assessment.

The government recognises that the tax rates on super earnings of 15% in the accumulation phase and 0% in the retirement phase provide a significant concession for most taxpayers. Applying additional tax on the growth of larger balances is intended to better target that concession.

Let our explainer and calculator cut through the jargon.

How has the proposal changed?

In its original form, Division 296 proposed an additional tax on investment earnings for super balances above $3 million. The $3 million threshold was not to be indexed, and the definition of earnings captured unrealised capital gains.

Criticism of the proposed legislation focused on the lack of future indexation of the cap, which would capture the balances of more Australians over time, and on the taxation of unrealised gains, which was unprecedented in tax law.

In October 2025, the Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced changes to the proposal addressing both areas.

Under the new proposal, a second $10 million threshold where a higher tax rate applies is to be introduced. Both the $3 million and $10 million threshold will be indexed.

The original proposed law used the increase in total superannuation balance (TSB) during the financial year to determine estimated earnings, which captures the increase in value of assets that have not been sold (unrealised gains). In the new version, super funds will instead be required to report realised earnings for affected members. Further consultation with the industry will determine approved methods funds can use to estimate the realised earnings that should be attributed to each member.

Implementation is to be delayed by 12 months from the original proposal, with the first application of the tax taking place for earnings accrued during the 2026–27 financial year.

A summary of the old and new proposal is shown in the table below.

Previously announced measureNew measure
Earnings calculated based on changes in TSB, adjusted for withdrawals and contributions.Earnings calculated based on the superannuation funds’ realised earnings attributed to members with a TSB above the threshold.
Fund earnings will be based on its taxable income, aligned with existing tax concepts.
$3 million threshold not indexed.$3 million threshold indexed to CPI.
$10 million threshold indexed to CPI.
Additional tax of 15% applied to the proportion of earnings corresponding to TSBs above $3 millionTwo tiered approach applying:
15% additional tax on the proportion of earnings corresponding to the TSB between $3 million and $10 million
25% additional tax on the proportion of earnings corresponding to TSBs above $10 million
Start date 1 July 2025 (focusing on TSB at 30 June 2026)Start date 1 July 2026 (focusing on TSB at 30 June 2027)

Total tax on investment earnings

Since the usual tax on earnings is 15% in the accumulation phase, the application of Division 296 brings the total tax rate to 30% for the proportion of earnings corresponding to the TSB between $3 million and $10 million (15% + 15%), and 40% for the proportion of earnings corresponding to the TSB above $10 million (15% + 25%) for assets supporting accumulation phase interests.

However, this is not the end of the story. Some super funds in Australia for government employees are ‘untaxed’, meaning the usual 15% tax on earnings does not apply.

In addition, assets supporting retirement phase interests (pensions) attract tax-free investment earnings.

When Division 296 is applied to the earnings of untaxed funds and retirement phase interests, the total tax is the Division 296 rate alone.

Who does it apply to?

Division 296 tax applies to the taxable super earnings of individuals with total superannuation balances (TSBs) over $3 million at the end of a financial year. If your TSB is below $3 million on 30 June, the tax does not apply, even if you have made withdrawals to bring your balance below the threshold.

The threshold applies to individuals, so couples can still have up to $6 million in super and not be liable for additional tax. Individual application also means the total value of a self-managed super fund (SMSF) may be above $3 million but if no members have an individual TSB above the threshold then no Division 296 applies.

How is it calculated?

Division 296 tax applies at the rate of 15% to the earnings attributed to the portion of your balance that is above $3 million.

A further 10% tax is imposed on earnings attributed to the portion of your balance that is above $10 million, bringing total Division 296 tax on this portion to 25%.

This means if your balance is only a little over the threshold, a correspondingly small proportion of your earnings will attract extra tax.

Division 296 tax formula

15% x taxable earnings x taxable proportion above $3 million (proportion of TSB 1)

+

10% x taxable earnings x taxable proportion above $10 million (proportion of TSB 2)

To calculate the proportions, the below formulae are used:

Taxable proportion above $3 million (proportion of TSB 1)

(your TSB at the end of the year – $3 million)/ your TSB at the end of the year

Taxable proportion above $10 million (proportion of TSB 2)

(your TSB at the end of the year – $10 million)/ your TSB at the end of the year

The result can be expressed as a percentage.

Example: Balance below $10 million

Runi has a total super balance of $4.5 million on 30 June 2027.

Her fund has reported earnings attributed to her of $150,000.

Step 1 – proportion:

($4.5 million – $3 million)/$4.5 million

= $1.5 million/$4.5 million

= 0.3333 or 33.33%

Step 2 – apply Division 296 tax

15% x 33.33% (proportion above $3 million) x $150,000 (earnings)

= $7,500

Example: Balance above $10 million

Jonathan has a total super balance of $11.5 million on 30 June 2027.

