<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/consolidated-properties">Consolidated Properties Group</a> (CPG) is approaching the launch of its latest Brisbane riverfront development, Castile, on the dress circle Skyring Terrace in Newstead.

VIP buyers are now being engaged, with a full public sales launch coming later this year.

Positioned as the final opportunity to secure a new absolute riverfront residence on the East bank of Newstead, Teneriffe or New Farm, Castile at 47 Skyring Terrace has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/woods-bagot">Woods Bagot</a> as a timeless addition to the Brisbane skyline.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371113]

The name Castile draws on themes of permanence, sophistication and legacy, reflecting a broader vision centred on enduring architecture and timelessness in the rarest of riverfront positions.&nbsp;

CPG Chairman and CEO Don O’Rorke said the project had been envisioned as a future Brisbane icon.&nbsp;

“With 47 metres of direct river frontage and never to be built out views, 47 Skyring Terrace is the definitive address on the Brisbane River,” O’Rorke said.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371114]

“Rather than following trend-based apartment design, Castile draws inspiration from Brisbane’s great heritage buildings, reinterpreting classical architecture into a contemporary riverfront landmark designed to stand proudly for the next 100 years,” he said.&nbsp;

The approved development will comprise 227 apartments across a 25-storey tower alongside a boutique six-storey riverfront building of just 12 residences.&nbsp;

Construction is scheduled to commence in September 2026.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150489]

Joel Robinson

CPG unveils Castile Newstead ahead of upcoming sales launch

Australia’s online shopping habits have shifted dramatically over the last decade. As eCommerce volumes surged, so too did the frustrations that came with traditional parcel delivery: missed deliveries, long Post Office queues, parcel theft and the challenge of being home during business hours.

Australia Post’s Parcel Lockers emerged as one of the more practical responses to that changing consumer behaviour.

What started as a relatively niche delivery option has evolved into a nationwide network of more than 1,400 self-service Parcel Lockers positioned at train stations, shopping centres, supermarkets and Post Offices across the country. The system allows Australians to send, collect and return parcels 24 hours a day, fundamentally changing how many people interact with deliveries.

The appeal is relatively straightforward: flexibility.

Instead of waiting at home for a delivery driver or rushing to a Post Office before closing time, users can direct eligible parcels to a Parcel Locker location of their choice. Once the parcel arrives, Australia Post sends a notification with a collection code or QR access through the AusPost app, allowing customers to retrieve their package at any time within the collection window.

For apartment residents in particular, the system has become increasingly valuable.

Higher-density living has created logistical challenges around deliveries, especially in buildings without concierge services or secure parcel rooms. Missed deliveries are common, while parcel theft has become an increasing concern as online shopping volumes continue to rise.

Australia Post itself has repeatedly highlighted the growing issue of “porch pirates” during peak shopping periods, encouraging customers to use Parcel Lockers as a safer alternative to unattended home deliveries.

That security aspect is one of the key reasons the Australia Post Parcel Locker network has grown so rapidly.

Parcel Lockers are positioned as secure, monitored collection points that reduce the risk of theft while also improving delivery efficiency for Australia Post. Instead of multiple redelivery attempts, parcels can be consolidated into a single secure destination.

The Parcel Lockers themselves are free to use through a MyPost account and support a range of parcel sizes up to 16 kilograms and dimensions of approximately 35 x 44 x 61 centimetres.

Beyond receiving parcels, the system has increasingly become integrated into the broader eCommerce ecosystem.

Customers can now use Parcel Lockers to return online purchases, while retailers have embraced the model as a way to improve delivery success rates and reduce friction in the shopping process. Australia Post has actively expanded partnerships with major retailers and promoted Parcel Lockers as part of a broader out-of-home strategy.

The timing of that expansion aligns with broader changes in Australian shopping behaviour.

The acceleration of online retail during and after the pandemic placed enormous pressure on delivery infrastructure. Parcel volumes reached record highs, particularly during Black Friday and Christmas periods, with Australia Post delivering more than 100 million parcels during peak festive seasons.

That growth forced logistics providers to rethink the “last mile” of delivery, widely regarded as the most expensive and operationally difficult stage of the process.

Parcel Locker systems have increasingly been viewed as part of the long-term solution.

