Andrew & Sylvia, ages 60 and 61, have very little in their superannuation investments at this time, approximately $50,000 each, because they refrained from contributing to it out of lack of experience and confidence. Andrew operates a metal fabrication facility and earns $140,000 annually, while Sylvia earns $40,000 per month as a part-time employee at a pharmacy.
They had worked hard and had paid cash for their forever house, which is valued at about $1,000,000. In addition, they rent out a $1,000,000 investment property under a Family Trust with a cost base of $485,000 for $40,000 annually so they can distribute income for the best tax outcome. There is debt against the investment of approximately $200,000 at 7.14%.
Andrew also owns his factory, which he paid $200,000 for in 1989 and feels this is now worth $600,000, totally free of restrictions.
Before approaching us, their retirement plan was to keep renting out the investment property and using addition borrowings to add a $100,000 granny flat at the back of the property, increasing the rental income to $55,000.
They want to rent the factory as well, which they think could bring in an extra $25,000 a year and eliminate them having to pay the outgoings.
Their total income would be $65,000 p/a before tax, and Net (after tax) $55,000. They wanted to draw $100,000 out their superannuation to pay off the granny flat addition.
The key concerns were as follows:
1. They wanted to be confident that their selected plan would work.
2. They were concerned that their salary after taxes and debt servicing would not be sufficient to support their desired lifestyle.
3. They were concerned that their salary would not be sufficient to support their desired lifestyle.
4. They also wanted to know if they should wait to retire until the debt associated with the investment was paid off.
5. They were interested in other potential strategies or actions they could implement to assist them in boosting their standard of living.
In order to assist them in making the best decision, it is critical that they/we delve further into understanding the type of retirement lifestyle they desire. Our objective is to establish specific parameters regarding the retirement income they will need and what activities they intend to pursue. At Wealth Effect Group we like to begin with the end in mind.
After having a comprehensive discussion, we determined that they require an estimated income stream of $85,000 to live the life of their dreams. This includes travelling abroad for the first 3 years of retirement at a cost of $20,000 per annum, gradually decreasing as domestic travel becomes more important in later years, with an estimated cost $10,000 per annum thereafter. They maintain a modest standard of living, refraining from excesses beyond what is important.
Our approach to financial advice is collaborative - we work with our clients through a process of education and financial modelling, adding in different strategies to their scenarios and showing our clients how each piece of advice enhance their financial position.
Using thorough financial modelling, we demonstrated to Andrew & Sylvia what life would be like if they retired now and carried out their plan to pay off $100,000 of debt, add a granny flat, rent the investment property, and draw down on super. This increased income from $40k to $55k p.a. from the residential property and rent out the factory for $25,000 p.a.
On the surface this appeared to be a good strategy, and as a result the after-tax or net income is about $35,000 each, or $70,000, after allocating the income from the investment property and Andrew receiving the money from the factory in his own account.
The issues with their strategy arose when we included the increased expenditures of servicing the loan associated with their investment property (repayments of $17,380). As a result, their take-home income fell from $70,000 to $52,620. They were also required to pay $9,000 in annual land tax, rates, and insurance, bringing income down to $43,620. This leaves them with an annual shortfall of $41,380.
While this may not have been the ideal outcome they were hoping for, it allows them to examine alternative choices, such as Sylvia working part-time to supplement their income while they pay off their debt and figure out what they are comfortable with.
We proposed alternative strategies that involved liquidating their investments, and it became apparent that Andrew & Sylvia wanted to hold their investments because they were concerned about the capital gains tax that would be incurred if they sold their holdings.
There was an estimated gain of $515,000, which first discouraged them from considering selling the assets. The similar issue would arise with the commercial property, that was purchased for $200,000 and, if sold for $650,000, would result in a $450,000 gain for Andrew. Before any discounts are applied, the potential assessable gain for the two properties is $450,000 + $515,000 = $965,000.
We explained to Andrew & Sylvia that there were several options they could use to reduce their Capital Gains Tax Liability, including utilizing government incentives to improve their retirement!
One challenge they encounter by maintaining assets in the trust is the obligation to distribute the trust's income and remit an annual tax payment of around $11,000 – which results in a tax bill for life expectancy of around $330,000.
To solve the retirement challenges Andrew & Sylvia face, we firstly recommended the Andrew & Sylvia sell their investment property in the trust then use the 50% capital gains tax discount, then apply their carry forward provision as their superannuation balances. This was possible because their superannuation balances were under $500,000. Note: This part of the strategy needs to be enacted first because if the balance is over $500,000 they would not meet the criteria to be able to use the carry forward contribution strategy.
There was also another important benefit to this strategy that is selling the Investment property also provides liquidity in case they need access to lump sums in emergency or other needs. You can’t sell a bathroom if you need access to capital!
