The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Joel Robinson

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

<html><body>
There’s no doubt that depreciation can make a <a href="/guides/property-depreciation-continues-to-maximise-cash-flow">significant difference </a>to any investor’s cash flow, but how does it work? 

What is property depreciation?

As a property gets older, its structure and assets wear out – they depreciate. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) permits owners of income-producing properties to claim this depreciation as a tax deduction.

What can be claimed?

Depreciation is claimed under two categories, capital works and plant and equipment. 

Capital works deductions are claimed on the building’s structure and any permanently fixed assets. Common assets that are claimed under capital works include driveways, walls, basins and roofs. 

Plant and equipment deductions are claimed on assets that are considered to be easily removable or mechanical in nature. Some common examples of plant and equipment assets include air-conditioning units, blinds, hot water systems and flooring. 

How is depreciation calculated? 

<a href="/guides/how-to-invest-in-property-in-2020-the-ultimate-guide">Property investors</a> can claim capital works deductions at a rate of 2.5 per cent for up to forty years. Capital works deductions generally make up an average of 85 to 90 per cent of a total depreciation claim. 

Depreciation for plant and equipment assets differs from depreciation of capital works. These assets are generally depreciated based on their effective life through the diminishing value or prime cost method. 

The diminishing value method is the most commonly used method of depreciation for plant and equipment assets. Under this method, depreciation deductions are calculated as a percentage of the asset’s depreciable balance. This results in higher deductions in the earlier years of ownership. 

Alternatively, the prime cost method calculates depreciation as a percentage of the cost. When the prime cost method is used, deductions are not as high in initial years but are spread out over time and produce a more even claim each financial year. 

Claiming depreciation with the low-value pool or immediate write-off

Depreciation deductions on plant and equipment assets can be claimed sooner through the low-value pool or as an immediate write-off. 

The low-value pool allows qualifying assets to be depreciated at an accelerated rate. Assets in the pool can be claimed at a rate of 18% in the first year, and 37.5% each following year. 

There are two different ways that an asset can qualify for a low-value pool:

<ul>
<li>
Low-cost asset: Is a depreciable asset with an opening value of less than $1,000. </li>
	<li>
Low-value asset: Is a depreciable asset that has a written down value of less than $1,000. This means the asset’s value was more than $1,000 in the year of acquisition but the residual value of depreciation is now less than $1,000.</li>
</ul>
The immediate write-off is also available for eligible low-cost assets. For individual residential investors, qualifying assets that cost $300 or less can be claimed as an immediate write-off. 

Depreciation and renovations 

Significant depreciation deductions can be claimed before and after a renovation has been completed on an <a href="/guides/looking-to-buy-an-investment-property-top-3-things-you-must-do-online-first">investment property</a>. 

A process called scrapping allows property owners to claim deductions for the un-deducted value of removed assets in the year they were removed. To take advantage of scrapping, a depreciation schedule must be arranged both before and after the renovation takes place. 

How does property tax depreciation boost cash flow?

Property depreciation is a non-cash deduction that essentially reduces a property owner’s taxable income. This means they pay less tax each financial year without paying for any additional costs. 

To claim depreciation, a tax depreciation schedule completed by a specialist quantity surveyor is essential.

Estimating depreciation deductions before buying an investment property

Owning an investment property is a balancing act of income and expenses. When deciding whether to <a href="/new-apartments">buy an investment property,</a> investors should consider obtaining a depreciation estimate of the property they are looking to buy. 
</body></html>

