The SMSF Association’s 2026 Technical Summit was held at the Sydney Masonic Centre on 29-30 July 2026. It was built for advisers, accountants, auditors and SMSF specialists, but the policy themes matter for trustees too.
The headline message was simple: SMSF policy should target the conduct that causes harm, not the SMSF structure itself.
That matters because the sector is absorbing several large changes at once. Division 296 commenced on 1 July 2026. The residential LRBA change commences on 10 August 2026. The CSLR funding debate is still unresolved. And the minimum-balance debate has been challenged with new data about where small rollovers actually go.
This article translates the summit’s trustee-relevant themes into plain English: what may affect the way your fund is managed, what your adviser may now be modelling, and which questions are worth asking before the next major SMSF decision.
For the broader rule changes that started on 1 July, see What Changed for SMSFs on 1 July 2026. For the detailed Division 296 mechanics, see Division 296 Tax: What SMSF Trustees Need to Know.
Key Takeaways
- The SMSF Association’s 2026 Technical Summit was held in Sydney on 29-30 July 2026 and focused heavily on evidence-based SMSF policy.
- Division 296 is making account equalisation more important for couples where one member’s balance is well above $3 million and the other member’s balance is below it.
- The SMSF Association’s published summary, citing BGL data, indicates many small rollovers are consolidation into established SMSFs, not necessarily new low-balance fund setups.
- The CSLR FY2026-27 revised levy estimate has increased to $198.1 million, with $190.3 million attributed to personal financial advice.
- The residential LRBA ban commences on 10 August 2026, but business real property LRBAs remain available where the rules are met.
- Related-party LRBA loan terms should be reviewed for 2026-27, especially where real property safe harbour rates are relevant.
The summit’s core message for SMSF policy
SMSF Association CEO Peter Burgess opened the summit with the theme later published by the Association as “Policy must target harm, not limit choice”.
The context is a sector under pressure from several directions. The Government has restricted new residential property borrowing through SMSFs. Treasury has consulted on reforms connected to Shield, First Guardian and CSLR sustainability. Industry funds have pushed for stronger safeguards around low-balance SMSF switching. And Division 296 now applies to members with total super balances above the large super balance threshold.
Burgess’s argument was not that consumer harm should be ignored. It was that policy should focus on the behaviours that cause harm: poor advice, conflicted remuneration, high-pressure sales tactics and lead-generation models that push people into inappropriate decisions.
For trustees, the practical takeaway is that SMSF rules are not just technical housekeeping. They are being shaped by a policy debate about whether the problem is the structure itself, or the misconduct that sometimes surrounds it.
Division 296 and account equalisation
Division 296 is now live for the 2026-27 financial year. The ATO says the first notices of assessment will issue in the second half of 2027-28, after funds report relevant earnings information for 2026-27.
One summit theme was how Division 296 revives a strategy many couples previously treated as low priority: account equalisation.
Account equalisation is the process of using permitted contribution, splitting, pension and withdrawal strategies over time to reduce extreme differences between spouses’ super balances. The aim is not to “move money around” casually. It is to avoid one member sitting disproportionately above the Division 296 threshold while the other member remains well below it.
The most straightforward tool is spouse contribution splitting. Eligible concessional contributions from the previous financial year can be transferred to a spouse’s super account, subject to limits, age rules and the fund’s trust deed. The annual amounts are modest, but over time they can support a broader equalisation plan.
Other strategies, such as contribution allocation or withdraw-and-recontribute arrangements, depend heavily on age, preservation status, contribution caps, tax components and cash flow. They should be modelled before anyone acts.
How account equalisation can change Division 296 outcomes
Division 296 is assessed to the individual member, not to the couple and not to the SMSF as a whole. That means two couples with the same total super can have different Division 296 outcomes if the balances are split differently.
