‘Tens of thousands’ of SMSFs at risk with ECPI
The Actuaries Institute has addressed the ATO with significant concerns about a recent interpretation related to exempt current pension income (ECPI), fearing many SMSFs will make incorrect claims as a result.

In a letter to the tax office, copying in minister for revenue and financial services Kelly O’Dwyer, the institute referred to the ATO’s recently confirmed view that if an SMSF was fully in pension phase for any part of a tax year, it cannot use the unsegregated method for all of its assets for the whole of that tax year.
Rather than having a choice over whether to segregate certain assets to support pension liabilities, this interpretation assumes assets are ‘deemed’ to be segregated at a point in time if the fund’s only superannuation liabilities are in respect of account based type pensions, the letter said.
“This will force many funds to use two different methods, the segregated and unsegregated methods, to claim ECPI in the same income year, adding administrative complexity. The Actuaries Institute is concerned that this interpretation is at odds with long standing industry practice, potentially putting tens of thousands of funds at risk of claiming ECPI incorrectly,” the letter said.
“We also believe that the ATO’s interpretation does not reflect the policy intent and will add significantly to the compliance costs of funds claiming ECPI with no clear gain to tax revenues.”
The institute has recommended the ATO re-considers its position to allow long standing administrative practices to continue.
“If the ATO believes there is no alternative interpretation than their current view we request clarification be sought from Treasury and that, if necessary, the legislation be amended to match established practice,” the institute said.
“Given the uncertainty this is causing in the industry, we also recommend that the ATO clarifies that it will not be requiring funds to comply with this new interpretation for the 2017 and 2018 income years.”
Speaking to SMSF Adviser, general manager of Accurium, Doug McBirnie, said he hopes this latest lobbying effort will pave the wave for a quick resolution.
“We are very pleased to see the Actuaries Institute address this issue with the ATO on behalf of the SMSF industry. The ATO’s recent guidance on this has put actuarial certificate providers in a difficult position and created uncertainty for SMSF practitioners and their clients,” he said.
KATARINA TAURIAN
13 Jul 2017
www.smsfadviser.com
Latest eNewsletters
Hot Issues
- Super versus trusts: What is the best option with Div 296?
- Thinking of establishing an SMSF? Don’t skip reading the rules
- Investment and economic outlook, February 2026
- Coercive control in SMSF becoming a hot issue
- Are downsizer contributions losing steam?
- What to look for when choosing a financial adviser
- AI use needed with proper safeguards
- Most Reliable Car Brands in 2026
- ASIC targeting high-pressure sales and inappropriate advice
- Investment and economic outlook, January 2026
- Australians not underspending their super
- Five financial steps for the new year
- ASIC warns investors on pump and dump scammers
- Don’t confuse contribution with roll-over when using proceeds from small business sale
- Missed SG exemption may not be problem
- Rare and vanishing: Animals That May Go Extinct Soon
- It’s super hump month. Make the most of it
- Three timeless investing lessons from Warren Buffett
- 2026 outlook: Economic upside, stock market downside
- Care needed with ceased legacy pensions
- What had the biggest impact on the sector in 2025?
- What does 2026 look like in the SMSF sector?
- It’s not just Div 296 that could face changes in 2026
- Which country produces the most electricity annually?
- AI exuberance: Economic upside, stock market downside
- Becoming a member of an SMSF is easy, but there are other things that need to be considered