The concept itself is not unique to Australia. Parcel Locker networks have become common globally, particularly across Europe and Asia, where dense urban environments and apartment living create similar logistical challenges. But Australia’s geography and suburban sprawl made adoption slower initially.

Now, however, the convenience factor is driving mainstream usage.

For commuters, Parcel Lockers near train stations allow parcels to be collected on the way home from work. For apartment dwellers, they remove the uncertainty around access and missed deliveries.

The rise of the AusPost app has also streamlined the experience, centralising notifications, tracking and Parcel Locker access into a single platform. Australia Post has increasingly pushed customers toward app-based delivery management, partly as a way to combat phishing scams and fake delivery notifications, which have become more sophisticated in recent years.

The Parcel Locker model is also beginning to influence property development itself.

Parcel management has become a growing consideration in apartment building design, particularly as online shopping becomes embedded in everyday life. Many new residential developments are now incorporating dedicated parcel rooms or Parcel Locker systems into foyers and communal spaces.

For developers, parcel management is increasingly viewed as part of the broader resident amenity offering, alongside gyms, wellness spaces and communal work areas.

That reflects a wider evolution in how residential buildings are designed.

Apartment buyers are placing greater emphasis on convenience, security and operational functionality, particularly in higher-density urban environments. Parcel delivery, once considered a minor operational detail, has become an increasingly important part of that equation.

Australia Post’s Parcel Locker network sits at the centre of that behavioural shift.

What began as a simple alternative delivery option has evolved into a key piece of infrastructure supporting Australia’s growing eCommerce economy and changing urban lifestyles.

And as online shopping continues to expand, the role of Parcel Lockers is likely to become even more embedded in how Australians live, shop and receive goods.

How Australia Post Parcel Lockers changed parcel delivery convenience in Australia

Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Lanevick to cater for Hunters Hill downsizers with new Gladesville apartment development

Capital Gains Tax

<html><body>
Capital appreciation often forms a large part of the return on an investment property. In general, investors are liable to pay tax on that capital gain.
This is part of a series. To see Part 1, common misconceptions around capital gains tax, <a href="/expert-insights/finance/capital-gains-tax-explained-part-1-common-misconceptions">click here</a>. To see part 2, around capital gains tax payable on deceased estates, <a href="/expert-insights/finance/capital-gains-tax-explained-part-2-deceased-estates">click here</a>. 
The rules on when and how much tax applies are not straightforward, particularly when the investment property starts out as the owner’s primary residence, or becomes the owner’s home after having been rented out for a period of time.
“The fundamental principal is that a taxpayer’s main residence is exempt from CGT and that a taxpayer can only have one main residence,” says HLB Mann Judd director of tax Bill Nussbaum.
“Commonly, circumstances can change, especially when the main residence is also used for income producing purposes for certain periods of ownership. Such circumstances include absences from the property and renting out the property for the first time.”
Nussbaum prepared the following case study examples for Property Observer to illustrate the CGT outcomes in various situations. Each person’s circumstances are different and you should seek professional tax advice if you have questions on how CGT applies to your situation.
Primary residence becomes an investment property Absences &amp; the “Six Year Rule”
<ol start="2">
<li>The main residence home is rented out as the taxpayer is transferred to another city/overseas or decides to move to rented accommodation and keep the existing home. 
</li>
<li>Home therefore stops being a “main residence”. 
</li>
<li>The “Six Year Rule” allows the taxpayer to continue to treat the home as their main residence for a maximum period of six years (See Example 1) 
</li>
<li>If the taxpayer moves back into the property after having rented it out for some time and re-establishes it as the main residence, a further period of six years starts to run if the property is rented again in the future. 
</li>
<li>If the “Six Year Rule” is breached, as the property is rented for more than six years, then a partial exemption is applicable (See Example 2)</li>
</ol>
Special rules
<ol>
<li>In addition to the “Six Year Rule”, there is also a special rule for properties which first become income producing after August 20, 1996.</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2">
<li>The Special Rule relates to determining the cost base of the property. 
</li>
<li>The property is assumed for tax purposes to have been acquired at its market value when it was first rented out, rather than the actual purchase price.</li>
</ol>
Example 1: Dwelling first used to produce income – “Six Year Rule” On July 1, 1994 Bev paid $250,000 for a house that she used as her main residence until July 1, 2007, at which time its market value was $350,000. If Bev then rented the house until she sold it before July 1, 2013, she would still be able to claim a full CGT exemption by relying on the six-year extended exemption. She would not have to pay CGT on the sale proceeds.
Example 2: Dwelling first used to produce income – Breaching the “Six Year Rule” Following on from Example 1, if Bev continued to rent the house before selling it for $700,000 on July 1, 2014 (seven years after its first income use), she could only claim a partial exemption for CGT. In that case, the market value of the house at the time of its first income use ($350,000 on July 1, 2007) is used to determine the capital gain because the property first became income-producing after August 8, 1996. The capital gain in this case is $350,000 ($700,000 − $350,000 = $350,000). The taxable capital gain would be worked out (ignoring leap years) as follows:
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td width="14%">
$350,000 ×
</td>
<td width="85%">
 365 days  (non-main residence days) 2,555 days (days in deemed ownership period)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" width="100%">
= $50,000
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Since Bev has held the property for more than 12 months, a 50% CGT discount would apply. She would have to pay CGT at her marginal tax rate on $25,000 (ie 50% of the $50,000 capital gain).
Investment property becomes a main residence
Only a partial main residence exemption is available if a property is initially rented out as an investment and then becomes the taxpayer’s main residence for part of the ownership period. If the residence is used as a rental property initially, the overall capital gain on eventual disposal is reduced via a pro rata apportionment by reference to the period the taxpayer used the property as their main residence, as explained in Example 3.
Example 3: Former investment property- now main residence
Lisa acquired a dwelling on October 19, 2008 which she let out to tenants until October 21, 2011. From that date she used the dwelling as her main residence. Lisa eventually sold the dwelling on September 7, 2013 and made a capital gain of $40,000, calculated without regard to the CGT exemption provisions. The capital gain is reduced pro rata by reference to the period Lisa used the dwelling as her main residence. The reduced capital gain is:
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td width="12%">
$40,000 ×
</td>
<td width="88%">
1,098 (number of days from October 19, 2008 to October 21, 2011) 1,785 (number of days of Lisa’s ownership)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" width="100%">
= $24,605
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
As Lisa has owned the property for more than 12 months, she would be entitled to the CGT discount and would have to pay tax on $12,302.50 (50% of $24,605).
Do you have any queries about CGT? Email <a href="mailto:news@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">news@propertyobserver.com.au</a>
</body></html>