Investor’s Guide to Residential Property Depreciation 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr famously observed in 1927 that “taxes are what we pay for civilised society, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USSC/1927/178">including the chance to insure</a>”.
Whilst tax as a price for civilised society is well understood, less appreciated is the second part of his observation – that tax provides a chance to insure against a crisis.
As nations emerge from the COVID-19 crisis with policies unthinkable just six months ago, and associated debts previously unimaginable, it is becoming clear that while some were well insured and able to respond rapidly, most were underinsured, exposing their civilisations to previously unthinkable risks.
In many ways Australia is an exemplar in its use of taxation to provide the “chance to insure”. It funds Medicare; the Pharmaceuticals Benefit Scheme; the Higher Education Loan Program; the Superannuation Guarantee Charge and contingency-based welfare payments.
COVID has exposed the weakness in our system
COVID-19 has exposed how underinsured Australia is in other ways. It will have to borrow heavily to protect the economy, but for many years won’t be able to impose the extra taxes that will be needed to pay down the debt.
Introducing new taxes or increasing existing tax rates would threaten what will be a fragile recovery.
The only realistic option is to review what Australia gives away, such as <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-01/complete_tbvs_web.pdf">tax concessions,</a> and what it fails to collect, as measured by the so-called <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Tax-gap/Australian-tax-gaps-overview/">tax gap</a>.
The tax gap is the difference between the amount the Tax Office collects and what we would have collected if every taxpayer was fully compliant with tax law.
In 2016-17, the Commonwealth raised <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5506.0">A$389 billion</a> in taxes, intentionally gave away an estimated <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2019-357183">$166 billion</a> and unintentionally failed to collect a further <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Tax-gap/Australian-tax-gaps-overview/?anchor=Summaryfindings#Summaryfindings">$30-35 billion</a> that the Tax Office knows of.
Mapping out a pathway to winding back government debt and funding programs to better insure our civilised society has to begin with ensuring those who are not currently carrying their fair share of the legislated tax burden do so through reforms to reduce non-compliance.
Many of us aren’t paying the tax we should
The Tax Office conservatively estimates that non-compliance for the taxes it has so far examined is equivalent to more than <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Tax-gap/Australian-tax-gaps-overview/?anchor=Summaryfindings#Summaryfindings">8%</a> of the tax revenue it collected in 2015-16.
The Treasury also estimates that tax concessions in 2017-18 were equivalent to <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-01/complete_tbvs_web.pdf">41%</a> of Commonwealth government revenue, or more than 9% of GDP (although it cautions against adding estimates together as reducing one concession can affect the use of others).
Given the scale of the Commonwealth response to COVID-19, the government will need additional tax revenues of around 2.5% of GDP (about $50 billion) for some years.
This should not prove insurmountable. In comparison with other advanced economies, Australia is a relative low taxer with a total tax burden of 28.6% of GDP in 2017-18, well below the OECD average of about 34.5%.
There’s revenue going begging
The tax gap estimates show billions can be raised from integrity measures such as addressing overclaimed work-related expenses ($3 billion), unreported cash wages ($1 billion) unreported rental property net income ($2 billion) and unreported business income ($2-3 billion).
There’s much more available from reducing tax concessions, removing the personal tax-free threshold, winding back retirement savings concessions, and broadening the goods and service tax (especially from fully taxing the food that is already partially taxed).
Lower income groups affected by the changes should be compensated by improved targeting of expenditure programs.
Right now we’ve a near-universal welfare system and a targeted tax system.
The way out of our present problems is to make the tax system more universal and the welfare system more targeted.
New taxes and higher rates should be resisted, especially if made more palatable by more concessions.
What we are proposing would not only result in a tax system that was simpler and harder to escape – but one that was capable of funding the insurance we will need to preserve our society into the future
There’s no reason to think there won’t be another pandemic exposing the weaknesses in our tax system that remain.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137232/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neil-warren-278638">Neil Warren</a>, Emeritus Professor of Taxation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414">UNSW</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-highfield-1049892">Richard Highfield</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/post-coronavirus-well-need-a-working-tax-system-not-more-taxes-and-not-higher-rates-137232">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Post-coronavirus, we'll need a working tax system, not more taxes and higher rates

