SMSFs, Business real property and the small business CGT cap

Clarke McEwan Accountants

Small business clients often want to transfer their business premises into their SMSF as an in-specie contribution to take advantage of the tax effective superannuation environment.

To facilitate the transfer, some clients have sought to utilise the CGT small business concessions and make an in-specie contribution to super using the lifetime CGT cap - simultaneously.

However, the ATO has indicated via a number of private binding rulings that in-specie contributions of active assets, such as business real property, may not qualify for the lifetime CGT cap where the in-specie super contribution is also the CGT event that qualifies for the small business CGT concessions.

As a result, a client's ability to access these valuable concessions may be impacted and careful planning is required to ensure they structure their contributions to meet these complex rules.

Lifetime CGT cap

When a small business owner disposes of an active asset, they may be eligible to disregard some or all of the capital gain resulting from the disposal under the CGT small business concessions. In addition, they may be able to contribute some or all of the sale proceeds to superannuation and elect for the contributions to count towards the lifetime CGT cap.

The lifetime CGT cap for 2018-19 is $1.48 million (indexed annually). Contributions that count against the lifetime CGT cap are neither concessional nor non-concessional contributions.

Broadly, to access the lifetime CGT cap it is necessary for an individual, company or trust to qualify for the 15-year exemption or the $500,000 retirement exemption.

The following table outlines the types of contributions that can be contributed under the lifetime CGT cap:

Contribution type	Amount that counts against lifetime CGT cap
Individual able to disregard capital gain under retirement exemption	Amount of capital gains disregarded under the retirement exemption (up to maximum of $500,000)
Individual able to disregard capital gain under the 15 year exemption	Amount of capital proceeds
Company or trust able to disregard capital gain under retirement exemption	Amount of payment to CGT concession stakeholder of their share of the exempt amount (up to maximum of $500,000)
Company or trust able to disregard capital gain under the 15 year exemption	Amount of payment received by CGT concession stakeholder of their share of capital proceeds

When making small business CGT contributions, depending on the circumstances, the contribution must be made within strict timeframes.

Case study - contribution under the lifetime CGT cap:

Matthew and Lily (both age 70) are farmers who have been running a primary production business for over 15 years. They run their business on a farm they own jointly which qualifies as a business real property.
They decide to retire and sell the farm for its market value of $1.4 million to a third party purchaser.
As Matthew and Lily meet all the basic conditions for small business CGT exemptions as well as the 15 year exemption, they can disregard any capital gains as a result of the sale.
Subject to satisfying the work test, they can then each contribute their share of the capital proceeds ($700,000) from the sale into superannuation under the lifetime CGT cap.

Note – this applies regardless of whether the value of Matthew and Lily's total superannuation balance at the end of the previous financial year exceeds $1.6m, as the contributions are not non-concessional contributions.

In-specie contributions and the lifetime CGT cap

In the Matthew and Lily example, the active asset of the farm was sold and a cash contribution made into superannuation under the lifetime CGT cap. However, the situation is more complex when the transaction involves an in-specie contribution.

For example, if Matthew and Lily transferred their farm into their SMSF as an in-specie contribution, they may not be able to qualify for the lifetime CGT cap as the super contribution is also the event that qualifies for the small business CGT concessions. That is, the ATO has indicated in a number of private rulings ^[1] , that the contributor is not able to utilise the lifetime CGT cap in the event of an in-specie transfer of an active asset into a SMSF, where the small business CGT exemption is applied for the same CGT event.

The Commissioner has stated that the legislation does not contemplate the CGT event, choice (if paid from a company or trust) and contribution of the CGT exempt amount all happening simultaneously. Therefore, the CGT event must occur before a contribution is made and not at the same time.

This view has important implications as in-specie contributions that do not count against the lifetime CGT cap will instead be treated as personal non-concessional contributions and count against the non-concessional cap (assuming the member does not claim a tax deduction for some or all of the contribution), which may result in excess non-concessional contributions.

Due to these issues, advisers should encourage clients to seek a private binding ruling if they are looking to utilise the lifetime CGT cap for an in-specie transfer where the small business CGT exemption is applied for the same CGT event.

