Queensland builder-developer MAYD has revealed the first look at its major North Kirra beachfront development, lodging amended plans that reduce the number of apartments and increase the proportion of larger residences.

The project is planned across a substantial 4,742 sqm amalgamated site spanning seven lots at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/2-6-pacific-parade-bilinga-qld-4225">2-6 Pacific Parade</a> and 27-33 Golden Four Drive in Bilin​ga, directly opposite Nor​th Kirra Beach.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/mayd-group">MAYD</a> secured the site for $32.5 million in 2025, in what was one of the Gold Coast's largest property transactions of the year.

The development will be delivered across two stages, with the first stage carrying an estimated gross realisation value of around $360 million.

The latest amendments seek to reduce the overall apartment count and shift the project further toward the owner-occupier market, with larger residences designed for buyers wanting considerably more space than traditionally offered in a beachfront apartment.

The residential mix will include townhomes, oversized two-bedroom apartments, substantial three-bedroom residences and four-bedroom homes.

MAYD has appointed Cera Stribley to lead the architecture and interiors, with the Melbourne-based design practice drawing on the beachfront setting through a series of ocean-facing terraces and heavily landscaped balconies.

Strong horizontal forms and curved balconies will define the exterior, with subtropical landscaping integrated throughout the building to soften the built form and increase the connection between the residences and the beachfront.

The project will also include an extensive collection of resident wellness and lifestyle facilities, continuing the broader shift across the Gold Coast's luxury apartment market toward larger homes supported by resort-style amenity.

<img alt="MAYD" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d1bcbb05-e659-4b47-8bd4-1e595315e2ad" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-27%20at%202.05.03%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=jj0XEud1X1DuLt7_KyElhjMdZGOXmLHP" />

MAYD Founder Todd Mould said North Kirra was increasingly appealing to buyers attracted to the more established, lower-density character of the southern Gold Coast.

"North Kirra presents one of the most compelling luxury residential opportunities currently emerging in Australia, combining absolute beachfront with the character and authenticity that buyers are increasingly seeking, and the same sense of tight-knit community that defined Burleigh and Currumbin perhaps 10 or 15 years ago," Mould said.

"With Gold Coast Airport on its doorstep, it also offers a level of accessibility that broadens its appeal across almost every market demographic."

The project comes as the southern Gold Coast continues to attract an increasing share of high-end apartment development and buyer activity.

Kirra in particular has emerged as one of the region's more tightly held beachfront markets, with its relatively low-density character, established surf and hospitality scene and proximity to Gold Coast Airport differentiating it from the higher-density markets further north.

Mould said those characteristics had informed the approach MAYD and Cera Stribley had taken to the project.

"We've worked closely with Cera Stribley to create a vision that is deeply connected to its surroundings," he said.

"Inspired by the coastline itself, the architecture has been shaped around space, privacy and resort-style living, creating a collection of homes that reflects the next generation of luxury on the southern Gold Coast."

MOTIV Managing Director Carly Cottam, who has been appointed to market the project, said buyer attention had continued to move south along the Gold Coast.

"Purchasers who may once have defaulted to Broadbeach, Main Beach or Surfers Paradise are increasingly recognising the value of a genuine beachfront location that offers lower density, strong amenity and a more established sense of community," Cottam said.

"Kirra has a powerful combination of growing demand and genuine scarcity. Beachfront supply is inherently constrained, the area remains relatively low density, and buyers are increasingly placing a premium on locations that feel established, uncrowded and authentic rather than heavily developed."

Cottam said the proximity to Gold Coast Airport was also proving increasingly important for interstate and second-home buyers.

"Being minutes from Gold Coast Airport makes it particularly compelling for interstate buyers, frequent travellers and second-home purchasers who can access an authentic coastal lifestyle almost immediately after stepping off a flight."

The acquisition takes MAYD's active development portfolio to more than $500 million, with the North Kirra project representing one of its largest undertakings to date.

MAYD is targeting an early 2027 launch.

Joel Robinson

First look at MAYD's North Kirra mixed-use precinct

<main data-perf-region="main">
Castle Hill, the longtime hub of the Hills District, has been one of the major beneficiaries of Sydney's Metro expansion, with improved connectivity helping drive continued population growth, development and buyer demand across the Hills District.

But despite that growth, the suburb has seen relatively few major new apartment projects brought to market over the past 18 months.

Hills District developer Reve Group is looking to fill that gap with <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/nova-r-ve-castle-hill-2-garthowen-crescent-castle-hill-nsw-2154">Nova Rêve</a>, a major new mixed-use precinct on the corner of Garthowen Crescent and Old Castle Hill Road, a short walk from Castle Hill Metro Station and Castle Towers.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377679]

The project will comprise three residential towers alongside a hotel, restaurants, cafes and a skybar, more than 1,600 sqm of ground-floor retail and almost an acre of landscaped gardens.

