Key Takeaways
- • Tactical Super director Jacob Kewley warned SMSF auditors not to dismiss digital assets, despite them representing only about $3.3 billion, or 0.3 per cent, of total SMSF assets according to the ATO's SMSF statistics.
- • Kewley argued the risk sits at the individual fund level, where a single fund could be 95 per cent invested in crypto, making the sector-wide statistic irrelevant to signing off that fund.
- • Auditors should apply the existing Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to digital assets, rather than waiting for new digital asset-specific regulation.
- • Two key compliance checks were identified: confirming the trust deed permits digital asset investment, and verifying that any crypto was not acquired from a related party such as a fund member, which could breach section 66 of the Act.
Summary
SMSF auditors should not overlook digital assets because of their small share of the sector, according to audit practitioner Jacob Kewley, director of Tactical Super. Speaking at The Auditors Institute Auditors Day 2026 in Melbourne, Kewley said digital assets, listed at about $3.3 billion or 0.3 per cent of total SMSF assets in the ATO's SMSF statistics, were more likely to create problems for auditors than the headline figure suggests.
Kewley noted that property, unit trusts and listed investments are the largest problem areas in SMSF assets, with crypto near the bottom alongside collectables and loose precious stones. However, he cautioned that at the individual fund level, that 0.3 per cent is often concentrated and volatile. A fund could be 95 per cent invested in crypto, in which case the sector statistic would offer no help in signing off that fund. "The takeaway is this – the risk sits at fund level and it's an evidence problem for us," he said.
Kewley acknowledged that new guidance and regulations have been introduced for digital asset exchanges and investors, but said there was no new information for auditors, who already have explicit instructions. He pointed to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, which predates digital assets but still applies. "Our challenge is not about finding a body of regulation we can apply to the digital asset industry, it's about figuring out how we apply the act to the digital assets industry," he said.
He identified two key compliance areas. First, auditors should check the trust deed. Many modern deeds include a catch-all clause permitting investment in any asset lawful for the fund, but older deeds may not, meaning such funds cannot invest in digital assets at all. Second, auditors should examine how any crypto was acquired. If digital assets entered a fund during the year under audit from a related party, such as a member, this raises a question of how the transaction occurred and may constitute a contravention of section 66 of the Act.
Kewley noted that property, unit trusts and listed investments are the largest problem areas in SMSF assets, with crypto near the bottom alongside collectables and loose precious stones. However, he cautioned that at the individual fund level, that 0.3 per cent is often concentrated and volatile. A fund could be 95 per cent invested in crypto, in which case the sector statistic would offer no help in signing off that fund. "The takeaway is this – the risk sits at fund level and it's an evidence problem for us," he said.
Kewley acknowledged that new guidance and regulations have been introduced for digital asset exchanges and investors, but said there was no new information for auditors, who already have explicit instructions. He pointed to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, which predates digital assets but still applies. "Our challenge is not about finding a body of regulation we can apply to the digital asset industry, it's about figuring out how we apply the act to the digital assets industry," he said.
He identified two key compliance areas. First, auditors should check the trust deed. Many modern deeds include a catch-all clause permitting investment in any asset lawful for the fund, but older deeds may not, meaning such funds cannot invest in digital assets at all. Second, auditors should examine how any crypto was acquired. If digital assets entered a fund during the year under audit from a related party, such as a member, this raises a question of how the transaction occurred and may constitute a contravention of section 66 of the Act.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.