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Discussions about Australia’s retirement income system typically begin by reciting the political slogan that there are “three pillars” to the system — the age pension, compulsory super, and voluntary savings.
It was the way the Abbott and Turnbull government’s <a href="https://slideplayer.com/slide/4872297/" target="_blank">tax inquiry</a> looked at retirement incomes, and a frame of reference used by this government’s <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/c2019-36292-v2.pdf" target="_blank">retirement income system review</a>.
Missing is discussion of what makes something a “retirement pillar”.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313028/original/file-20200131-41495-b580y4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313028/original/file-20200131-41495-b580y4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://slideplayer.com/slide/4872297/" target="_blank">Treasury tax white paper slideshow, 2015</a>
It’s possible to think of other retirement pillars. Moving to India for a cheap lifestyle would be one.
Requiring retailers to <a href="https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/2020/01/the-easiest-retirement-system-retiree" target="_blank">provide the elderly free goods and services</a>, with the cost absorbed in the prices paid by others could be another.
To be a pillar, something would have to allocate goods and services in retirement to people who are no longer earning wages.
In my <a href="https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/scrap-superannuation" target="_blank">recently released report</a> I argue that superannuation fails this test.
Super isn’t a retirement pillar
Among other things, super can be spent many years before retirement, beginning anywhere from age <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/Paying-benefits/Preservation-of-super/" target="_blank">55 to 60</a>, even though the retirement age specified the pension legislation is <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/age-pension/who-can-get-it" target="_blank">66 to 67</a>.
Many financial planners advise intending retirees to spend a lot of their super quickly in order to shelter it in income-test-exempt assets <a href="https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/finance/property/how-upsizing-protects-your-pension" target="_blank">such as housing</a> and qualify for the pension.
The super system also can’t guarantee retirement incomes for people who are self-employed, casually employed, homemakers, have chosen their super fund unwisely or lost the proceeds in things such as online romance scams.
As a system, super comes with unnecessary financial risks, such as suddenly losing 21% of its funds, as happened between September 2007 and March 2009 during the global financial crisis.
It is better thought of as a growth-sapping, resource-wasting, tax-advantaged asset purchase scheme aimed at the already wealthy, which is <a href="https://theconversation.com/myth-busted-boosting-super-would-cost-the-budget-more-than-it-saved-on-age-pensions-119002" target="_blank">unlikely to do much</a> to reduce reliance on the age pension.
We would be better off abandoning it and letting workers spend or save their money as they see fit.
The super system is inefficient
The superannuation system employs <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry-trends/market-research-reports/financial-insurance-services/superannuation-funds" target="_blank">55,000 people</a> at a cost of <a href="https://www.selectingsuper.com.au/superannuation-fees-fall-for-the-first-time-in-six-years" target="_blank">A$32 billion</a> per year to produce <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/quarterly-superannuation-statistics" target="_blank">$40 billion</a> per year in retirement incomes. This is nearly as many people as the enlisted Australian Defence Force (58,000) with a similar total cost ($34 billion).
The rest of Australia’s entire welfare system, including administering the age pension, disability, unemployment benefits and Medicare, costs just $6 billion per year and employs <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018/10/8802-1810-annual-report-web-2017-2018.pdf" target="_blank">33,000 people</a>, while providing <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018/10/8802-1810-annual-report-web-2017-2018.pdf">$45 billion</a> in pension benefits.
It directs money where it isn’t needed...
Each year the superannuation system takes in <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/quarterly-superannuation-statistics" target="_blank">$117 billion</a> and spits out <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/Quarterly%20Superannuation%20Performance%20Statistics%20September%202019_0.pdf" target="_blank">$80 billion</a> in payments (including lump sum withdrawals), leaving $38 billion in asset markets, sapping spending and economic growth. That’s roughly as much as the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/saving-the-nation-20090203-7wsb" target="_blank">$40 billion</a> stimulus package introduced during the 2009 financial crisis. Unlike it, the super system depresses rather than stimulates the economy.
Unlike the super system, the age pension system is likely to stimulate the economy because it takes purchasing power away from high-income taxpayers with a relatively low likelihood of spending extra dollars to to lower-income pensioners with a high likelihood of spending them.
…and away from those who do need it
Unlike the age pension system, the super system can’t provide poverty relief, or broadly adequate retirement incomes.
For the bottom 40% of earners it does the opposite of smoothing income, making them poorer than they would have been while working, and somewhat <a href="https://theconversation.com/super-shock-more-compulsory-super-would-make-middle-australia-poorer-not-richer-120002">richer</a> than they would have been while on the pension and retired.
The <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2020-51153" target="_blank">$18 billion</a> of tax breaks on super fund contributions and <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2020-51153" target="_blank">$20 billion</a> of tax breaks on super fund earnings are predominately directed to <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/programs-and-initiatives-superannuation/distributional-analysis-of-superannuation-taxation-concessions" target="_blank">high income earners</a>.
In a comprehensive study released this week the Grattan Institute has demolished the claim that super contributions come out of employers pockets. Instead it finds that, on average, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/no-free-lunch/" target="_blank">80%</a> of each super contribution comes out of what would have been wages.
Here’s how to escape it
Scrapping the system altogether would massively improve Australia’s economic performance, including the performance of our only true retirement income system, which is the age pension.
It can be done by forcing employers to pay what are now super contributions directly into wage accounts and allowing super fund holders to withdraw up to a maximum amount each year during a transition period, after which all super balances would receive no special tax treatment.
The tens of billions saved in the budget could be used to enhance the size and scope of the age pension. It could incorporate <a href="https://theconversation.com/fall-in-ageing-australians-home-ownership-rates-looms-as-seismic-shock-for-housing-policy-120651" target="_blank">appropriate rent assistance</a> and begin at age 60 instead of 67.
It’s possible. Certainly, there would be job losses, but in other industries we have come to accept that there is no point in continuing to pay people to do things that aren’t needed, and especially no point in making those payments compulsory.
It’d be one of the best things we could do to enhance the working of our economy.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130191/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cameron-murray-172480" target="_blank">Cameron Murray</a>, Research Fellow - Henry Halloran Trust, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/superannuation-isnt-a-retirement-income-system-we-should-scrap-it-130191" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Superannuation isn't a retirement income system, we should scrap it: Cameron Murray

