If enacted, from July 2019, some SMSFs may qualify for the three-year audit cycle. This change would lead to a domino effect of new struggles and new solutions.
Everyone in the industry is discussing this proposed change to the audit cycle.
The 2018-19 Federal Budget includes the three-year SMSF audit proposal. The idea is to reward SMSFs that have kept good records and a history of compliance. Instead of getting audited annually, these SMSFs would go on a three-year auditing cycle.
According to the Treasury, this would reduce the amount of red tape that SMSF trustees have to deal with. However, the changes to the auditing industry would be significant.
What consequences will SMSFs and auditors have to deal with if the proposal passes? How will it alter established auditing practices?
Let’s look at the particulars.
This proposal goes into effect from 1 July 2019 if passed. For the moment, we don’t know the exact audit year it would apply to and whether there would be transitional arrangements.
It’s not clear yet how many SMSFs would be able to switch to three-year audit cycles. The criteria are:
The consultation period for the proposal ended on 31st August 2018. That being said, the Treasury received substantial feedback on the proposal from those within the industry.
In theory, SMSF trustees would have lower administrative costs as a result. There is a chance that the delays in SAR submissions would go down. The main goal is to ease the compliance burden on SMSFs.
This proposed change seems to be at odds with some new regulations.
The introduction of TBARs and event-based reporting has had significant benefits so far. The industry is now moving to more real-time processing. This allows for greater transparency and oversight. Some speculate that the three-year audit cycle would cause this oversight to plummet.
The Treasury’s proposal is also in contrast to the main takeaways from the ASIC Report 575 SMSFs: Improving the Quality of Advice and Member Experience.
Now, let’s look at the main consequences for SMSF members, accountants, and auditors.
The industry will change in various ways if the proposal passes. None of these changes are beneficial to auditors. Most of them will have a negative impact on the SMSFs as well.
This proposal would make it more difficult for auditors to conduct comprehensive and accurate audits. Three-year-old data would be considerably harder to track down.
Some institutions may not maintain old data. In some cases, the SMSF may have used multiple accounts or software packages during a three-year period. This can make accessing reliable data more challenging and may present hurdles when trying to access supporting documentation. Auditors will also have far more data to analyse. This means that the time necessary to complete an audit will increase.
Currently, auditors have a steady workflow and increasingly better access to more timely data.But the three-year audit cycle will undo these benefits. As audits become less frequent, the workflow will fluctuate a great deal. Furthermore, the cycle will case issues with data and document access. It may also have an impact on how knowledgeable an auditor is in regards to their client and their circumstances.
Many audit firms will have to make changes in staff and workflow. The structure of the industry will change. Since the number of businesses specializing in SMSF auditing will go down, the fees are likely to increase. The increased workload will also have an effect on fees.
At the moment, trustees rely on auditors for guidance as well as oversight. In many cases, non-compliance happens by accident.
In the absence of yearly audits, some SMSFs may opt for regular ‘health checks’. In other words, they would hire auditors to do a high-level review at the end of each year.
This health check would be less comprehensive than the audit at the end of the three-year cycle. But could still be the best option for SMSFs that want to avoid accidental non-compliance.
Note that the check-ups would be an additional cost for the trustees. Between that and the increased auditing fees, it’s not likely that SMSFs will actually save on administrative costs in the long term.
The longer timeframe may make it considerably more difficult to rectify non-compliance issues. When problems stay undetected for a long time, SMSF trustees have to pay higher penalties.
As discussed above, SMSFs would self-determine whether they qualify for the three-year audit cycle.
For now, there are no guidelines for monitoring this. The key events that reset the cycle might go unnoticed. Trustees might have to deal with extra penalties and complexity if they misjudge their eligibility.
There’s still speculation over who will handle the timing of these audits in practice – the auditor, the trustee, or the ATO?
This is one of the main sources of ongoing discussions. Who will assume the burden of determining exactly when the audit will take place?
As the cycle changes, auditors and accountants will need software updates to accommodate the changes and their new workflows. There will be changes in both cloud audit and administration software. This adds further cost to the broader SMSF industry.
Additionally, there has to be a learning period for the new software, implementation of integrations and designing new workflows. This makes the end of the first three-year cycle especially chaotic.
With triple the amount of data to audit and increasing complexity, you can’t avoid automation.
There are some other ways that automation can make auditing more cost-efficient. With these solutions, it may be possible to keep workflow at a manageable level. Cloud-based software integrations and new automation tools will make it easier to manage the altered workflow. The software industry will adapt to create packages that support auditors and accountants. These solutions will likely involve the use of new workflow models. These will ensure the automation and collaboration benefits still get delivered under the new framework.
The health checks mentioned above would maintain the active relationship between auditors and their clients and would provide a new way to continue providing guidance to SMSF trustees.
Businesses that focus on SMSFs have had to go through significant changes lately.
With this proposal, the changes would be self-contradictory. SMSFs are still subject to increased oversight in the form of event based reporting. But with longer audit cycles, this oversight becomes more diluted. The consequences for non-compliance would be more severe with the delay.
Most auditors hope that this proposal will never pass. But if it does, there are ways to adapt to the change.
For the moment, the best way to prepare is to start improving your productivity. Find solutions that offer streamlined access to documentation and accurate data. In particular, you must look for a solution that integrates well with other cloud-based solutions.
If you want to learn about the ways automation can make your work easier, contact us at Cloudoffis.