It represents the largest project undertaken by Reve Group, the development arm of the Kassis family, which has been building across the Hills District for more than 30 years through Kassis Homes.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377675]

Nova Rêve also represents a significant step up from the family's first apartment development, Grand Rêve, which was delivered nearby on Garthowen Crescent.

Grand Rêve introduced larger, house-like apartment layouts and premium inclusions including Wolf and Sub-Zero appliances to the Castle Hill market.

Nova Rêve takes that approach to a precinct scale, combining the residential component with hospitality, retail and substantial public and resident landscaping.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377685]

Reve Group Managing Director Sam Kassis said the project reflected the family's three decades of building in the Hills, which has evolved from trophy homes on quarter-acre blocks to larger-scale apartment development.

"Grand Rêve was our first apartment project here and it showed us what this pocket of Castle Hill could be. Nova Rêve is the refinement of that idea: not just apartments, but a place the whole suburb can use," Kassis said.

A key part of that approach is the hotel, which has been designed to operate as an amenity for the wider Castle Hill community rather than solely hotel guests.

It will include restaurants, cafes, skybars and all-day dining, alongside conference and event facilities catering to business functions, community groups and private events.

At ground level, more than 1,600 sqm of shops and cafes will open onto the surrounding streets and landscaped areas.

Almost an acre of gardens designed by Land and Form Studios will run through the precinct, incorporating pathways, seating, barbecue areas and children's play spaces.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377680]

Reve Group's Romio Georges said creating an active ground plane had been central to the planning of Nova Rêve.

"There are gardens with pathways, barbecues, seating and play areas, shops and cafes opening onto the street, and a hotel with restaurants and a skybar that anyone in Castle Hill can walk into," Georges said.

The project's elevated position on one of Sydney's highest ridgelines will also provide apartments with outlooks toward the Sydney skyline, surrounding parkland and the Blue Mountains.

More than 80 per cent of the apartments will occupy corner positions, with Turner responsible for both the architecture and interiors.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=152737]

<h3 data-end="3697" data-section-id="q3n5ak" data-start="3672">&nbsp;</h3>
</main>

Nova Rêve arrives as Reve Group bets on Castle Hill's next growth phase

A collection of just 25 large-format apartments and penthouses overlooking Goodwin Park is entering the Coolangatta market, with <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/marea-residences-coolangatta-27-27a-dixon-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">Maréa Residences</a> combining a low-density, residential-only approach with uninterrupted park and Pacific Ocean outlooks.

Located at 27 Dixon Street, Maréa comprises three and four-bedroom residences alongside a limited number of dual-level penthouses, with the project positioned between Goodwin Park and <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/coolangatta-qld-4225">Coolangatta</a>’s coastal precinct.

Construction has commenced, with completion currently estimated for late 2027. Three-bedroom residences are priced from $1.8 million.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150999 project_image_fid=374005]

The project has been designed around its northern outlook across the park, with the building’s architecture, landscaping and material palette intended to establish a connection with the neighbouring green space. The residences have been configured to maximise natural light and views across Goodwin Park towards the ocean.

Inside, the material palette incorporates timber, stone and brushed brass, complemented by curved detailing and ambient lighting. Kitchens and bathrooms carry the same natural material approach, while residences also include basement parking, storage and lift access.

Maréa’s penthouses are arranged over two levels and include private pools, adding another layer to the project’s focus on larger-format apartment living. Across the development, residences are configured with three or four bedrooms rather than the broader mix of smaller apartment types commonly found in larger projects.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150999 project_image_fid=374010]

Resident amenity is concentrated at rooftop level, where landscaped entertaining terraces and pools take advantage of elevated views across Coolangatta and the Pacific Ocean.

The project has so far been particularly well received by local owner-occupiers and downsizers, according to Urban Activation Property Sales and Marketing Director Matt George, with the residential-only format, construction quality and northern park outlook among the features resonating with purchasers.

“The uninterrupted northern aspect overlooking Goodwin Park has been a key point of difference, with buyers attracted to the sense of serenity and open space the park provides, while still enjoying easy access to the ocean and being within walking distance of the lifestyle and amenities Coolangatta has to offer,” George said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150999 project_image_fid=374002]

“The combination of high-quality construction, a residential-only building, park outlook and proximity to the beach has resonated strongly with the local downsizer market.”

