Can my SMSF invest in property development?

Clarke McEwan Accountants

Can my SMSF invest in property development?

Australians love property and the lure of a 15% preferential tax rate on income during the accumulation phase, and potentially no tax during retirement, is a strong incentive for many SMSF trustees to dream of large returns from property development. We look at the pros, cons, and problems that often occur.

An SMSF can invest in property development if trustees ensure the investment complies with the rules. And, there are a lot of rules. A key is the sole purpose test. Trustees need to ensure the fund is maintained to provide benefits for retirement, ill health or death. Breaches of this fundamental tenet are serious and include the loss of the fund’s concessional tax treatment and civil and criminal penalties.

By its nature property development is high risk and fund trustees need to ensure that the SMSF is not simply a handy cash-cow for a pipe dream, particularly when the developers are related parties.

There are multiple ways an SMSF can invest in property development if the investment strategy of the fund allows:

Directly developing property
An ungeared unit trust or company (the parties can be related)
Investment in an unrelated entity
A joint venture

Directly developing property from fund assets

An SMSF can purchase land from an unrelated party and develop the property in its own right. Common issues that often arise include:

Acquiring the land from a related party - An SMSF cannot purchase land from a related party (unless it is business real property used wholly and exclusively in a business). This means that the lovely block of land inherited by one of the members, or owned by a family trust, that is perfect for development cannot be purchased by the SMSF.

An SMSF cannot borrow to develop property - An SMSF can borrow money to purchase land using a limited recourse borrowing arrangement but it cannot use a loan to improve the asset. That is, borrowings cannot be used to develop the land. And, where the SMSF has borrowed to purchase land, it cannot change the nature of that asset until the loan has been repaid. That is, no development.

Who will develop the property? - Problems often occur when the property developers are related to the fund members. Whilst it is possible to engage a related party builder to undertake the work, there are strict rules that mean that the work and materials must be acquired at market value. That is, there is no advantage from “mates rates”. If you are using a related party builder, ensure that the paperwork is pristine, any transactions are at market value, and all interactions are documented.

GST might apply - Goods and services tax might apply to the development and the sale of any developed property. If the ATO considers that an SMSF is in the business of developing property or is undertaking a one-off development in a commercial manner then GST could potentially apply.

If your SMSF is not undertaking a property development project in its own right, there are a few ways for an SMSF to invest in property development projects:

Related ungeared trust or company

An ungeared company or trust is often used (under SIS Regulation, section 13.22C) when related parties want to invest in a property development together. The SMSF can invest in a company or trust that is undertaking a property development as long as the company or trust:

Does not lease to a related party (unless business real property)
Does not borrow money or have borrowings (must be ungeared)
Does not conduct a business
Conducts any dealings at arm’s length
And, the assets of the unit trust or company:

o Do not include an interest in another entity (i.e., cannot have shares in a company)

o Do not have a charge over them (i.e., mortgage over any asset)

o Are not purchased from a related party (or was ever an asset of a related party) unless the asset is business real property acquired at market rates.

See section 13.22C for full details.

Profits from the company or trust are then distributed to the SMSF according to its share.

Using the provisions of 13.22C means that the SMSF can invest in property development with a related party without the development being considered an in-house asset. However, if the criteria are not met (at any point), the in-house asset rules apply, and the SMSF might have to sell the units in the trust or shares in the company to return to the maximum 5% in-house asset limit. Generally, this means the sale of the underlying property or a significant restructure.

Problems arise with 13.22C arrangements where the trust or company:

Needs more money to complete the development and borrows money, or issues more units and sells them (is in business)
Accepts a loan from a member of the SMSF
Overdrafts (may be considered loans and breach 13.22C)
Uses a related party builder who either under charges for the work completed or overcharges and strips the profits that should have been returned to the SMSF.