Here is a simplified example.
| Scenario | Member A | Member B | Simplified Division 296 outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uneven balances | $4,000,000 | $1,500,000 | Member A has 25% of their balance above $3 million, so a proportion of their relevant earnings may attract Division 296 tax |
| More even balances | $2,750,000 | $2,750,000 | Both members are below the $3 million threshold for 2026-27 in this simplified example |
Assume Member A has $4 million and $280,000 of relevant super earnings. One quarter of the balance is above the $3 million threshold. On a simplified proportional basis, $70,000 of earnings is attributable to the amount above the threshold. At 15%, that is $10,500 of Division 296 tax.
Member B, with $1.5 million, has no Division 296 exposure in the same year.
If the same $5.5 million pool were split evenly at $2.75 million each, neither member would exceed the 2026-27 $3 million threshold in this simplified example.
This does not mean trustees should withdraw or recontribute money just to chase a tax outcome. It does mean couples with uneven balances should ask for modelling early. Equalisation usually works incrementally across financial years, and the earlier the discussion starts, the more room there may be to use ordinary contribution and pension rules properly.
This example is general information only. It ignores other super interests, timing, losses, contributions, withdrawals, pensions, tax components, reporting rules and future threshold indexation.
Small SMSF rollovers and the minimum balance debate
The minimum-balance debate also featured strongly. The Super Members Council has argued for stronger safeguards where members switch from large super funds into SMSFs and platforms with balances that may be too small to justify the cost and complexity.
The SMSF Association pushed back using data from BGL, one of the largest SMSF administration software providers. According to the Association’s published post-summit summary, around 80% of low-balance rollovers under $100,000 were made to SMSFs with existing balances of $200,000 or more, with a median receiving fund balance above $450,000.
That distinction matters. A $40,000 rollover into a newly established $40,000 SMSF is a very different event from a $40,000 rollover into an existing $550,000 SMSF.
| Policy concern | Data point cited at the summit | Trustee relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Small rollovers may indicate poor switching decisions | Around 80% of low-balance rollovers under $100,000 went to SMSFs with existing balances of $200,000 or more | Many small rollovers may be consolidation into established funds |
| Low balances can make SMSF costs harder to justify | Median receiving fund balance was above $450,000 | Receiving-fund context matters more than the rollover amount alone |
| A minimum balance could protect vulnerable switchers | SMSF Association argues the focus should be poor advice and harmful sales conduct | Trustees should still test the fund’s actual cost ratio and purpose |
No legal minimum SMSF balance has been announced. The policy question remains whether safeguards should target the balance itself, the advice process, or the misconduct that causes unsuitable switching.
For the earlier debate and cost-ratio context, see SMSF Minimum Balance: What the Industry Super Push Means for Trustees.
CSLR, Shield and First Guardian
The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort remains one of the most sensitive policy issues for SMSF trustees and advisers.
The CSLR’s published FY2026-27 revised levy estimate is now $198.1 million, up from the initial $137.5 million estimate. The personal financial advice component is $190.3 million. CSLR says the increase is largely attributable to the final cohort of Dixon Advisory claims and the first tranche of claims associated with Shield and First Guardian.
Treasury’s Shield and First Guardian member-protection consultation closed on 22 May 2026. As at publication, no final Government response has been announced.
The SMSF Association’s position is that SMSF trustees should not be made to fund harm caused by advisers, licensees and product failures merely because many affected investors used SMSFs.
For trustees, the practical issue is not just whether a direct levy ever arrives. CSLR costs can also affect advice practices, advice fees and the way advisers assess product due diligence. If you use an adviser, ask how they are managing licensee, product and compensation risk in their advice process.
For deeper background, see CSLR SMSF Levy: The Compensation Problem Facing Australian Trustees.
Residential LRBA ban and business real property
The summit also returned to the residential LRBA ban.
The law has passed. Schedule 5 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026 commences on 10 August 2026. From that date, a new LRBA for real property will generally need the asset to be business real property, unless a transition carve-out applies.
