SMSFs are held to high standards of compliance with the sole purpose test and provisions to deal with conflicts of interest encompassing all aspects of related party dealings. Today’s article in Investor Daily clearly indicates that APRA funds are not treated similarly. Over $400m was spent on marketing and sponsorships in 2023 including significant payments to unions and sporting clubs by some industry funds.

Far be it from me to judge long standing practices. My focus is directed elsewhere. The most egregious aspect of the Div 296 tax bill is its assessment of unrealised gains. This treatment is simply wrong. It is as wrong for APRA members as it is for SMSF members. This approach is entirely due to APRA funds being unable, without system changes, to report at a member level. My question is simply this – Why can’t a small portion of the APRA funds’ marketing and sponsorship budgets be applied to system changes that will actually be beneficial to members?