zfielding-GvX3Uq9KTa

Capital gains tax explained, Part 3: Investment property appreciation

<html><body>
HLB Mann Judd director of tax Bill Nussbaum spoke to Zoe Fielding about the rules that apply to capital gains tax (CGT) on deceased estates.

This is a continuation from Part 1: <a href="/expert-insights/finance/capital-gains-tax-explained-part-1-common-misconceptions">Common misconceptions around capital gains tax</a>.

“There are no death duties in Australia and a main residence property acquired from a deceased estate is generally not subject to CGT,” says HLB Mann Judd director of tax Bill Nussbaum. “However there are some important rules to consider to ensure the CGT exempt status is not lost.”

Pre-CGT Property 

Capital gains tax was introduced on September 20, 1985. Nussbaum says that if the deceased person acquired the main residence on or before September 19, 1985, the following rules apply:

<ol>
<li>The property is CGT exempt if it is sold within two years of deceased’s death. 
	 </li>
	<li>It is still CGT exempt if sold after  two years, providing the following tests are met:
	<ul>
<li>The property was not used to produce income (rented out)</li>
		<li>It was the main residence of the person inheriting the property, for example the deceased’s spouse or an individual having a right of occupancy the property under the will.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
</ol>
[smartcode_project:default project_id=7633]

Post-CGT Property

If the deceased person bought their main residence after September 19, 1985, stricter tests apply to determine whether gains on the sale of the property will be subject to CGT.

All conditions noted above must be satisfied. In addition, the property must have been the deceased person’s main residence just before their death and not used to produce assessable income at that time.