His fund has reported earnings of $500,000 attributed to him

Step 1 – proportions

Proportion of TSB 1:

= ($11.5 million – $3 million)/$11.5 million

= $8.5 million/$11.5 million

= 0.7391 or 73.91%

Proportion of TSB 2:

($11.5 million – $10 million)/$11.5 million

= $1.5 million/$11.5 million

= 0.1304 or 13.04%

Step 2 – apply Division 296 tax

= 15% x 73.91% (proportion of TSB 1) x $500,000 (earnings) + 10% x 13.04% (proportion of TSB 2) x $500,000 (earnings)

= $61,952.50

 

What if my investment return is negative?

A negative return (fall in value) can occur in your super balance for the year if the value of your investments is lower at the end of the year than at the start.

In this scenario, your fund still has taxable income from interest earned on cash, dividends received from shares, rent on property, realised capital gains, etc.

It is the realised income attributed to you that will attract Division 296 tax, so you will still have tax to pay even in years when your balance has decreased.

Division 296 calculator

This is a members-only guide – but unlock 100+ guides now with a free account

Create a free SuperGuide account and get practical, independent guidance to help you make the most of your super – whatever stage you’re at

Join now

About the author

Related topics,

IMPORTANT: All information on SuperGuide is general in nature only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. You should consider whether any information on SuperGuide is appropriate to you before acting on it. If SuperGuide refers to a financial product you should obtain the relevant product disclosure statement (PDS) or seek personal financial advice before making any investment decisions. Comments provided by readers that may include information relating to tax, superannuation or other rules cannot be relied upon as advice. SuperGuide does not verify the information provided within comments from readers. Learn more

© Copyright SuperGuide 2008-25. Copyright for this guide belongs to SuperGuide Pty Ltd, and cannot be reproduced without express and specific consent. Learn more

Responses

  1. Todd Payne Avatar
    Todd Payne

    Great summary Kate. Just checking that under the heading ‘How has the proposal changed?’ – you do mean Division 296 and not 293 correct ? Regards, Todd

    1. Kate Crawford Avatar
      Kate Crawford

      Hi Todd,
      Yes, thank you for noticing that. We have updated the text.

  2. Des SOARES Avatar
    Des SOARES

    How will this change affect super funds that own property? Does this mean property will need to be valued each year rather than every 2-3 years at present?

    1. Kate Crawford Avatar
      Kate Crawford

      Hi Des, There is no change to valuation practices specifically required by the new tax.
      However, as many SMSFs value property every three years their trustees will need to consider if more frequent valuation would be desirable – perhaps to avoid lumpy tax liabilities. APRA regulated funds (non SMSFs) are required to comply with the Prudential Standard for Investment Governance under which APRA expects funds to revalue assets on at least a quarterly basis.

  3. mac1@possumology.com Avatar
    mac1@possumology.com

    For the moment, disregarding arguments about the fairness or otherwise of increasing the tax for those fortunate/diligent enough to have built a super balance of $5M+ or $3M+, the one thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is the actual mechanism for implementing this – which is not only unfair but, it seems to me, could have profound and unanticipated effects on ASX trading markets at EOFY.

    The government commentary presents this as simply increasing the tax rate from 15% to 30% for the proportion of your super balance over $3M BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY PROPOSED.

    Within the super fund the 15% tax rate applies to the fund’s taxable income (assessable income less ECPI) now, if we took the government top level overview at face value, someone with a super balance of say $6M (ie 50% of their balance is above $3M) might expect 50% of their fund’s taxable income to be taxed at 15% and the other 50% to be taxed at 30%.

    HOWEVER the government, recognising that this would be a nightmare to actually administer if they required the actual Funds to apply this system, has left the actual super tax system unchanged and decided to levy this as an additional tax at the personal level. The real problem is that, to come up with a simple method of calculating the personal fund income to tax, they have decided to tax Fund EARNINGS – which they have defined as the increase in a person’s super BALANCE.

    Yes, this means that you will get taxed not only on capital gains on shares sold but also on UNREALISED capital gains. Given that the annual performance of the ASX can be much greater or less than the average return this will result in a very lumpy tax impost dependant on the 30 June closing prices at the beginning and end of the FY.

    Anyone who invests in shares with low liquidity with will be familiar with the fact that the closing price of these shares can be moved significantly by even small orders at the end of the day. As a long term investor in such a company you regard this as insignificant “noise” overlying the long term performance but, under this new scheme, a member whose fund has a significant holding in such an illiquid company could face a large variation in personal tax if someone buys/sells a quite small position at close of play on 30 June.

    Since often the reason for the low liquidity is retained ownership by the founders – they could have a real problem if their holdings are held in their super and the EOFY closing price changes significantly.

    I could go on and on about the unforseen problems I can see here – but I suspect it is worth an article of it’s own.

Leave a Reply