<html><body>
The exiled Chinese billionaire Huang Xiangmo has accused the Australian Tax Office of being a "political weapon" that was surrendering to "unknown dark forces".
He said the Tax Office had been "reduced to a despicable tool of political persecution".
He questioned whether "Australian politicians and media outlets who bank on telling tales about China and the Chinese [are] any different from the White Supremacists or the McCarthyites".
The property developer is fighting a $140 million tax bill by resisting a court order to disclose his worldwide assets which the ATO seeks to freeze.
The Tax Office is seeking to bankrupt the Chinese billionaire.
The <a href="https://www.huangxiangmo.com/" target="_blank" data-track-relatedarticle="inarticlelink">statement</a> was published on his personal website.
Huang, a central figure in the ICAC's ongoing inquiry into the alleged Aldi plastic bag NSW Labor donations, has resided in Hong Kong since his Australian permanent residency visa was cancelled last December.
"Before my visa was unfairly revoked by ASIO, [the] ATO had not once brought up the large amount of tax payable as alleged in the case," Huang said.
"By taking advantage of its tax collection power for the purpose of political character assassination and persecution, the ATO has turned into a 'political weapon'."
Huang said accusations of him of being a Chinese "agent of influence" came without "even a hair of evidence for such allegation".
The bulk of the tax bill was attributed to the sale of a mansion in Hong Kong, which was said to give rise to a capital gains tax liability.
On Monday, the Federal Court continued the freezing order.
It ordered Mr Huang to disclose his worldwide assets within 21 days.
The ICAC is investigating allegations Huang made a $100,000 cash donation to the NSW Labor Party in 2015.
Huang was banned from making political donations in NSW under laws targeting property developers.
He has declined to give evidence by video to the ICAC but denied making the donation.
Huang said he had an "impeccable" tax record in Australia and had "never ... had any history of default anywhere, let alone any record of tax evasion".
Earlier this year two Australian Chinese-language papers devoted their front pages to an open letter backing exiled billionaire property developer after his permanent residency was cancelled for reasons including character grounds in early February.
It says the Morrison government's decision to cancel Huang's residency was outrageous and calls for it to be overturned.
The letter appears to be a paid ad.
</body></html>

Exiled billionaire Huang Xiangmo brands Australian Tax Office a 'despicable tool of political persecution'