Potential solutions

Below we outline three possible alternative strategies that achieve the goal of moving the asset into the SMSF, without the in-specie contribution issue outlined above applying.

SMSF purchasing active asset from client

The SMSF could purchase the active asset from the client (or their trust/company) where they have the required funds available. This achieves the goal of moving the asset into the SMSF, as well as providing cash proceeds to the client (or their company or trust) which can then be contributed to super under the lifetime CGT cap.

Coming back to the example of Matthew and Lily, if their SMSF had cash reserves of $1.4 million, the SMSF could purchase the farm from them. Matthew and Lily could then use the cash proceeds to make contributions under the lifetime CGT cap.

When implementing this strategy, there are a few important things to be mindful of:

A SMSF is only allowed to acquire certain assets from a related party ^[2] , e.g. business real property that's used wholly and exclusively in any business. Generally active assets other than business real property e.g. goodwill of a business, shares in a private company or units in a related trust, cannot be acquired ^[3] .
The purchase must be on arm's length terms and at market value. The SMSF may need to obtain an independent professional valuation to determine the sale price, refer to ATO's Valuation guideline for SMSFs

SMSF uses limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) to purchase active asset from client

In situations where the SMSF does not have the required funds available to purchase the active asset from the client, an alternative is for the SMSF to borrow the money via an LRBA to complete the purchase.

The cash sale proceeds could then be re-contributed to the fund under the lifetime CGT cap and used to extinguish the outstanding LRBA loan amount. However, it is important to note that this arrangement will incur additional costs as the fund will be required to establish a complying LRBA including the required bare trust arrangements.

Where a fund borrows from a related party, additional care needs to be exercised to ensure the loan complies with the safe harbour guidelines as specified in ATO PCG 2016/5. Otherwise the trustee will need to demonstrate that the loan is on arm's length terms – otherwise any income earned from the asset may be taxed as non-arm's length income.

In-specie contribution of an asset for a different small business CGT event

If a client is disposing of multiple active assets, they could consider triggering a CGT event in relation to one of those assets and then making an in-specie contribution under the CGT cap of a different asset in lieu of the capital proceeds they received.

For example, in ATO ID 2010/217, the ATO confirmed that where a taxpayer sold an asset that qualified for the $500,000 retirement exemption, the taxpayer could contribute a separate asset under the lifetime CGT cap in lieu of the cash proceeds actually received. This is important as it may allow a client to contribute an allowable asset via an in-specie transfer direct to their SMSF under the lifetime CGT cap.

Case study: Winston

Winston (aged 60) ran a successful real estate agent business for more than two decades and has now decided to sell his business and retire. The real estate business operated through a company structure. Winston owned 100% of the shares and the commercial premises. Details are as follows:

Asset	Owner	Ownership period	Cost base	Market value
Shares in SuperAgent Pty Ltd	Winston	20 years	$0	$600,000
Commercial office	Winston	10 years	$200,000	$800,000

Winston wants to sell his shares in the company, but retain ownership of the commercial office within his SMSF which will then be leased to the new business owner.

Sale of shares in the company (CGT event no.1)

Winston sold the shares in SuperAgent Pty Ltd to an unrelated purchaser for $600,000. As he meets the basic conditions for small business CGT exemptions and qualifies for the 15 year exemption, he can fully disregard any capital gains associated with the sale of these shares. He is also eligible to contribute the capital proceeds up to $600,000 into super under the lifetime CGT cap ^[4] .

Small business CGT contribution strategy

While Winston could use the cash proceeds from the sale of shares to make a contribution under the lifetime CGT cap he instead chooses to contribute his commercial office into his SMSF under the lifetime CGT cap instead – as per the scenario in ATO ID 2010/217.

In-specie transfer of commercial office (CGT event no.2)

When Winston in-specie transfers his business real property into his SMSF it will trigger an assessable capital gain of $600,000. However, as the commercial office qualifies for the 50% individual exemption the assessable gain is reduced to $300,000. Winston can then apply the $500,000 retirement concession to fully offset the remaining $300,000 assessable gain - assuming he skips the 50% active asset exemption.