Investment properties of the deceased

Generally, no CGT is payable on the transfer of a property to a beneficiary under a will. CGT will be applicable when the property is eventually sold by the beneficiary. The cost base is calculated as follows:

<ul>
<li>For pre-CGT investments properties the cost base is calculated based on the market value of the property at the deceased date of death. </li>
	<li>For post-CGT investment properties the cost base is calculated based on the deceased’s original cost.</li>
	<li>The 50% CGT discount also applies to the sale of inherited properties that have been held for more than 12 months. </li>
</ul>
To read the third part of this series, Investment property appreciation, <a href="/expert-insights/finance/capital-gains-tax-explained-part-3-investment-property-appreciation">click here.</a>
</body></html>

Capital gains tax explained, Part 2: Deceased estates

<html><body>
Questions on capital gains tax on investment property were among the top five queries to financial advisers during this month’s Financial Planning Week, the Financial Planning Association says.
Australians’ love of residential property and the favourable tax treatment of investments in real estate mean capital gains tax is on many people’s radars, explained Stephan Strategic Certified Financial Planner, Joe Stephan.
“People are happy to reduce tax now through strategies such as negative gearing but eventually there will be a capital gain and there will be tax to pay,” said Stephan, who lectured on taxation at La Trobe University.
Capital gains tax (CGT) can be confusing, particularly if the property was purchased before September 21, 1999 when the rules were simplified.
There are variations in the way the tax is applied depending on the situation. For example, CGT paid on investments held inside superannuation is different from CGT paid on assets held by an individual.
“It’s also tied with timing,” Stephan says. “How long you hold an asset determines how much you pay.”
A common misconception about CGT is that it is charged at a flat rate. That’s not the case, said Stephan.
“The amount paid depends on your marginal tax rate and that depends on the income you generate,” he added.
This means it can be tax effective to time the disposal of an asset so that the sale goes through in a year when the person’s taxable income will be lower.
“Sometimes people like to wait until they are getting towards retirements and start taking an income stream from their private pension so they don’t have to pay any income tax. Then their capital gain is assessable at a lower tax rate,” Stephan said.
CGT was introduced in 1985, so the sale proceeds of properties that were bought before then are not subject to the tax.
The CGT discount was introduced on 21 September, 1999. This is a 50% discount that applies to the capital gain made on assets bought since that date if they have been held for more than one year, Stephan explained.
Most people understand there is no CGT to pay on the sale of the family home, said Stephan, but many people are confused by the special rules that apply to other properties, such as an inherited home.
“You don’t have to pay CGT on inherited property unless you sell it. The cost base might change and not be the purchase price but you don’t pay CGT until the property is sold,” Stephan said.
Different rules apply when people turn their home into a rental property or move into a property that was formerly an investment. Stephan warns that some mortgages do not allow the property to be converted into an investment. For simplicity, some people like to sell up and buy another similar property rather than converting the property’s use.
This is the first in a series of three articles explaining CGT. To see Part 2: Deceased estates, <a href="/expert-insights/finance/capital-gains-tax-explained-part-2-deceased-estates">click here</a>. To see Part 3: Investment property appreciation, <a href="/expert-insights/finance/capital-gains-tax-explained-part-3-investment-property-appreciation">click here</a>. 
</body></html>

Capital gains tax explained, Part 1: Common misconceptions

<html><body>
The Australian Taxation Office has been monitoring the impacts of offshore capital on local developer’s decisions to sell out.
The ATO’s Deputy Commissioner Tim Dyce advised recently the tax office had begun auditing property developers ­carrying out activities which conflict with their stated purpose of capital investment.
“A growing number of property developers are using trusts to suggest a development is a capital asset to generate rental income and claim the 50% capital gains discount,” Dyce was reported as telling the Australian Financial Review.
Developers need to be careful when seeking the 50% discount on any capital gain on the sale of property which they had held for development and not as a long-term investment.
The developer will have to prove to the tax office the true intention of the property, making sure there was never any marketing for a development or that there were never any internal minutes documenting an intention to develop.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