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
Inheritances can have an enormous impact on finances and lives.
Yet in Australia we know surprisingly little about who gets them and how big they are.
New <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/generation-gap/" target="_blank">Grattan Institute research</a> provides some answers.
Inheritances are big and growing
A sample of estates from Victoria’s probate office suggests the median estate in Victoria is worth around A$500,000. That’s likely to be close to what it is Australia-wide.
But many are much larger. About 20% are worth more than A$1 million, and 7% are more than A$2 million. Property is the largest component, accounting for about half of the average value.
The main beneficiaries of “final” estates (estates without a surviving spouse) are children, who receive about three-quarters of all inheritance money.
Other family members, such as nieces, nephews and grandchildren, receive about 20%. Friends get about 4%, and charities 2%.
Average inheritances are growing about two percentage points faster than inflation each year, which is a good deal faster than wages or gross domestic product.
There are reasons to believe they will soon grow even faster.
Net wealth has grown strongly among older households. Households headed by people aged over 75 now have an average of A$1 million in assets, up from A$400,000 for a household headed by a person of the same age in 1994.
And most retirees <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">don’t draw down</a> on their savings.
Indeed, many are net savers through much of their retirement, meaning there’s only one place their accumulated property and superannuation wealth can go: into bequests.
Inheritances are going to the already old…
These days, inheritances generally don’t arrive when people are saving for a house or trying to raise a young family.
More than 80% of money passed down from parents goes to people aged 50 and over.
The most common age bracket in which people to receive an inheritance from parents is 55-59.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2019/8/20/INHERTANCE%201.png" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/8/20/INHERTANCE%201.png" alt="">
It’s the result of good news – parents are living longer.
But as life expectancy grows still further, it will mean inheritances increasingly supplement the retirement savings of middle-aged Australians rather than help young people get into housing.
…and the already wealthy
The wealthiest 20% of Australians get 38% of inheritance money; the poorest 20% get only 8%.
It means the growing wealth of Baby Boomers is likely to end up concentrated in the hands of a select group relatively well-off Generation Xers and Millennials rather than being widely spread.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2019/8/20/INHERITANCE%202.png" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/8/20/INHERITANCE%202.png" alt="">
It will reinforce the advantages already enjoyed by people with well-off parents, including better schooling, better connections, and a greater ability to take financial risks because of a parental safety net.
If (as is possible) inheritances end up becoming the dominant route to wealth in Australia surpassing lifetime earnings, there will be less incentive for ordinary Australians to attempt to get ahead through individual endeavour.
We will have entered what French economist Thomas Piketty calls a “<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-pikettys-inequality-theory-explains-mr-darcys-wealth" target="_blank">Jane Austen world</a>”.
We don’t tax inheritances…
Calm debate on policy setting around inheritances is <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/death-and-taxes/" target="_blank">hard to come by</a> in Australia.
Inheritances and gifts have been tax-free since the 1970s.
Australia is one of only <a href="https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV" target="_blank">seven</a> OECD countries without any inheritance, estate, or gift taxes. Despite the economic arguments for inheritance taxes, there seems to be little appetite to bring them back.
…if anything, we subsidise them
Not taxing inheritances is one thing, but actively subsidising them is another.
Superannuation tax breaks were intended to encourage people to save for their retirement and to take pressure off the age pension system.
But given that many retired Australians <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">do not draw down on their capital</a>, a large part of the super tax concessions simply boosts the size of bequests.
Super death benefits tax is intended to claw back the superannuation tax breaks when the money is passed on, in order to ensure that the government doesn’t subsidise inheritances.
But, at 15%, the rate is too low to capture the value of the accumulated tax breaks. And it can easily be avoided by retirees withdrawing funds tax-free and then contributing them back as a post-tax contribution, which is tax-free when passed on.
The special treatment of the family home in the age pension means test also acts to boost inheritances at taxpayers’ expense. Without it there would less to pass on.
It’s time to claw some of them back
There is little justification for taxpayers subsidising inheritances. Policy changes could help.
We recommend a higher tax on super bequests paid to non-dependents to better capture the value of the super tax breaks that are passed on rather than used for retirement. The cap on post-tax super contributions should also be lowered, to limit the re-contribution strategies.
The age pension assets test should include part of the value of the family home, perhaps the part above A$500,000. Seniors with higher-value properties should be allowed to borrow against their home using the Pension Loans Scheme.
This would give them the ability to stay in their home but would mean that some of the wealth that would otherwise be passed to heirs (most likely in their 50s) would instead be used to fund them, taking pressure off the pension.
Owain Emslie, Associate, Grattan Institute 
Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutional Reform, Grattan Institute.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rethink-inheritances-these-days-they-no-longer-help-the-young-they-go-to-the-already-middle-aged-122029" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Rethink inheritances. These days they no longer help the young, they go to the already middle-aged