In this case, Winston is then eligible to contribute an additional $300,000 under the lifetime CGT cap – being the amount of the gain offset by applying the retirement concession to the transfer of the commercial office to the SMSF. In this case, Winston could then use $300,000 of his original cash proceeds from the sale of the shares to contribute to super under the lifetime CGT cap.

Mixed contributions

In the above scenario, it is important to note the market value of the BRP ($800,000) contributed in lieu of the share sale proceeds exceeded their value ($600,000) by $200,000. Therefore, only $600,000 of the property can be contributed under lifetime CGT cap. However, as Winston is under 65 years of age (and hasn't previously triggered the bring forward provision) the additional $200,000 could be treated as a non-concessional contribution. He can then make additional non-concessional contributions of up to $100,000 under the bring forward rule.

Summary of contributions:

In-specie transfer of BRP valued at $800,000:
Cash contribution of $300,000:

The end result is that Winston could make total contributions of $900,000 under the lifetime CGT cap (relating to two separate CGT events) and a non-concessional contribution of $200,000. He also has the option of making a further non-concessional of $100,000 to maximise his NCC cap.

The following diagram illustrates the strategy:

Important note

The above example is for illustrative purposes and does not consider the application of the anti- avoidance measures in Part IVA of Tax Act. As this is a complex area of tax law, clients should seek advice from a registered tax agent or obtain a private binding ruling from the ATO before making any decisions relating to the sale of their active business asset, and in-specie transfer of business real property into their SMSF.

[1] Private ruling PBRs: 1013008906784; 1013054081138; 1013021531190; 1012862148885

[2] Section 66 of the SIS Act prohibits a SMSF from acquiring assets from a related party unless an exception applies. A related party is defined as: a member of the fund; a standard employer-sponsor of the fund; and a Part 8 associate of either of these two entities.

[3] Note – SMSFs can acquire units or shares in related companies and trusts under the 5% in-house exemption.

[4] CGT cap election form must be submitted at or before the time of contribution

Disclaimer: This article is not legal or personal financial advice and should not be relied on as such. Any advice in this document is general advice only and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular person. You should obtain financial advice relevant to your circumstances before making investment decisions. Where a particular financial product is mentioned you should consider the Product Disclosure Statement before making any decisions in relation to the product. Whilst every reasonable care has been taken in distributing this article, Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information contained within it. Any views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not represent the views of Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee any particular outcome or future performance. Taxation Information in this document should not be relied upon without seeking specialist advice from a tax professional. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd ABN 26 098 725 145, AFSL & Australian Credit Licence No. 234459, 114 Albert Road, South Melbourne, VIC 3205. This document produced in October 2018. © Copyright 2018

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Keeping Your Self-Managed Super Fund Compliant