ATO warn developers over capital gains tax

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Husband and wives often regard themselves as jointly owning the assets each possesses. "What's mine is yours" and vice versa. In a happy relationship, that's all well and good, but unfortunately, the tax law can intervene to take some of the shine off such scenarios.
In a recent case before the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT), a husband inherited 200 Telstra shares and 1,315 Commonwealth Bank shares from his father's estate. He transferred the shares into the names of himself and his wife to reflect his wife – who he considered at all times as a joint owner of the shares – as an owner of these shares.
However, the transfer of the shares to joint names produced a capital gain of over $19,000 which was included in his tax return for the 2013 tax year. Under the tax law, the share transfer caused a "CGT event" to occur.
The AAT confirmed the husband was liable for CGT (capital gains tax) on the transaction. It did so on the basis of finding that the taxpayer had disposed of a 50% interest in his shares and that this triggered CGT event A1. After the transfer, the husband and wife were treated by the system of taxing capital gains as each owned a 50% share of each of those shares, and before the transfer the husband was recognised as the sole owner of those shares. As a result, the husband was assessable on the capital gain made on the transfer.
The husband argued he and his wife regarded themselves as joint owners of all that they collectively owned. He believed from the outset that, in equity and morally, the shares transferred were owned "jointly". He also claimed he did not make any capital gain because he had not received anything and if he knew he would be subject to tax on the transfer, he would not have transferred the shares. All a very neat logical argument, but unfortunately the tax law does not operate that way.
The tribunal said it might well be, "and in some cases understandably so", that partners to a marriage or a marriage-like relationship regard his or her assets as "our assets". And it might also be the case for family law purposes, regarding the practical effect of ownership of assets by individual partners to those relationships.
But the AAT said Australian income tax law does not recognise these sorts of joint asset ownership arrangements. The transfer of the shares fell squarely within the terms of CGT event A1 (a disposal of an asset) and shares were clearly a CGT asset.
The tax law as applied to the facts in this case could only result in the outcome found by the AAT.
However, the AAT took the opportunity to issue a salutary caution: "Unless there is reason to do otherwise, partners to a marriage or marriage-like relationship who hold the assumption that his or her assets are our assets, would be well advised to continue with that assumption, without taking the step of formalising any joint ownership arrangements, as there will be a taxing point if they do if the transferred assets have increased in value".
To a seasoned tax practitioner, this might be Tax 101, but it is not difficult to appreciate that the views held by the husband and wife in this case, unversed in the ways of the tax law, might indeed be held by many in the community. In this case, their tax agent properly ascertained the situation and correctly lodged the tax returns.   
Terry Hayes is the editor-in-chief of tax news reporting at <a href="https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/">Thomson Reuters</a>, a leading Australian provider of tax, accounting and legal information solutions.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

thayes-XhNcNKLNWa

Husband and wife, sharing and caring, until tax law do us part

<html><body>
Hi Margaret
My father has owned his 150 acre property since the '60s. He subdivided the land into three 50 acre blocks in the '90s, but he still owned all three blocks. He lives on one block and is intending to pass a vacant block into my name so I can build my home on it. All blocks are used for a farming business, however he has no taxable income. He is registered for GST.
There is no way to avoid the capital gains tax (CGT) when he places it in my name is there? 
Do you know roughly how much he will have to pay? The CGT calculators don't make sense to me. Even if I do not pay for the block, it is worth about $800,000. The three blocks were purchased for $60,000 in the 60s so the one would have been $20,000.
Many thanks,
Alan from WA
Margaret's answer on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Hi Alan,
As you father owned the block in the pre CGT days, this block is still a pre-CGT asset. Subdividing the one pre-CGT asset into three does not changed the pre-CGT status and subdividing does not result in capital gain or capital loss. 
Although your father will make a capital gain when he sells (or passes title of) the block to you, the date he acquired the block is considered to be the date that he acquired the original parcel of land, and the cost base of the original land is divided between the subdivided blocks on a reasonable basis. Therefore there is not CGT for your father to pay at all.
More importantly for you is considering how you will receive this block of land, and in what entity.  If you plan to live there then it may become your principal place of residence, and later if you sell there may be CGT consequences from the date you acquired the land in your name. This is because any part of the land over five acres attracts capital gains tax and cannot use the principal place of residence exemption. 
If you are going to conduct a farm then it could be considered business real property, or the part where the farm is conducted could be. It’s worth considering potentially using a self-managed superannuation structure, as business real property can be transferred into super even if it has initially been given to you.
In any event, my advice is for you to seek quality accounting advice before the transfer takes place. This will allow you to ensure that the right structures are in place from the outset.
Kind regards
Margaret
Have a property question? <a href="mailto:askmargaret@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