<html><body>
Retailers faced yet another period of weak demand and declining retail spending over the March quarter of 2019, according to Deloitte Access Economics’ latest quarterly Retail Forecasts report.
The report found however, it may not be all doom and gloom for the sector, with some relief expected in the second half of the year in the form of increased tax offsets.
Real retail turnover growth is expected to slow from 2.2% in 2018 to just 1.5% in 2019, before picking up in 2020 to 2.9%
Household finances have come under pressure from stagnant wage growth and declining wealth, despite decreased unemployment numbers.
This has hurt consumer sentiment and weighed on willingness to spend.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/6/14/Deloitte.JPG" alt="">
Deloitte Access Economics partner and Retail Forecasts principal author, David Rumbens, said, “March quarter retail data confirmed our view that consumers are just not willing to spend as they once were. People are pulling back on spending as household finances remain under pressure from stagnant wage growth and declining wealth.
“A deteriorating labour market, inflation below the target range, weak consumption, and falling house prices were enough to prompt monetary easing by the Reserve Bank of Australia for the first time in nearly three years, and lower rates will leave some much needed cash in the pockets of Australia’s highly indebted households."
He added that over half of all tax refunds are completed in the September quarter, and just under another 25% in December.
“This bodes well for a surge in spending in the September quarter, rising around 1.3% over the quarter, and provide the boost retailers have been craving,” Rumbens concluded.
</body></html>

Post election tax offsets may boost hurting retailers: Deloitte

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The Customer Owned Banking Association (COBA) has strongly criticised a Treasury proposal to hike levies on smaller banks while cutting levies for the four major banks.
Treasury is proposing dramatic increases in levies on customer owned banks and smaller listed banks while gifting the big four a $3 million levy reduction (see Treasury table below).
The levies are intended to cover higher regulatory costs for the banking regulator APRA flowing from the Financial Services Royal Commission.
Smaller banks’ levies are sharply ratcheted upwards by more than 25% while major bank levies are reduced.
This makes no sense at all given it was the misconduct of the major banks that has prompted the need to increase resourcing for APRA.
Customer owned banking institutions have not engaged in the misconduct examined by the Royal Commission but now face being forced to ‘pay the price’.
These proposals send a very confusing signal about the Government’s intention to hold the major banks accountable for their conduct.
Major banks already have a head start on their smaller competitors through various aspects of the regulatory framework.
They don’t deserve the extra help of a cut in their APRA levies while their much smaller competitors are hit with huge increases.
Click <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2019/6/6/ADI%20Levies.JPG" target="_blank">here</a> to enlarge
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/6/6/ADI%20Levies.JPG" alt="">
I urge the Treasurer to intervene and rule out these grossly unfair increases in APRA levies on COBA member banking institutions.
Regulator industry levies should be set with sensitivity to the cost burden on smaller banking institutions and with more weighting given to the systemic importance and market power of major banks.
The Productivity Commission describes the banking market as ‘an established oligopoly where the four major banks hold substantial market power and this is substantially supported by regulatory settings which contribute to the major banks’ structural advantages.
Sharply increasing levies paid by smaller banking institutions while reducing levies paid by major banks will make a bad situation worse.
MICHAEL LAWRENCE is the CEO of the Customer Owned Banking Association. 
</body></html>