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

Keeping Your Self-Managed Super Fund Compliant

ATO Update on Inherited Homes: What it Means for Your Family’s Wealth

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

The ATO has issued a Draft Taxation Determination TD 2026/D1 which looks at how inherited family homes are treated for CGT purposes. Some industry commentators have dubbed it a “death tax by stealth”, but it is a bit more complex than this. The draft guidance focuses on a specific aspect of the rules around applying the main residence exemption to inherited properties, potentially exposing deceased estates and beneficiaries to significant tax if not planned correctly. Here’s what you need to know in practical terms. Why TD 2026/D1 Matters Under current law, deceased estates or beneficiaries can potentially sell a deceased individual’s former family home without paying CGT if certain conditions can be met. This exemption is particularly valuable for properties owned long-term, where unrealised gains could be substantial. In order to access a full exemption you normally need to ensure that the property is sold within 2 years of the date of death (but the ATO can potentially extend this deadline) or that the property has been the main residence of certain qualifying individuals from the date of death until the property is sold. These qualifying individuals can include the surviving spouse of the deceased individual, the beneficiary selling an interest in the property or someone who has a right to occupy the dwelling under the deceased’s will. The draft ATO guidance focuses on this last point. That is, what does it mean for someone to have “a right to occupy the dwelling under the deceased’s will.” In summary, the ATO’s view is that: The right to live in the home must be explicitly granted in the will to a named individual. Broad discretionary powers given to trustees, separate agreements, or even testamentary trusts (TTs) are not sufficient in the ATO’s view. For example: A will giving an executor discretion to allow a family member to occupy the home does not meet this requirement. A trustee of a TT who allows a beneficiary to live in the house is seen as separate from the will and may trigger CGT on sale. Some legal and real estate experts warn this could force families to sell homes within two years of death to avoid CGT, especially in high-value areas. Consider this: inheriting a $2 million home with a capital gain of $1.5 million could expose the beneficiaries to $300,000–$600,000 in tax, depending on discounts and tax brackets. However, it is important to remember that there are still other ways for the sale of the property to qualify for a full exemption. Practical Steps to Protect Your Estate While we are waiting for the ATO to finalise its guidance in this area, there are steps you can take to protect your family’s assets: Review and update your will, especially if you are planning to provide certain individuals with the right to occupy a property. Does the will currently provide this right to specifically named beneficiaries? Plan the timing of sales – The two-year exemption window remains, but if you inherit a property and intend to hold it longer than this, weigh any potential CGT exposure against future rental income or family needs. Partial CGT exemptions might still apply, but the rules and calculations can be complex. Seek professional advice, especially if your estate plan uses TTs. You will normally need to work closely with tax and legal advisors to structure the plan appropriately. Be market aware – Estate planning can intersect with market timing. Quick sales may preserve CGT exemptions, but this needs to be weighed up against non-tax factors. The key takeaway is clear: estate planning is a complex area and needs to be navigated carefully to preserve family wealth and avoid unintended tax implications.

Navigating CGT on Your Home: New ATO Clarity for Home-Based Businesses

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

Running a business from home—whether as a sole trader, freelancer, or small operator—has many perks. But when it comes to selling your home and potentially saving on tax, recent guidance from the ATO serves as a reality check. The ATO has provided its views on how home-based businesses interact with the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions, providing a warning on how the ATO approaches a long-standing area of confusion. See: Home-based business and CGT implications | Australian Taxation Office The Key Issue: Active Asset Test When an individual sells their main residence, they will often enjoy a full CGT exemption. However, if part of the home is used for business purposes, this can potentially impact on the scope of the exemption. If a full exemption isn’t available under the main residence rules then we typically look to other CGT concessions, including the CGT discount for assets that have been held for more than 12 months or the small business CGT concessions. The small business CGT concessions can potentially reduce or eliminate a capital gain made on sale of a property, but only if certain conditions are passed. One of the key conditions is that the property must pass an active asset test. In very broad terms, to pass the active asset test you need to show that the property has been actively used in a business activity for at least 7.5 years across the ownership period or for at least half of the ownership period. The ATO is clear: the active asset test applies to the entire property, not just the business portion. When you are applying the active asset test, an asset either passes this test or fails it. It is not really possible for an asset to partially pass the active asset test. The entire property is either an active asset or it is not. Simply having a home office, workshop, or even being able to claim home occupancy expenses as a deduction does not necessarily make your home an active asset. Where business use is incidental to the home’s primary residential purpose, the ATO’s view is that the small business CGT concessions generally do not apply. Rus v FCT The view that the entire property must qualify as an active asset—and that incidental or minor business use (such as a home office or storage in a largely residential setting) is insufficient—draws support from case law, particularly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision in Rus and Commissioner of Taxation [2018] AATA 1854 (Rus v FCT). In that case, a taxpayer sought access to the small business CGT concessions on the sale of a 16-hectare largely vacant rural property, where only a small portion (less than 10% by area) was used for business purposes: a home office, shed for storing tools/equipment/vehicles, and related supplies tied to a plastering and construction business operated through a controlled company. The balance of the land remained vacant or used residentially. The AAT upheld the ATO's ruling that the property as a whole did not satisfy the active asset test, reasoning that the business activities were not sufficiently integral to the asset overall. Minor or incidental use did not make the entire property an active asset, especially where the business was primarily conducted off-site. This precedent reinforces the ATO's strict approach in home-based business scenarios: the property is assessed holistically. This means that limited business use typically fails to tip the scales toward qualifying for the concessions. Practical Examples Let’s take a look at how the ATO approaches some common scenarios. Minor home-based business: Harriet runs a hairdressing salon in a spare room, using 7% of the total floor space of the property and seeing clients eight hours a week. She claims deductions for occupancy expenses and gets a 93% main residence exemption. However, because her business use is minor, she cannot access small business CGT concessions. The 50% CGT discount can still apply. Significant business use: Sue and Rob own a two-storey building, with the ground floor operating as a takeaway store (50% of the total floor area of the property) and the top floor as their private residence. The business has been running for decades with employees. Here, the property qualifies as an active asset, potentially giving them access to the small business CGT concessions for the portion of the capital gain that isn’t covered by the main residence exemption. What This Means for You A partial main residence exemption doesn’t necessarily mean you have access to the small business CGT concessions. Many homeowners mistakenly assume that business deductions or a home office automatically open the door. The ATO clearly doesn’t share this view. Seek advice before changing the way your home will be used. Starting to operate a business from home can impact on deductions, CGT calculations and access to CGT concessions. We are here to help you make fully informed decisions. Keep thorough records. Floor plans, hours of business use, and detailed deductions can help strengthen your position and may help in any future planning or audits. Consult your accountant. If selling your home is on the horizon, professional advice is critical to assess any potential CGT exposure and explore concessions that might be available. The Bottom Line The ATO’s updated guidance suggests that many home-based business owners won’t have access to the small business CGT concessions on sale of their home, but this always depends on the facts. Business owners need to plan proactively, rather than assume that tax relief will be available. By understanding how your home’s business use is treated, you can make smarter decisions. For example, will the profits generated from a small business operated at home end up being wiped out by a higher CGT liability on sale of the property down the track? After all, when it comes to CGT, every dollar you keep counts toward your next venture or your retirement nest egg.

