What your SMSF commercial property clients are getting wrong right now

She was wrong, and she had no idea a deadline was approaching.

Having helped over 3,300 Australian business owners, many of whom hold property through their SMSF, I've noticed that clients are not waiting for their accountant before forming a view on how Division 296 affects them. They're reading headlines, talking to each other, and arriving at conclusions – sometimes correct, more often incomplete, occasionally the wrong way around entirely.

That's why I wanted to share what those conclusions look like from where I sit, in case it's useful context for reaching out to clients who may not be planning to reach out to you.

The three misconceptions worth acting on

"I'm under $3 million so I don't need to do anything."

Business owners are calculating their own total superannuation balance and filing the issue away. From what I see, the calculation regularly misses industry super from earlier employment, or doesn't account for what a planned SMSF commercial property purchase will do to their position at the first assessment date. A client who has done this calculation and concluded they're fine may not be planning to revisit it. Some of them are wrong in ways they haven't thought to check.

"The cost base election will take care of it."

Awareness of the election has reached some clients, many of whom are broadly aware that something exists that can protect pre-commencement gains. What hasn't landed is what the election actually requires and when it requires it. Many assume it is automatic, or that it applies equally regardless of how the property is held within the SMSF, or that there is plenty of time because the form deadline is well into next year. If the valuation underpinning the election must reflect conditions at 30 June 2026, and that date is less than three months away. Clients who believe they have time to think about this later may find the window closing fast. I arrange several commercial property valuations each week, and from experience, lead times of up to six weeks are common.

"SMSF borrowing was almost banned – is it still worth pursuing?"

A meaningful number of business owners put SMSF commercial property plans on hold through 2025 on the belief that limited recourse borrowing arrangements were about to be prohibited. News reports show the Treasurer ruled this out after the election, but the belief shaped decisions that some clients haven't revisited. If you have clients who mentioned this and went quiet, the question may still be live.

The clients worth contacting now

Business owners with commercial property held directly in their SMSF and significant unrealised gains who have not been in touch since Division 296 passed. SMSF clients who raised the topic with you last year and did not follow up. Clients who you know were planning an SMSF commercial property purchase and appear to have stalled.

These clients are not necessarily in trouble. But some of them have reached conclusions without the full picture, and a few are running out of time to correct them before they matter. They are less likely to call you than you might expect, because from their perspective, they have already figured it out.

Nadine Connell is the author of The Premise Effect and a commercial finance expert, having helped over 3,300 Australian business owners and investors arrange in excess of $550 million in commercial funding. She is Founder and Director of Smart Business Plans, a specialist commercial finance brokerage operating nationally since 2009.