mlomas-KC9MUPZ6Ca

My father subdivided a property he's owned since the '60s, does he have to pay CGT?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Under the capital gains tax laws, taxpayers can be entitled to small business capital gains tax concessions which can, depending on the circumstances, either reduce or eliminate any capital gain made. <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/tax/34073-capital-gains-tax-get-your-house-in-order" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">The concessions</a> are very beneficial to small businesses, but are unfortunately complex (much more so than they should be).
One of the tests in the law that a taxpayer needs to meet is what is called the maximum net asset value test. This test is whether in the year in question, the concession can be claimed if the value of its net assets did not exceed $5 million. It sounds straightforward, but it isn’t. Under the test, the net value of CGT assets of entities “connected with” the taxpayer is required to be taken into account for purposes of maximum net asset value test. It is the meaning of “connected with” that recently brought a taxpayer undone before the Federal Court.
The taxpayer was a company that made a capital gain of just over $1 million in selling its 50% interest in a car wash business in the 2007-08 income year. It did not return the gain as assessable income but instead claimed that it was entitled to apply the CGT small business concessions. The company claimed that in calculating its taxable amount, it was entitled to rely on a statutory concession in the tax law on the basis that the value of its CGT assets did not exceed $5 million.
However, the Tax Commissioner issued an amended assessment to include the gain on the basis that the taxpayer failed the (then) $5 million MNAV test. At first instance, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had to decide whether sole director and controller of the company (Mr Roberts), could exclude from the MNAV his interest in a Queensland property, which had been rented for much of the previous seven years, but which at the time of the sale of the carwash had been taken off the rental market and had intended to be once again used as his and his wife's holiday home.
Also at issue was whether the wife's CGT assets, including her interest in the Queensland property, were to be taken into account on the basis of her being either a connected entity and/or a "CGT small business affiliate" of the taxpayer company.
In its decision, the AAT dismissed the argument that the 50% interest of the husband in the Queensland property should be disregarded. However, it held that the wife's CGT assets, including her 50% interest in the holiday home, were not to be counted in applying the MNAV test because she was not connected with the taxpayer company as she did not own any shares in it. It then found that although she was a "CGT small business affiliate" of the controller of the taxpayer company (her husband) by virtue of being his wife, she was not a CGT small business affiliate of the taxpayer company as required by the relevant law in order for her CGT assets to be included. The Tax Commissioner appealed.
The Commissioner argued that in applying the relevant provision, the tribunal ought to have included, but did not include, the value of the assets of Mrs Roberts in the calculation of the value of the company’s assets before the sale of the car wash.
The Commissioner contended that the tribunal erroneously limited its enquiry into whether Mrs Roberts herself beneficially owned shares in the company that carried the right to control the exercise of at least 40% of the voting power, whereas the tribunal ought to have considered whether Mrs Roberts’ small business CGT affiliate (her husband) owned shares in the company that carried between them the right to control the exercise of at least 40% of the voting power.
The Federal Court said the covering words in the relevant provisions of the tax law contemplated three bases upon which to determine the relevant connection between the company and another entity (in this case the wife). The court said the tribunal concluded that the relevant provision did not apply because the wife was not connected with the company although her husband was.
The tribunal did not, however, consider (but should have) whether the wife was deemed to be connected with the company by the same law which required that her connection be determined also by reference to her small business CGT affiliate (in this case, her husband) or together with her small business CGT affiliate (in this case, together with her husband).
The case highlights the inherent complexities in what should really be a relatively straightforward tax concession.
The small business CGT concessions are valuable to any SME and can result in significant tax savings. However, any SME contemplating claiming the concessions would be very well advised to seek professional advice. This is one piece of tax law that is crying out for simplification.
Terry Hayes is the editor-in-chief of tax news reporting at <a href="https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/" target="_blank">Thomson Reuters</a>, a leading Australian provider of tax, accounting and legal information solutions.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