DPN Review: A Wake-Up Call for Business Owners on Personal Tax Risks

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

Running a successful business is hard work—and sometimes, despite best intentions, tax obligations slip. If the business is being operated through a company structure, then the ATO can potentially issue a Director Penalty Notice (DPN), holding company directors personally liable for unpaid taxes. In 2024–25, DPNs skyrocketed by 136%, reaching over 84,000 notices, affecting directors of around 64,000 companies. The stakes are high, and now the Tax Ombudsman is reviewing how the ATO issues and manages these notices—a development all directors should take seriously. So, what exactly is a DPN? Put simply, if your company fails to pay certain taxes—like PAYG withholding, GST, or Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC)—the ATO can target directors personally. There are two types: Non-lockdown DPNs: These apply if the company has lodged its activity statements or SGC statements but hasn’t made the relevant payments. In this case directors have 21 days to take appropriate action, such as arranging for payment of the debt, appointing an administrator, or entering liquidation. Acting promptly may allow the penalty to be remitted. Lockdown DPNs: These apply if reporting deadlines are missed as well. In this scenario directors can’t avoid personal liability by putting the company into administration or liquidation. The intent is to protect government revenue and employee entitlements—but for directors, the impact can be severe. Why the Ombudsman is Involved The review, announced in December 2025 by Tax Ombudsman Ruth Owen, responds to a surge in complaints, with DPNs topping the list. It will examine: How effectively the ATO uses DPNs to recover debts ($54.2 billion in collectable amounts by mid-2025) The fairness of selecting cases for enforcement How directors are notified and communicated with Treatment of vulnerable directors, including those coerced into roles or facing financial abuse The review also aligns with broader government initiatives, including support for gender-based violence survivors and more empathetic engagement with business owners. While timelines are flexible due to resources, the review is part of the 2025–26 work plan, alongside assessments of ATO services for agents, First Nations engagement, and interest charge remissions. Commercial Takeaways for Directors DPNs are more than a compliance issue—they’re a real commercial risk. Ignoring a notice can disrupt personal finances, damage credit ratings, and even trigger bankruptcy. At the same time, the Ombudsman review could improve transparency and fairness, giving directors a clearer understanding of options if financial stress arises. Practical steps to protect yourself now Stay on top of obligations: make sure the company lodges returns and pays liabilities on time. Lodge statements even if payment isn’t possible: Failing to lodge activity statements just makes things worse. Consider using ATO payment plans if cash flow is tight but remember that this won’t necessarily enable directors to escape personal liability if a DPN has been issued already. Monitor company cash flow and tax health closely, especially during economic dips. Act fast if you receive a DPN: Consult immediately your accountant or lawyer to explore options because strict deadlines might apply. Consider director insurance or business structuring to limit personal exposure—but compliance always comes first. The Ombudsman’s review is a timely reminder: tax is a key business risk, not just paperwork. Being informed, proactive, and prepared can protect both your business and your personal assets. If you’re concerned about DPN exposure, reach out for a tailored review—we can help you stay ahead of risk, so your business thrives rather than just survives.