The Dixon Street address is within walking distance of Coolangatta Beach and the broader southern Gold Coast coastline, including the surf breaks at Snapper Rocks and Kirra. Coolangatta’s cafés, restaurants and retail are nearby, while Gold Coast Airport is also within close proximity.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150999]

Maréa Residences brings parkside apartments to Coolangatta

Melbourne developer PDG has secured Victorian Government approval for its $1.5 billion Southbank development <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-one-1-queens-bridge-street-southbank-vic-3006">The One</a>, clearing the way for the long-dormant riverfront site opposite Crown to finally be developed.

The Minister for Planning has approved the project at 1-29 Queens Bridge Street, with the Department of Transport and Planning issuing the planning permit following its assessment.

The approval will allow PDG to develop the prominent 5,059 sqm site with a major mixed-use tower comprising premium apartments, including branded residences, a luxury hotel and boutique office space.

PDG acquired the site in late 2024, with its position directly opposite Crown's main entrance and near Melbourne's Arts Precinct making it one of Southbank's most significant remaining development opportunities.

<img alt="PDG" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="3933013e-6332-4386-b9be-089df05caf17" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-27%20at%209.29.22%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=sITIgBqDL0N3VNSMwWEmF5UA.uvcsRyu" />

Designed by COX in collaboration with ODO and PDG, the tower's architecture draws on the movement of the Yarra River, with six vertical pleats running the height of the sculpted facade.

The project will also see the heritage-listed Queens Bridge Hotel restored and incorporated into the development&nbsp;with new hospitality and public uses, including a rooftop venue.

A significant component of The One will be its residential amenity.

More than 5,000 sqm of resident facilities will be delivered across a single level, making it one of the largest consolidated residential amenity offerings proposed in an Australian apartment development.

The planning approval also incorporates a major upgrade of Queensbridge Square, which PDG will deliver in partnership with the City of Melbourne.

<img alt="PDG" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="73167fcd-1031-4b6f-a408-a064cfe45ed1" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-27%20at%209.29.17%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=Pf1AEWxw6SNmBqR0zQW5lyEze.MtxgFp" />

The existing square will be revitalised as a new civic and pedestrian space along the Yarra River, strengthening the connection between the project, Southbank and the riverfront.

PDG Founder and Managing Director Vince Giuliano said the approval represented a major milestone for a site which has remained largely underutilised for more than 15 years.

“This is the most significant Planning Permit approval Melbourne has seen in recent years,” Giuliano said.

“For more than 15 years, this site has remained underutilised. This approval enables us to deliver a project that will contribute meaningfully to the revitalisation of Southbank, restore and reactivate an important heritage building, and create a new civic and hospitality destination for Melbourne.”

The latest approval follows an earlier planning permit issued by the City of Melbourne covering demolition works across part of the site at 9-29 Queens Bridge Street. Those demolition and early works are already underway.

PDG has also started generating early interest in the residential component from owner-occupiers ahead of a planned public launch in early 2027.

PDG secures approval for $1.5bn Southbank apartment development, The One

Local developer Harridan is seeking to turn its Woolloongabba apartment project into the first stage of a broader transformation of Burke Street, using a new 16-storey mixed-use building to establish a greener pedestrian connection toward the rapidly evolving Boggo Road transport and knowledge precinct.

The South East Queensland developer has filed plans for 154 apartments on the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/4-burke-street-woolloongabba-qld-4102">southern side of Burke Street</a>, where its proposal has been designed alongside a wider vision by LatStudios for the street.

That vision positions the southern side of Burke Street for buildings of 15 storeys and above, while envisaging lower-rise development of up to five storeys on the northern side to transition into Woolloongabba's existing character housing. It also proposes wider pedestrian verges, deep planting, new street trees and upgrades to the pedestrian approach to Boggo Road Station.

The Harridan development itself has been designed by Brisbane-based Arqus Design and will comprise 154 apartments across 16 storeys. The mix is weighted heavily toward two-bedroom apartments, with 121 proposed alongside 10 one-bedroom and 23 three-bedroom residences. There will typically be around 14 units per floor.

A lower-ground car park and three podium levels will accommodate 156 resident parking spaces, along with visitor and commercial parking. There will also be 154 resident bicycle spaces and 40 visitor bicycle parks.

&nbsp;

Harridan is a family-owned developer and part of the Holmwood Highgate Group, with more than three decades of development activity across South East Queensland. Its portfolio spans residential, commercial and industrial property, with current residential projects including Riverbank on Byron in Bulimba, Esperance Residences in Carina and The Precinct at Kinross Road in Thornlands.

Wooloongabba has been popular for apartment developers, particularly since the announcement of the 2032 Summer Olympics games in Brisbane.