Unfair tax hike proposed for smaller banks: COBA's Michael Lawrence

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION 
In the lead up to the NSW election, the NSW residential building industry is being strangled in red tape and taxes.
Some 43% of the cost of a new house and land package is made up of taxes, charges and levies from all three tiers of Government.
Despite this, policies implemented by the State government continue to add to the tax burden for the housing industry.
By way of example, in the past 18 months, the following regulations and taxes have been implemented or proposed, each one having a negative impact on housing affordability and supply.
<ul>
<li>Removing caps on section 94 development contributions adding $20,000 – $40,000 per dwelling; 
</li>
<li>Increasing the BASIX energy efficiency targets adding an average of $10,000 per new dwelling; 
</li>
<li>Delaying the start of the medium density housing code to deal with Sydney’s “missing middle” for terrace and low rise medium density housing projects reacting to unreasonable and simple incorrect claims that the code would promote high-density housing after promoting the savings of around $15,000 in approval costs for these type of dwellings from the implementation of the code; 
</li>
<li>Introducing a 2% defect bond and an additional double barrel inspection regime for strata developments that will be ineffectual and add to the cost of all new strata projects and 
</li>
<li>Proposing a Greater Macarthur state infrastructure contribution (SIC) of $40,000 per dwelling, along with new SIC levies in the Hunter.</li>
</ul>
These changes can easily account for an additional $70-$90,000 per dwelling and once applied, they may be subject to stamp duty.
There are many things our state politicians can consider to help housing supply and affordability that don’t require drastic structural change.
For instance, the NSW Productivity Commissioner should be directed to undertake a detailed review of the regulatory burden and costs to the residential sector with the aim of reducing red tape, increasing productivity and thus improving housing affordability.
All new legislation and regulation impacting the housing sector should be subject to a thorough public regulatory impact assessment.
Adding to the problem of housing affordability and rental affordability with new red tape and taxes is not the solution to ensuring people in NSW can afford to buy or rent a home. More needs to be done now, politicians need to get serious and focus on real changes that will make a real difference to the cost of new homes in NSW.
David Bare is HIA Executive Director NSW.
</body></html>