Warning on conducting a business

One of the criteria for the exemption in 13.22C to apply is that the trust or company cannot be conducting a business. This requirement may prevent short-term property developments that are built and sold for profit.

Typically, 13.22C arrangements are used for long term investments where the development enables the creation of an asset that is then leased by the trust or company. This could be commercial premises leased to a related or unrelated party (e.g., premises for a child care centre or manufacturing), or residential premises leased to unrelated parties (e.g., townhouses or small developments).

Unrelated property developments

Investing in unrelated entities for a property development is attractive as there is no limit to how much of the fund’s assets can be invested (subject to the investment strategy and trust deed allowing the investment), and unlike ungeared entities, the entity is able to borrow money/place charge over the assets.

Where related parties are investing in the same entity, there are rules governing the percentage of ownership the SMSF and their related parties can hold. To meet the definition of unrelated entity for in-house asset purposes, the SMSF and their related parties must not own more than 50% of the units available. This is because the SMSF cannot control or hold sufficient influence over the entity and remain an unrelated entity. If the ATO considers the entity is related to the SMSF, then it would become a related party and the investment an in-house asset.

Joint venture arrangements

An SMSF can potentially invest in a joint venture (JV) property development, but the criteria are necessarily strict and there are a range of issues that need to be considered carefully. One of the issues that needs to be considered up-front is determining the substance of the arrangement between the parties, because the term JV can be used to describe a variety of arrangements. The ATO confirms that care must be taken to ensure that arrangements with related parties are true JVs.

Under a JV, the SMSF invests in and has a share of the property being developed (not the entity undertaking the development). Each party bears the costs (time and/or money) of the JV and receives this same proportionate contribution from the returns. If the arrangement is not structured properly then the SMSF’s stake in the JV could be treated as an investment in or loan to a related party and be treated as an in-house asset. For example, this could be the case if the SMSF only provides a capital outlay for the arrangement and has no rights other than a contractual right to a return on the final investment.

It is also necessary to consider whether the arrangement between the parties could be treated as a partnership for tax, GST and legal purposes. For example, this could be the case if the arrangement involves the sharing of income, sale proceeds or profits, rather than sharing the output from the project.

It's essential to get advice well in advance - tax, legal and financial - before pursuing a JV.

Is your SMSF the best vehicle for property development?

Trustees need to carefully consider any investment decisions and have a sound rationale for the investment.

Any advice on a property development needs to be from a licenced financial adviser. A lawyer should be used for any contracts or agreements between parties. And, compliance assistance from a qualified accountant.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Loss carry back rules reintroduced

By Clarke McEwan • September 1, 2026

At the Federal Budget in May 2026, the Government announced that it would reintroduce a loss carry back tax offset for companies, providing a crucial buffer to any business facing difficult trading conditions.

Cents per km or logbook method: which is better?