The other important consideration & recommendation was to sell the property in the financial year they retire on, for example July 1, to minimize the tax earnings in the year and hence reduce the overall taxable income in that year. Selling property in the financial year they retire (not earning income in the year), means that this income received from the sale is the only income they receive. Hence, this does not add to taxable income in that year. Income distributed to each person will be as follows:
Action | Andrew's Tax Calculation | Sylvia's Tax Calculations |
Income before tax adjustment | $257,500 | $257,500 |
Tax payable | $91,692 | $91,692 |
Apply 50% CGT discount | ||
Income after CGT discount | $128,750 | $128,750 |
Tax payable after CGT discount | $35,280 | $35,280 |
Strategy: Contribute $100,000 each | ||
Income after contribution adjustment | $28,750 | $28,750 |
Tax payable after contribution adjustment | $2,580 | $2,580 |
Tax on contributions (15%) | $30,000 | $30,000 |
Total tax saved so far | $148,224 | $148,224 |
Note: The total tax saved represents the cumulative tax savings achieved through the application of the CGT discount and personal deductible super contributions.
We are then able to contribute the $330,000 each, so $660,000, into their super as a non-concessional contribution, boosting their super to a total of $930,000 so far.
Next, we shared an often-overlooked government incentive - the “Small Business Retirement Concessions”. This Capital Gains tax exemption allows Andrew's “Business Real Property” (his commercial property) to be transferred into superannuation. He was able to this as he met the Eligibility Criteria:
Eligibility Criteria:
Small Business Entity: The business must be a small business entity with an annual turnover of less than $2 million, or the asset must satisfy the maximum net asset value test of $6 million.
Active Asset Test: The property must be an active asset, meaning it is used or held ready for use in the course of carrying on a business.
Retirement Exemption Limit: The lifetime CGT retirement exemption limit is $500,000.
Key Features:
Exemption for Capital Gains: When the proceeds from the sale of business real property are used for retirement purposes, eligible individuals can claim an exemption from CGT up to the lifetime limit of $500,000.
Contribution to Superannuation: The exempt amount can be contributed to a complying superannuation fund or retirement savings account, which helps in boosting retirement savings.
No Age Restriction: Unlike some other superannuation contributions, there is no age restriction for making this contribution. However, if the individual is under 55, the amount must be paid into a superannuation fund.
Using this strategy allows the transfer of his commercial property into his super fund tax-free, via an in-specie transfer or off market transfer!
We advised Andrew & Sylvia to establish a self-managed super fund with a Corporate Trustee as the trustee. There were additional costs associated with the establishment of these entities of $2,400, however the tax savings both today and into the future far outweigh the small additional cost.
The benefit from establishing the Self-managed Super Fund (SMSF) allows Andrew to have a vehicle that could not only accept and hold the Property, but also allow him to have the choice to rent it tax-free or sell it tax-free, now or in the future.
Once the property had been transferred and all contributions had been completed, we commenced an account-based pension so that the Andrew & Sylvia could enjoy the benefits of a tax-free income stream. The additional benefits of an account-based pension are as follows:
No tax on drawing from the fund
No capital gains tax
No income tax
If they chose to sell the commercial property now or in the future, this will save them Capital Gains Tax (CGT) of at least $400,000!
We also recommend a balanced investment portfolio for the client that was in line with their overall tolerance for risk. Our strategy for them was a balanced combination of income-focused investments that allowed them collect franking credits through Australian Shares and Hybrid Securities, with a balance of funds spread in Cash & Bonds to provide stability to the portfolio, while allowing the portfolio to have a hedge against inflation - There is a great deal more to this part of our advice, however for the purposes of this article I have left it that!
Our analysis projected an annual income stream of $85,000 indexed, meeting their retirement lifestyle aspirations for life expectancy and beyond. At retirement, they now have $930,000 of liquid assets in an account-based pension, with their commercial property, valued at $600,000, being owned by the SMSF as well! This provides a total retirement balance of $1,530,000. Moreover, it safeguarded their future with an investment balance in 30 years of $821,604, plus the commercial property value, exceeding life expectancy. Reallocating their assets into a tax-free environment has delivered additional value by saving them $22,000 tax payable each year.
In summary, our strategy not only saved Andrew & Sylvia substantial tax and transferred their assets into the most flexible and tax efficient vehicle, but also secured a comfortable retirement income exceeding their initial expectations.
If you're a business owner approaching retirement and seeking expert guidance on maximizing opportunities regardless of your super balance, we're here to help. Schedule a consultation either at our Gold Coast or Melbourne offices to explore tailored solutions for your retirement journey.
Comments