Existing residential LRBAs entered into before commencement can be carved out. Certain refinancing and pre-commencement acquisitions can also be carved out. SMSFs can still buy residential property outright with fund cash, because the change targets the borrowing exception rather than residential property ownership itself.
Business real property remains the key borrowing pathway. A fund may still be able to borrow to acquire business premises, such as a warehouse, office, workshop, medical suite or retail premises, if the property qualifies as business real property and all other SMSF rules are met.
That is not a green light to rush. The lease needs to be documented on arm’s length terms. The fund’s investment strategy needs to support the asset. Related-party dealings need care. If a related-party LRBA is used, the fund should review the safe harbour terms in ATO PCG 2016/5, including the interest rate setting for the relevant year.
For the full change, see SMSF Residential Property Borrowing Banned: What Trustees Need to Know and the SMSF Property Guide.
What trustees should do next
The summit was for professionals, but the follow-up questions are very much trustee questions.
| Summit theme | Trustee action |
|---|---|
| Division 296 | If either member is near or above $3 million, ask for member-level modelling before making contribution, pension or withdrawal decisions |
| Account equalisation | For couples with uneven balances, ask whether spouse contribution splitting or other permitted strategies should be reviewed across multiple years |
| Small rollovers | If consolidating old super accounts, document why the rollover suits the existing fund and check insurance before closing any old account |
| CSLR | Monitor the Government’s response and ask advisers how they assess product, platform and licensee risk |
| Residential LRBAs | Confirm whether any real-property borrowing arrangement is grandfathered, transitional or limited to business real property |
| Related-party LRBAs | Review loan terms against current safe harbour settings and keep the review with the fund records |
None of these steps requires panic. They do require better documentation and earlier conversations with the professionals who help administer or advise on the fund.
Get the weekly SMSF update from Super Informed. Compliance changes, ATO focus areas, and one practical action per issue. Subscribe free
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the SMSF Association Technical Summit 2026?
It was the SMSF Association’s 2026 technical event for SMSF professionals, held at the Sydney Masonic Centre on 29-30 July 2026. The Association’s published post-summit message focused on evidence-based policy, consumer harm, Division 296, small rollover data, CSLR pressure and residential LRBA restrictions.
What did the SMSF Association say about small SMSF rollovers?
The Association’s published summary cited BGL data indicating that, in most cases, low-balance rollovers under $100,000 went into SMSFs with existing balances of $200,000 or more, with the median receiving fund balance above $450,000. Its argument is that many small rollovers are consolidation into established funds, not new low-balance setups.
Does Division 296 tax unrealised gains?
No. The enacted Division 296 design is based on relevant super earnings reported to the ATO and does not use the original unrealised-gains model proposed in 2023. The tax is still assessed personally to the member and applies proportionally to earnings linked to balances above the relevant threshold.
Can couples reduce Division 296 tax by equalising super balances?
Potentially, but only through permitted strategies and over time. Because Division 296 is assessed at individual member level, a couple with uneven balances may face a different outcome from a couple with the same total super spread more evenly. Whether any strategy is appropriate depends on preservation rules, caps, tax components, age and advice.
What is the CSLR FY2026-27 revised levy estimate?
The CSLR’s published FY2026-27 revised levy estimate is $198.1 million, up from the initial estimate of $137.5 million. The personal financial advice component is $190.3 million.
Will SMSF trustees have to pay a CSLR levy?
No final decision has been announced. Treasury consulted on CSLR sustainability and member protection reforms in April-May 2026, and the SMSF Association opposes shifting adviser and licensee failure costs onto SMSF trustees.
When does the residential LRBA ban start?
Schedule 5 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026 commences on 10 August 2026. Existing and some pre-commencement arrangements can be carved out, but new real property LRBAs generally need to involve business real property after commencement.
Can an SMSF still buy business premises after the LRBA change?
Yes, if the property qualifies as business real property and the fund satisfies the usual acquisition, leasing, LRBA, related party and arm’s length rules. The 2026 change targets residential property borrowing, not compliant business real property arrangements.