Hi all,

I viewed the recent SMSFAAA seminar with the ATO representative on valuations etc with the expected groaning and cursing. No longer accepted stand alone are kerbside valuations, rental yield, even information off real estate sites. I grow tired of copping it from my clients. I just received this after telling the accountant the valuation evidence provided was insufficient:

"I appreciate your position as the auditor so my following comments are not directed at you, but rather the ATO. I get frustrated with all this because I end up spending so much time on compliance issues rather than getting the actual accounting work done and for things that don’t actually make a material or even tax difference. Especially when a fund is in accumulation phase. "

He was being polite. He has every reason to feel frustrated. I have lost so much work because accountants have found a "more sympathetic" auditor. The ATO seems to have auditors as their primary target, to the point where many ACR are barely acted on. We are the ones who have to deal with (understandably) irate advisors and explain why their clients need to go to such lengths. I have no doubt retail/industry funds are loving this, hoping trustees throw their hands up and roll SMSF's back into their entities. Why, when it affects nothing but the funds value, can a trustee not use a reasonable estimate on the same information a valuer would use? No property sells for its valuation, so having a valuation is about as accurate as the now unacceptable methods.

I apologise for the rant, but I'm pretty sure I am not alone in this.

Matt