Electric Car Discounts Under Review: What It Means for Your Business (and What You Should Do Now)

By Clarke McEwan • February 11, 2026

Electric vehicles (EVs) are no longer a niche choice. By late 2025, they account for more than 8% of new car sales in Australia, driven in no small part by generous tax incentives. One of the most significant is the Federal Government’s Electric Car Discount, introduced in mid-2022. For many businesses and employees, it has materially reduced the cost of owning or leasing an EV. That said, the rules are now under review. While no immediate changes are proposed, this is an important moment to understand the benefits, assess whether they suit your circumstances, and consider timing. How the Electric Car Discount Works (in Plain English) The discount is not a cash rebate. Instead, it operates through tax concessions that can significantly reduce the real cost of an EV: 1. Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) exemption Where an eligible EV is provided to an employee as a fringe benefit, private use is exempt from FBT. This is often the biggest saving. Without the exemption, FBT is effectively charged at up to 47%. For many employees, the exemption can reduce the annual after-tax cost of a vehicle by thousands of dollars. Important points: The exemption applies to battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Plug-in hybrid vehicles lost eligibility for new arrangements from 1 April 2025. The car must be first held and used after 1 July 2022 and be below the luxury car tax threshold at first purchase. 2. Higher luxury car tax (LCT) threshold Fuel-efficient vehicles, including EVs, benefit from a higher LCT threshold ($91,387 for 2025–26, compared to $76,950 for other cars). This can prevent the 33% luxury car tax applying to part of the purchase price. 3. Reduced import costs Certain EVs are also exempt from the 5% customs duty, reducing upfront acquisition costs. Commercially, these settings have made EVs very competitive. Lower running costs (electricity versus fuel, fewer servicing requirements) and solid resale values have strengthened the business case, particularly for salary packaging and small fleets. Why the Government Is Reviewing the Rules A statutory review of the Electric Car Discount has now commenced. The key reason is cost. Uptake has exceeded expectations, and the projected cost to the budget has increased significantly over the forward estimates. The review will examine: Whether the concession is still required to encourage EV adoption. Whether eligibility settings should be tightened (for example, limiting benefits to certain vehicle types or price points).How the discount interacts with other policies, such as the National Vehicle Emissions Standard commencing in 2025. Public consultation is underway, with a final report not due until mid-2027. Importantly, there is no suggestion of immediate changes, and any reforms are more likely to be prospective. Practical Takeaways for Business Owners and Employees While uncertainty always creates hesitation, the current rules are clear and legislated. From a practical perspective: Now is a good time to review fleet or salary packaging arrangements, particularly if you are considering replacing a vehicle in the next 12–24 months. Existing arrangements are expected to be grandfathered, reducing the risk of retrospective changes (although we can’t guarantee this). Ensure vehicles are clearly under the LCT threshold at first purchase and meet all eligibility criteria if you want to access the FBT exemption. Check the tax treatment of charging infrastructure provided in connection with an eligible EV, this won’t necessarily qualify for an FBT exemption. Final Thought The Electric Car Discount remains one of the most valuable concessions available for employee vehicles. While a review introduces longer-term uncertainty, the commercial reality today is that EVs can deliver genuine tax and cash-flow savings when structured correctly. If you are considering an EV—either personally or through your business—now is the right time to run the numbers. Please contact our team if you would like tailored advice on whether an electric vehicle strategy makes sense for you under the current rules.