Beneficial but tricky capital gains tax concessions explained

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Our federal budget is due to be delivered on Tuesday 13 May, 2014 and we are being repeatedly told that there has to be significant cuts to expenditure. Our state budgets will be delivered soon after that date.
In essence it is time for governments to deliver something which is new and helpful to maintain and increase housing stock, but at the same time does not simply drive housing prices higher. This definitely rules out changes to negative gearing as its removal would simply reduce investor activity and available housing stock.
There are two outcomes in our housing markets that are needed:
1. Ensure there is an increase in Australian citizen investment in new housing stock; and
2. Increase the number of first home owners in the market.
The first, in my view, is a state issue
Most of us will have family or friends who have been trying to buy a home and failed because they have been out bid by a cashed-up foreign buyer. One has to ask whether foreign buyers should have equal rights as Australian citizens. I suspect not. That is not to say that foreign buyers are not necessary in our markets, rather they are simply investing in a low risk, very attractive country and for that benefit they should have to pay some type of premium.
Altering our land tax regime would enable us to charge this premium from foreign investors and potentially decrease their activity without necessarily decreasing supply of new stock. This can be done by increasing the land tax payable by non-Australian citizens who own property in our country and at the same time, decrease the rate of land tax charged on property owned by Australian citizens, with all property purchased in the future and currently held, being subjected to these changes. Obviously, the amount of these alterations will need to be modelled and the changes would need to be phased in.
The consequence is clear. Foreign investment activity would be marginally reduced (depending on the altered tax rate applicable to them) and the lower tax rates for Australian citizens should cause increased investment activity by this group. It should also mean that the first home owner may have a better chance of competing when buying.
The second, in my view, is a federal government matter
The first home owner has been forced out of the market simply as a consequence of rising house prices and the consequent level of income needed to support a home loan.
In essence we need to organise things so this group – and everyone buying a property to live in – has adequate cash flow to meet the high home loan repayments. This will particularly be the case when interest rates increase in the medium term.
A relatively simple change to the capital gains tax (CGT) legislation is required.
This change would allow home owners to claim interest deductions on their home loan repayments where they elect to be subject to normal capital gains tax on the profit they make on any future sale of the property. In essence they exchange the right to have their home exempt from capital gains tax in exchange for the right to immediately reduce their taxable income by the interest they are paying on their home loan.
Being brutally honest given the government’s current budget problems they should simply just phase in the removal of the capital gains tax exemption on the family home all together and automatically provide first home owners who buy a new home with the right to claim interest deductions. Politically this might be better for government than altering pension rights and health benefits etc.
Allowing buyers to elect to claim interest as a deduction would mean an improved annual cash flow which will help to make housing more affordable. What is the cash benefit? Well assume someone has a loan of $400,000 and has a tax rate of 22% then the annual benefit at current interest rates would be in the order of $5,000 per annum or roughly about $100 per week.
The impact of this proposal on borrowers as interest rates increase should also not be overlooked. That is, deductibility means that interest rate increases will not have as large a negative impact on our first home owner as they would otherwise. As interest rates increase their deductions increase and their tax liability is reduced. Hence as interest rates rise, defaults on home loans are likely to also be lower.
There needs to be some detailed modelling to work out a progressive phasing in and potentially define a percentage of the interest cost on the home loan that would be allowed to be deductible. Once this is done then a reasonably solid estimate of the cost to the federal budget could be identified.
From any logical perspective, a combination of subjecting all of our owner occupied housing to a form of capital gains tax and allowing our first home owners to access interest tax deductions, does have merit. And provided it is structured in a manner which does not drive housing prices higher, it will also make housing affordable for the next generation.
The negative which could be seen as a benefit by some, is that it would encourage home owners to limit their trading activity in their own home. That is, a home owner would potentially be less inclined to use their home as trading stock and instead use it as a mechanism for wealth generation by buying with the intent of selling following renovation.
In the short-term we are going to be asked to accept some difficult decisions and perhaps the above, implemented carefully by government could potentially soften the perceived blow.
John Edwards is consulting analyst for <a href="https://www.onthehouse.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Onthehouse.com.au</a> and founder of <a href="https://www.residex.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Residex</a>.
</body></html>

