Why SMSFs need an annual audit
Moving to a three-year audit cycle will increase administration for the ATO and therefore costs and open up the temptation for trustees to shift around the tax-free and taxable components in their fund.
Firstly I will admit I have a conflict of interest, I am an SMSF auditor and ironically last year on budget night when changes were announced to the depreciation deductions on rental properties I said – what would it be like to have your business value wiped out overnight – not expecting it to have it occur to me one year later. SMSF auditors are already considered an irritating formality. Accountants and trustees want low fees, fast turnaround and as few queries as possible and now the government doesn’t appreciate our value in ensuring the integrity of the superannuation system even though the ATO has clearly stated that “approved SMSF auditors have a critical role in helping to maintain the health and integrity of the SMSF sector through the annual audit of each SMSF.”
The government budget announcement was that if you are a good SMSF, have lodged your returns on time and have had three years of clear audit reports then you don’t need to have an annual audit. Once every three years will suffice.
My first thought was what is the administration cost to the ATO to keep track of who is on the “good list” and who is on the “naughty list” plus when each funds next audit is due? And how much will the SMSF levy be increased by to cover this cost?
Then my next thought was who is going to keep track of those pesky member statement components.
The first thing you do when you audit financial statements is compare the prior year figures to the prior year audited financials and make sure everything carries forward correctly.
Currently an SMSF is audited under the Australian Auditing Standards. These standards do allow for instances where you have not been provided with the prior year audit. You have to do additional testing on the opening balances. Consider two risk areas, the cost base and member components such as tax-free and taxable components, preserved, non-preserved etc. Without an audit of the prior two years financials we can’t ascertain whether those components are correct unless we do additional testing on the prior year’s figures, basically resulting in an audit of the financials since the last audit. Unless we complete this additional work we couldn’t sign off on the audit under the Australian Accounting Standards.
Why are the member components a risk area? Since “death tax” has been introduced, when an SMSF pays a death benefit to a non-dependant i.e. adult children – the taxable component of the benefit is taxed at 15 per cent plus Medicare levy. So there is a very clear incentive to shift components from taxable to tax free.
What about the new $1.6 million cap? The ATO will be monitoring the balance with TBAR however now more SMSFs will be in joint pension and accumulation phase. Meaning they have a requirement for an actuarial certificate and exempt current pension income calculations, an area the ATO have frequently expressed concern about Trustees over claiming.
Another advantage of an annual SMSF audit is we are a deterrent from the temptation to borrow and repay money from the SMSF when times are tight. This is the most common contravention and knowing that no audit will be completed on those two years will increase the instances of this occurring.
The current situation of an annual audit works well. Auditors advise the ATO of a contravention on the auditor contravention report. The Trustee pays for the audit function and based on ATO statistics, the cost of that audit is less than 0.05 per cent of average fund assets. Hardly a significant expense especially when you consider the additional costs the SMSF has to pay for advice under the FOFA reforms like a statement of advice for commencing a pension and making additional superannuation contributions
So if the aim of this policy is to reduce compliance costs for SMSF why don’t you focus on the FOFA reforms and the red tape around contributions and pension commencement?
- SMSF Audits are little more government sanctioned taxes treating all trustees as the lowest common denominator. i have never had an audit issue yet I have paid over $10k to date in audit fees. The cost to my retirement savings when reinvested will probably total $50k. Value added = nil! My accountants brag that super audit is their fastest growing division! No wonder they are bleating now. The ATO should do random audits as per normal returns.0
- Well thought out argument Deanne!!! It beggars belief that anyone can say that this is a sensible approach to ensuring the integrity of the system. There are so many cowboys out there offering advice to current and potential SMSF trustees that is either illegal, immoral or just plain stupid that the industry as a whole NEEDS to have the oversight provided by an INDEPENDENT audit. If the government wants to do something actually MEANINGFUL about improving the integrity of the system, make ALL audits truly independent: no Chinese walls where different departments of the same firm sign off audits.0
- I think a three year audit cycle is a fanatistic development . We are already working with our clients to ensure their clients to qualify0
- great article and comments what happens if you have franking credits how do you claim them..0
- This witch hunt on SMSF and bureaucracy on super funds could possibly finally kill off the viability of running a SMSF. Are we all destined to go back to the prehistoric days of old when such options were not available. Certainly seems that way doesn't it.0
- Agreed completely, you would have to complete 3 years worth of audits in order to safely lodge the audit report for the year needed. It can be hard enough getting missing things from trustees for current years let alone 3 years ago. If they can't track it down and it's needed for the purpose of verifying opening balances trustees have 14 days to get it to you or breaches start coming up. Then suddenly they are on the naughty list. It is hilarious this suggestion has happened when they really want to get tough on the quality of audits...0
- Totally agree. I suspect what will happen is that auditors will need to complete 3 years worth of auditing to be able to sign off on the current year which will save neither time or money.
0 - I completely agree. Not to mention the incredible difficulties to manage staff and business structure of audit firms for an uncertain and irregular workload like it would be in the proposed change. It will most probably result in a considerable increase of audit fees or in a dramatic drop of the quality of the audit.0