AI Tax Tips: Helpful Shortcut or Costly Trap?

By Clarke McEwan • February 11, 2026

As a business owner or investor, time is always tight. So it’s no surprise many people now turn to AI tools like ChatGPT for quick answers on tax deductions, super contributions or structuring ideas. The responses sound confident, arrive instantly and cost nothing. What could go wrong? Plenty. The Australian tax and super system is complex, highly fact-specific and constantly changing. While AI can be a useful starting point, relying on it for decisions can expose you to audits, penalties and poor financial outcomes. We’re increasingly seeing the clean-up work when AI advice goes wrong. Where AI Can Help (and Where it Can’t) AI is quite good at explaining basic concepts in plain English. It can help you understand what “negative gearing” means, outline the difference between concessional and non-concessional super contributions, or prompt you to think about record-keeping. Used this way, it can save time and help you ask better questions. The problem starts when AI moves from explaining concepts to giving “advice”. Tax and super outcomes depend on your specific facts: your income levels, business structure, age, residency status, assets, timing and future plans. AI does not know these details unless you provide them—and you generally shouldn’t. Even then, it cannot exercise judgement or balance competing risks the way an experienced adviser can. The Accuracy Risk: Confident, but Wrong AI tools are known to “hallucinate” – that is, provide answers that sound authoritative but are incorrect or incomplete. In practice, this can mean: Claiming deductions that don’t apply to your circumstances Miscalculating capital gains tax or ignoring integrity rules Suggesting super strategies that breach contribution caps or eligibility rules Quoting legislation, cases and rulings or concessions that don’t exist or are out of date. These errors are rarely obvious to a non-expert, but they are normally obvious to the ATO, courts and experienced advisers. A recent decision handed down by the Administrative Review Tribunal highlights some of the key problems. In Smith and Commissioner of Taxation [2026] ARTA 25 the taxpayer appeared to rely on AI tools to identify cases which supported their argument, but this approach was shot down by the Tribunal. Some of the cases didn’t exist and others were simply not relevant to the matter being considered. If the person using the AI tool doesn’t verify the existence of the cases provided by the tool and read them to ensure their relevance then “the Tribunal’s resources are being wasted, as the Tribunal must look for cases that don’t exist and read cases that have no relevance at all”. ATO Scrutiny is Increasing, not Decreasing The ATO isn't anti-AI—they use it internally for fraud detection and analytics. But for you? The ATO’s misinformation guide makes it clear that AI tools can provide false, inaccurate, incomplete or outdated information. The ATO’s message is to verify everything, or face the music. Surveys reveal 64% of businesses seek AI accounting help first, only for pros to unscramble the mess—wasting time and money. ATO AI transparency statement | Australian Taxation Office Protect yourself from misinformation and disinformation | Australian Taxation Office When something is wrong, the ATO will generally amend the return, charge interest and may apply penalties—even if the mistake came from AI advice rather than intent. We are seeing this play out most clearly with work-from-home claims, property deductions and SMSF compliance. Superannuation: High Stakes, Little Margin for Error Super is an area where AI advice can be particularly dangerous. Self-managed super funds, in particular, operate under strict rules. AI often overlooks key issues such as eligibility, timing, purpose tests and investment restrictions. The result can be non-compliance, forced unwinding of transactions and penalties that run into thousands of dollars. Super mistakes can also permanently damage your retirement savings. Data Security and Privacy There is also a practical risk many people overlook: entering personal or financial information into AI platforms. Once data is entered, you lose control over how it is stored or used. This creates privacy and fraud risks that are simply not worth taking. A Smarter Approach: AI Plus Professional Advice AI is best used as a support tool, not a decision-maker. It can help you understand the landscape, but important tax and super decisions should always be reviewed in light of your full circumstances. At our firm, we encourage clients to bring questions early, test ideas and have conversations before acting. That approach almost always costs less than fixing problems after the fact. The bottom line: AI can be a helpful assistant, but it is not your accountant. When it comes to protecting your wealth and staying compliant, tailored professional advice remains essential.