According to a statement, the board suggested that some of those incorrect SARs may be “perhaps fraudulently recorded”.
The review is part of a compliance campaign from the ATO that began last year.
The ATO found that 74 practitioners representing 106 funds have lodged annual returns for the 2017 financial year with an incorrect SAN and failed to satisfactorily respond to ATO inquiries.
The regulator subsequently referred the matter to the TPB, which has then been undertaking a review of registered tax practitioners believed to have provided false information to the Commissioner of Taxation.
TPB chair Ian Klug said the board will be demanding an explanation from all 74 tax practitioners.
“SMSF trustees rely on their superannuation savings to fund their retirement. The Australian government relies on regulators like the TPB, the ATO and tax practitioners to ensure that these funds are properly managed,” Mr Klug said.
“Misconduct or failure to adequately respond to the TPB’s inquiries is a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct and may result in imposition of sanctions including suspension or termination of registration.”
There would be more than 74, probably more like 174.
The important words here are – maybe and .. perhaps…..
I suggest the regulator should determine exactly what are the circumstances and then make an announcement.
[quote=Anonymous]SMSF Annual Report (SAR)
SMSF Auditor Number (SAN)[/quote]
Name the 74.
I have used eSAT to report EVERY fund I have audited ever since eSAT began. I believed it was for this express purpose – checking SAN’s against SAR’s – and that we ALL had to use it as Reg’d SMSF Auditors. Now they’re saying that’s not what has been happening? Is that right? Are all you SMSF Auditors using eSAT or is it just some of us?
Perhaps the TPB should publish the names of these practitioners just as ASIC do for auditors that are investigated.
Vertically integrated administration / audit businesses;distrbuted businesses & audit job swapping amongst fims all lack independence.
Add in TAs who lodge before the audits are completed, un-enforced lodgement programmes & it all adds up to compliance model that has failed.
It is time for an overhaul. Strict enforcement/regulation of audit independence & lodgement
Agree 100%. I never understood why in the corporate world an auditor was limited in relation to the provision of additional service whereas in the SMSF landscape administration & accounting firms like Deloitte, More Superannuation & Seamless SMSF can prepare the accounts and associated businesses undertake the audit. Surely independence is lacking.
Name & shame
SAR or SAN as it is in the headline? Which is it? And what is an SAR?
SMSF Annual Report (SAR)
SMSF Auditor Number (SAN)
Ok, so now we have Tax Practitioners lodging fraudulent claims, bet the press don’t jump all over this like that do with Finacial Planners. They have been doing this for 100 years but of course, the authorities and their associations are just turning a blind eye to this, makes the word “Professional” look pretty stupid
The real number may be higher, the ATO sent a list in excel of audited funds to each auditor. I know of some auditors who audit a very large number of funds who noted the amount of work involved to check this list against their own clients would take ages and therefore did not bother. You can say that this is lazy but the risk is not on the auditor where a tax agent or trustees uses their number incorrectly. Perhaps in the future to streamline the process auditors should be able to report the funds audited directly to the ATO via Esat for example? Then hopefully the ATO can simply data match.
Agree there must be some way in this digital age where the auditor can digitally sign or generate a randomised encrypted lodgement code that must be included on the SAR that authenticates the date of audit & the auditor identity.
Hmm, sounds like a blockchain solution
Totally agree. The number would be higher I know of 3 brisbane firms including a second tier firm that lodge returns prior to audit
I don’t do it, but can certainly understand the motivation to do it given the ATO’s penalty regime.
If clear false information reported and fraud proven this should be a lifetime ban.