A sector specialist has reminded SMSF auditors evidence regarding property valuations needs to be within an indicative period of 30 June in order for them to be considered acceptable.
“[With regard to] comparable sales, we say three months either side of the [end of the] financial year [is acceptable]. It’s not been written anywhere that I’ve seen [in the ATO guidelines], but I have heard from people [who have had an] ATO audit that’s the [regulator’s] view,” Tactical Super director Deanne Firth told delegates at the Auditors Institute Auditors Day 2026 held in Sydney last week.
“So those comparable sales need to be within three months of each side of the end of the financial year because you are valuing [the property] at 30 June. So if you’ve got a valuation from November, it [would not reflect] the 30 June price.
“That would be like picking share prices in November for 30 June.”
Firth acknowledged sourcing this information could be a significant challenge with some assets and suggested if auditors cannot compile this type of evidence, they should include an explanation in the client file as to why they accepted the alternative valuation data outside of the three months either side of 30 June.
With reference to specific types of data gleaned, she confirmed kerbside valuations performed by real estate agents on their own are not considered sufficient evidence. However, she acknowledged they can still play a vital role, especially when compared to competing sources of information.
“I never had a problem with kerbside [valuations] from real estate agents. I feel like real estate agents who are independent of the fund and know the area are pretty spot on as to what they write on their kerbside valuation, whereas some of these AI (artificial intelligence) don’t know the areas,” she said.
“[For example], in Geelong there is a big difference Newtown and Corio in pricing, but the distance [between them] isn’t that great. So you can have some of those automated valuations throwing up completely wrong figures.”
