To use that often repeated term in the SMSF Industry . . . it depends. With a federal election looming in the first half of 2025, it is unlikely the current Labor government will introduce any big announcements lest it incur blowback from disgruntled sectors of the electorate. This election looks to be close, with a Labor loss shortening on betting markets (a more accurate measure than most polls methinks), so I doubt the Albanese government would do much before the election, and the Coalition, should it win, would probably not have major changes to superannuation mooted before its first budget in May of 2026.

Naz Randeira, managing director, Reliance Auditing Services

The 2025 financial year introduces significant regulatory updates for SMSFs, emphasising the importance of strategic planning and compliance. SMSF trustees and financial professionals should revise their strategies to align with these changes, aiming to maximize retirement benefits while minimizing tax obligations:

· Contribution caps increase: CC 30k and NCC $120k

· Super guarantee: 12 per cent per annum

· Paid parental leave: starting from 1 July 2025

Above are some of the known changes that will impact 2025, but the elephant in the room remains Div 296. I strongly believe this tax, if introduced, will change the landscape of the entire Australian taxation system, not just the tax on superannuation funds over $3 million. Introducing this tax into the superannuation system sets a dangerous precedent for taxing unrealised gains outside of superannuation. The Treasurer and Shadow Treasurer have tried to argue that taxing unrealised gains is “not unknown” in the Australian taxation system by comparing it to trading stock and to unrealised gains being taxed when a resident ceases their Australian residency. They are pushing this ridiculous argument now (when the analogy is so technically flawed), to get this tax approved through the Senate.

Can you imagine the consequences if such measures were passed? When the government realises they haven’t collected the intended tax via Division 296, they might follow the money trail out of the superannuation system into companies, trusts and even mums and dads individual investors. Years later … I don’t want to be remembered saying “I told you so”!

I also hope that the recent legislative changes to legacy pension or Green’s proposals to ban LRBAs (laughable saying it’s causing the housing crisis) are not used as a bargaining chip to push through Div 296 tax.

David Busoli, principal SMSF Alliance

There are always changes to the superannuation rules in general and to those that impinge on SMSFs, in particular. Given that the current government’s stated intention was that there would be no changes to superannuation, a position which has contrasted markedly with what has occurred, I see no likelihood that change will not continue. This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is certainly room for improvement.

Matthew Burgess, director, View Legal

With the regulatory environment ultimately driven by the ATO as the regulator and Treasury (by their conduct) viewing SMSFs as an obvious pathway to raise revenue, the ongoing constant changes are perhaps unsurprising.

Similarly, the intergenerational wealth transfer fuelled by the ever-aging baby boomer generation has meant increased litigation and ever increasing cases involving SMSFs were an almost certainty.

The specific change in approach by the Tax Office in relation to “fast death tax” while perhaps not unexpected was certainly disappointing. Similarly the energy and distraction of the Div 296 changes was unexpected – and disillusioning.

Daniel Butler, director, DBA Lawyers

Not as much activity. With the Federal election due early 2025, this generally leads to a slowdown in activity. Any legislation is prorogued (put on hold and then any legislation re-prioritised) once the election is called. The politicians are distracted with the election campaigns for a period and then we need to wait for the elections and then for the process to start again.

We really need a break from constant and relentless change so the industry can catch up. I really feel for accountants and administrators who are always trying to catch up and another raft of changes comes along and pushes them further behind. All these changes result in more form filling, more errors and government agencies unable to cope with the changes. We could easily deal with at least two years of no change to seek to catch up.

Aaron Dunn, CEO, Smarter SMSF

Well, I'd like to hope not, and I think that is probably going to ring true, because we do have an election year, so that means, whilst there will be a lot of discussion about superannuation, I think more broadly, it's going to be trying to shape the policy landscape through election promises and what they intend on focusing on within those superannuation measures.

And then ultimately, from that, we will see whatever government being successful start to raise further discussion and consultation around what those measures may be, and ultimately move on from there.

So at this stage, I wouldn't think we'd see as many changes as we've seen from a regulatory standpoint. The ATO has finalised rulings in respect to the pension changes - TR 2013/5.

We have also seen finalisation, while still in draft for comment, ultimately, some fairly conclusive results around the updated ruling on NALI and NALE, and also in respect to the tax ruling 2010/1. And finally, we also have clarity around the defined benefit pensions or legacy pension conversions and reserve allocations.

So there'll be a lot of execution in respect to these sorts of measures throughout the year, but it has given us somewhat of a framework in which to move into the 2025 year. I'd like to think that we won't see as many things get looked at, but it may be a feeder for what may then come next.

Shelley Banton, head of technical, ASF Audits

The strength and success of the SMSF industry in 2024 will ensure continued changes to the SMSF landscape in 2025. While there may not be as many reforms, there is little doubt the government will persist in trying to fill its budget hole from SMSFs.