Taxes in NSW strangling future housing: HIA'S David Bare

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Do you live overseas and own a house in Australia? If so, you may have less than five months to act before you’re stuck with a large tax bill on the sale of that property.
<h3>Proposed tax changes</h3>
In May 2017, the Australian Government proposed changes to the existing capital gains tax (‘CGT’) laws. These changes will affect tax non-residents who hold property in Australia that have previously lived in as their main residence.
Under the current laws, an Australian property that is your main residence can be sold with potentially no Australian tax to pay (or at least a significantly reduced amount of tax to pay to reflect the ‘main residence’ period you lived there). However, under the proposed changes, if you are a non-resident (for Australian tax purposes) at the date of sale, you will no longer be able to claim the ‘main residence exemption’. This means that the entire gain you make on selling the property could be subject to tax, with no reduction for the period you actually lived in the property.
Although these proposed changes were announced nearly two years ago, they are still not law. It appears that one of the reasons for this is because the changes are quite draconian given non-residents could be taxed on the entire gain made on the property sale (irrespective of whether the property was their main residence for a significant period of time).
Further, if legislated, the changes are proposed to apply retrospectively from 9 May 2017. Despite this, there is a proposed transitional period for properties purchased before 9 May 2017 and sold by 30 June 2019 (whereby the current rules will still apply, meaning they could potentially still obtain the ‘main residence exemption’).
For many people, this means they may have less than five months to decide whether to sell their property or be faced with a large tax bill.
<h3>What should you do between now and 30 June 2019?</h3>
The uncertainty surrounding whether these changes will become law can make accurate decision making very difficult.
Should you sell your property now? Is it the right time to sell? What happens if the changes don’t become law?
Whilst the answers to many of the questions is outside your control, if you answer these four questions below, the decision-making process should become a lot clearer.
<ul>
<li>1) Will I actually be affected?</li>
</ul>
Ask yourself “will these changes even affect me?”
These changes will only apply where you are a tax non-resident at the date of sale. If you intend to re-establish your tax residency in Australia, the changes may not apply to you.
For example, you may currently be overseas on secondment and intend to return to Australia in the future. If you don’t plan on selling your property before returning to Australia, then you should not be affected by the changes.
Alternatively, if you plan to move overseas permanently and sell your property whilst you are a tax non-resident, then you would be affected and may need to act fast.
<ul>
<li>2) Will I have a large tax bill?</li>
</ul>
Even if you are affected by the proposed changes, you may not have a large tax bill on your hands.
To determine this, calculate what your tax liability would be (if any) under the current law and then again applying the proposed changes. If these calculations do not give rise to a material tax difference, you mightn’t have anything to worry about with the proposed changes.
For example, if you bought your house two years ago there may have been little growth in the value of the property since that time, meaning there may be little tax to pay on sale.
Alternatively, if you bought your house 30 years ago and lived there for 25 years prior to moving overseas, you could be up for a large tax bill on the difference in the property’s value between when you acquired it and when you sold it. In these circumstances, the decision to sell your property before 30 June 2019 becomes more relevant.
<ul>
<li>3) Should I sell before 30 June?</li>
</ul>
As an investor, you should assess whether it is appropriate for you to sell your property before 30 June 2019. This decision should not be made hastily (especially in light of Australia’s current property market).
According to CoreLogic, Australia is currently facing its weakest property market since 2008. As a result, if you were to sell your property during the coming months, you may not achieve the sale price you’re after. Are you better off holding the property long term and selling it when the market recovers? In some instances, a lower sale price may even outweigh any tax saving you would make by selling before 30 June 2019.
However, if you don’t sell your property, consider any potential holding costs. These could include land tax and an annual vacancy fee if your property is not residentially occupied or rented out for more than 183 days in a year.
Also ask yourself “how does my property fit within my investment portfolio?”. If your property has a strong rental yield you mightn’t be in a rush to sell. On the flip side, would the sale of your property enable you to invest in other assets with a higher return?
<ul>
<li>4) Will I be able to sell before 30 June?</li>
</ul>
Even if you decide to sell before 30 June, is it possible?
The Australian property market has experienced a recent decrease in auction clearance rates to 43.6% in the last quarter of 20181. These market conditions could cause delays in the sale of your property and mean you can’t actually sell before 30 June 2019.
If you need to undertake renovations to spruce your property up before selling, this could contribute to additional delays. This means you may need to move fast if you want to sell before 30 June.
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
Although the potential changes may seem daunting, if you work through the 4 steps above, you may find out you’ve got nothing to worry about. Alternatively, if you do have a potentially large tax problem, by acting fast and tailoring a solution to your personal circumstances, you may be able to manage (or eliminate) the problem.
NICOLE JOANNOU is a consultant for William Buck, a firm of Chartered Accountants and advisors with offices across Australia and New Zealand. 
</body></html>

Sell your Australian property now, or risk a big tax bill: Nicole Joannou

<html><body>
Savers for their first home have under a fortnight to start their savings and tax advantage during the current financial year under the recently introduced First Home Super Saver (FHSS) scheme.
FHBs have been advised in the countdown to the June 30 end of the tax year, there are advantages to start putting money in this financial year.
The FHSS scheme is based around making contributions to your superannuation fund to save for your deposit.
 Contributions to superannuation are taxed at 15%, which is typically lower than your marginal tax rate, meaning more of your cash is saved and less is going to the ATO. There is a limit of $15,000 per tax year.
The FHSS was introduced by the Australian Government in the Federal Budget 2017/18 to reduce the pressure on housing affordability.
It allows FHBs to save money for your first home inside your superannuation fund.
The idea was to help first home buyers save faster with the concessional tax treatment within super.
From 1 July 2017 you can make voluntary concessional (before-tax) and non-concessional (after-tax) contributions into your super fund to save for your first home.
From 1 July 2018 you can then apply to release your voluntary contributions, along with associated earnings, to help you purchase your first home.
This scheme is suitable for first home buyers if:
<ul>
<li>you either live or intend to live in the premises you are buying as soon as practicable</li>
<li>you intend to live in the property for at least six months of the first 12 months you own it, after it is practical to move in.</li>
</ul>
You can apply to have a maximum of $15,000 of your voluntary contributions from any one financial year included in your eligible contributions to be released under the FHSS scheme, up to a total of $30,000 contributions across all years.
You will also receive an amount of earnings that relate to those contributions.
For more information <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/Super-housing-measures/First-Home-Super-Saver-Scheme/" target="_blank">click here.</a>
</body></html>

tax

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

tax