jedwards-8kHM8GNY6d

Two brave budget decisions that would benefit tomorrow’s generation

<html><body>
Hi Margaret,
Just a query on capital gains tax (CGT).
Our principle place of residence is currently on the market to sell, and once it does we would like to buy another property.
However the kind of property we would like to buy next as a primary residence is at this point out of our price range.
What we would like to do is climb the property ladder by doing a quick reno then selling.
Is there a required time frame for us to live in this property to be exempt from CGT?
Regards, 
Grace
Margaret's answer on the next page. Please click below.
 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Hi Grace,
As long as you live in a property and do not claim another property as your principal place of residence (PPOR) during that time, then there is no set period of time in which you must live in a property in  order to avoid capital gains tax (CGT). 
The CGT exemption applies to any residential property in which we live and claim the principal place of residence upon. The requirements to claim this exemption are that you live in the property and it is your primary place of residence, and that you have no other primary place of residence.
If you kept buying properties, lived in them and did a renovation, and then sold them quickly, doing it again and again in short periods of time, you may place yourself in the situation where the tax office would consider that you are in fact in the business of property renovation and may disallow the exemption. Under such circumstances it is more likely that they would also see the gains you made as income and tax you accordingly, rather than apply capital gains tax.
If you are genuinely moving in in order to climb the property ladder for your personal circumstances only, rather than looking to make more and more profit from renovations and using the PPOR exemption rule simply to avoid tax, then it won't matter how long you live there, the exemption should apply.
Kind regards, 
Margaret
Have a property question?  <a href="mailto:askmargaret@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

Moving up the property ladder via renovating and selling: But do I need to pay capital gains tax?

<html><body>
Capital gain, or the amount you manage to sell the property for, minus what you paid for it, is a taxable income.
The tax you pay on this extra earning is referred to as capital gains tax, or CGT, and is part of your income tax and must be declared on your tax return.
CGT was brought in on 20 September 1985, and anything purchased since this time is subject to the tax, unless they’re specifically excluded. Specific exclusions include your home and car, and most of your personal use assets, according to the ATO. This includes items such as furniture.
“CGT also doesn’t apply to depreciating assets used solely for taxable purposes, such as business equipment or fittings in a rental property,” they explain.
However, shares, real estate and other assets and investments are the most common things hit up for tax.
The family home
If you move out of the home, for up to six years, you may still find yourself exempt from capital gains tax. If you rent out a room in your PPOR, you may find yourself up for a portion of the tax.
If you haven’t owned the property for a whole year, then there is another outcome. <a href="/expert-insights/finance/do-i-have-to-pay-capital-gains-tax-on-land-i-havent-owned-for-a-year-ask-margaret">Margaret Lomas explains to one investor what tax they’ll be incurring</a> in this Q&amp;A article. 
Keeping records
You must keep records proving the acquisition date (when you bought the property), and how much you purchased it for. You should also keep records about the sale, and when it became transferred into another person’s name. Be aware of lurking too close to the end of financial year – you may find that this changes your plans to minimise CGT.
Speak to your accountant before selling any asset. This is important, as often it is the date on the contract, not settlement date, which can be some months later, that the ATO will look at.
Read<a href="/expert-insights/finance/nine-tax-tips-for-property-investors"> these nine tax tips, from Ken Raiss</a>, for more information on preparing yourself for tax time. 
How much will you have to pay?
There are three ways to work out CGT – the indexation method, the discount method and the ‘other’ method. These three methods apply in different situations, as <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/In-detail/Guides/Guide-to-capital-gains-tax-2012-13/?anchor=Capital_gains_calculation_methods#Capital_gains_calculation_methods" target="_blank">outlined by the ATO</a>. Property and shares held for more than 12 months are entitled to a 50% CGT discount.
A capital loss, or the amount that you perhaps lose on a property compared to what you purchased it for, can offset a capital gain and reduce tax. Savvy accountants may suggest that you sell a loss-making asset in the same year as one of your best growing properties, if you’re looking to offload both, to help bring down the tax you pay. Capital losses can be carried forward, but not backward.
If you’re looking to work out how much capital gains tax you have payable, then we have a free calculator online (that doesn’t keep your details) that will quickly calculate what you will need to give to the government.
The length of ownership can heavily affect CGT. Guest observer <a href="/expert-insights/finance/understanding-capital-gains-tax-terry-hayes">Terry Hayes describes more about understanding CGT in this article</a>.
Incorrectly stating or <a href="/expert-insights/finance/landlords-should-take-care-not-to-get-caught-out-by-the-taxman">wrongly outlining your capital gains and related information to the ATO could land you in severely hot water</a>, so it's worth having an accountant give your information a good look.
</body></html>

Capital Gains Tax

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Capital Gains Tax

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News