By Clarke McEwan • August 30, 2026

Tax Time 2026 is in full swing, and with that comes a decision for anyone who uses their car for work purposes: is it better to claim a deduction using the logbook or cents per kilometre method? When can I claim car expenses? Broadly, tax deductions for car expenses (i.e. the costs you incur to own and operate a car) are available where you use your car for work-related trips, such as for travel between workplaces or to perform your work duties. The exception is ordinary commuting to and from work - such expenses cannot typically be claimed, as they’re considered private expenses. Cents per kilometre method The cents per kilometre method allows you to claim a fixed rate for each work-related kilometre you travel, up to a maximum of 5,000 km each year. This fixed rate per km covers all of your car expenses for a year, including decline in value, registration and insurance, maintenance, repairs and fuel costs. For the 2025-26 tax year, the rate of deduction is 88 cents per kilometre, which means this tax time, the maximum potential amount of deduction is $4,400. (And keep in mind that the rate of deduction has been increased to 91 cents per km as of 1 July 2026, meaning a total potential deduction of $4,550 in the 2026-27 tax year). One of the benefits of using the cents per kilometre method is that it’s relatively simple, as you don’t need to keep receipts for your fuel or car expenses. However, you do need to keep records to show how you’ve calculated your work-related kilometres (for example, a diary), and you also need to be able to show that you own the car you’re using for work. Logbook method If you have a lot of work-related car expenses and have the time, you might find that the logbook method gives you the best deduction. The logbook method allows you to claim the work-related portion of your actual car expenses. This means that you can claim for a percentage of the actual expenses incurred on running costs such as fuel, electricity, servicing, registration, insurance and the decline in value, provided you’ve used the car in the course of your work. However, as the potential deductions under the logbook method are higher, there are stricter record-keeping requirements to meet. This includes keeping a logbook, which allows the calculation of how much you can claim back, it must: - cover at least 12 continuous weeks and be broadly representative of your travel, - include the reason and purpose, as well as the destination of every work-related journey, - the odometer reading at the start and end of each journey, - and the total kilometres travelled on the journey, - include odometer readings for the start and end of the logbook period and the total kilometres travelled during that period. Each journey in your logbook must be made at the end of the journey or as soon as possible afterwards. If you don't have a valid logbook, then unfortunately you cannot use the logbook method to claim car expenses, although the cents per km method may be available instead. Which is better? The answer to whether you should choose the logbook or cents per km method is very dependent on your personal situation. If you have light work-related car use and don’t love keeping extensive records, the cents per km method may be better suited to your needs, while those who use their car for work frequently may receive a higher deduction under the logbook method. If you’re unsure which method is best for you, speak to a member of our team today.

Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health

By Clarke McEwan • August 19, 2026

Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health

Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups

By Clarke McEwan • August 17, 2026

Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups

Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care.

Why Good Financial Management Matters in Medical Practices

By Clarke McEwan • August 11, 2026

Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care. Strong financial management is essential for maintaining profitability, supporting growth, meeting compliance obligations, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the practice.

Changes to Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF) borrowing rules

By Clarke McEwan • August 10, 2026

To ensure passage of the negative gearing and CGT discount changes that were announced in the May 2026 Federal Budget the Government agreed to make amendments to the SMSF borrowing rules. SMSFs are able to borrow in restricted circumstances which includes borrowing under a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) to purchase a single acquirable asset. While there have previously been no specific legislative restrictions on the type of asset a SMSF can borrow to purchase, most commonly we see LRBAs being used to purchase property. Up until this point, this could have been any type of real property. These amendments will mean that when SMSF trustees wish to borrow to purchase a property, it must meet the business real property (BRP) definition. This BRP definition relates to usage of the property rather than zoning or what the property was originally built for. This change became law on 26 June 2026, but the Bill includes a 45 day transitional period which will finish on 10 August 2026. This transitional period may allow for arrangements that are currently being implemented on non-BRP assets to be allowable under the new rules where settlement occurs after 10 August 2026, provided the arrangement to purchase the property was entered into on or before 10 August 2026. We recommend that SMSF trustees who are currently implementing LRBA arrangements on non-BRP assets seek specialist SMSF legal advice to ensure their arrangements meet these transitional rules. While this change has been referred to in the media as a ban on super funds borrowing to purchase residential property, the use of the BRP definition makes the change slightly more complex than this. As this definition relates to usage of the property, it is possible that some residentially designed properties could meet the BRP definition (for example, a medical practice that operates from a residentially designed terrace dwelling). The BRP definition also requires that the property is wholly and exclusively used for business purposes. This could mean that some properties that may initially appear to be commercial in nature may not meet the BRP definition (for example, a mixed use residential and retail property on a single title). We recommend that SMSF trustees entering into new LRBAs seek advice from specialist legal and financial advisers to ensure the new requirements are met. Existing arrangements The updated rules allow for existing LRBAs over non-BRP assets to continue. They also allow for existing arrangements to be refinanced, subject to lender availability and approval. For any further information please contact our office.