While there have been a lot of development applications, it has failed to materialize into real supply.&nbsp;

Sarazin has been the major player in the area. They are under construction at Murcia Residences, on the fringe of East Brisbane and Woolloongabba. They have just launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-stanley-residences-woolloongabba-8-trafalgar-street-woolloongabba-qld-4102">The Stanley Residences</a>, in Woolloongabba on Trafalagar Street. They also have Nuage coming soon on the nearby <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/nuage-woolloongabba-14-wellington-road-woolloongabba-qld-4102">Wellington Road</a>.

First look: Harridan plans Burke Street transformation beside Boggo Road transport hub

Taxation

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER 
If you are selling your home, you can claim the main residence tax exemption for the property you live in, including the land adjacent to it and other structures associated with the property like a separate garage or laundry. 
The main residence exemption includes compulsory acquisition of the main residence.
A residence or dwelling is a property used mainly for residential accommodation, including a cottage or home, a flat or apartment, a strata title unit, a unit located in a retirement village and a house boar, caravan or mobile home.
The land covered by the main residence exemption is close to, near, adjoining or neighboring the dwelling.
To be tax exempt, the land and dwelling should be sold together and the owner should have used the land mainly for private and domestic purposes with the dwelling. The total area should also not be more than two hectares. If it is more than two hectares, the owner can choose which two hectares will be exempt and the remainder will subject to CGT.
A home unit or flat usually comes with areas that are separate physically from the unit, such as a store room, laundry or garage.
If these areas were used primarily for private and domestic purposes associated with the unit, they will be exempt from CGT as well. However, if these structures are disposed separately from the unit or flat, the capital gain or loss will not be exempt from capital gains tax.
Ed Chan is founder and non executive chairman, Chan &amp; Naylor Accountants and can be contacted <a href="https://www.chan-naylor.com.au/">here</a>.
</body></html>

echan-hSGJw4wwC5

Is your adjacent land or separate structure exempt from CGT? Ed Chan

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81551/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
There is very little, if anything, to commend discretionary trusts. The benefits they bring, and it’s hard to see many, are dwarfed by their destructive and damaging features.
Trusts are usually used to allocate money to members of a group, usually a family. Under a discretionary trust, the only way a beneficiary will get income or capital from the trust, is if the trustee chooses to give them something. Family companies are often included as beneficiaries to minimise tax.
The Labor party’s current focus on trusts is warranted because overwhelmingly, trusts are used to minimise tax, avoid paying creditors and to avoid the fair division of property after a relationship breakdown.
Due to a lack of data, it’s hard to estimate the amount of lost tax revenue from the current regime. However, on conservative assumptions, I estimate we are easily losing A$2 billion per year in income tax through discretionary trusts. 
If a discretionary trust elects to be a “family trust” under the tax law, it can also access a number of other concessional tax rules. These tax concessions aren’t available to any other entities or taxpayers.
How trusts are used
There are a few other ways discretionary trusts are used. They are also used to frustrate creditors, people who are owed money by the beneficiaries of trusts. 
Someone who is owed money by a beneficiary of a trust can’t go to the trust to settle their debt. This is the case even if the beneficiary has received money from the trust in the past and is likely to receive money in the future, after release from bankruptcy (having not paid their debts).
Unsecured creditors, such as suppliers of businesses dealing with a trustee, also cannot settle their debts with a trust if the trustee doesn’t have sufficient assets. Often the trustee will be a company paid to manage the trust, with only a few dollars of share capital. 
According to data used in my research from the Australian Taxation Office, a lot of family wealth (aside from the family home) is held in discretionary trusts. On relationship breakdown, one spouse will often argue that because the assets are in a discretionary trust, they are not owned by anyone, and therefore won’t be divided with the rest of the couples’ assets.
The Family Court has wide powers to decide what can be divided, and generally the court included assets in the discretionary trust to be divided, where a spouse is a trustee, or has the means to appoint or remove a trustee. However, if the spouse is “removed” or “distanced” from the discretionary trust, it becomes harder and harder for the court to include these assets to be divided.
Discretionary trusts are also used in succession planning. Where a person has property to give away and wants the flexibility to do it over time. It also allows the payments to change with needs and circumstances. For example, if a trust beneficiary landed a high-paying job, they could be given less. Conversely, they could be given more if they lost their job.
There may be a case for these arrangements when a person has died. By putting assets into a discretionary trust, a deceased person may be able to “tie up assets” for around 80 years (the maximum period permitted). But this sort of flexibility is available to anyone when they are alive; there is no need for a discretionary trust. 
So can we just get rid of trusts? Legally, it could be done. But outright abolition is not practically achievable, at least in the short-term.
What to do with trusts
There are broadly two options for tax reform when it comes to trusts. These measures can be implemented while leaving users of discretionary trusts free to enjoy all other legitimate features and benefits.
The first option, which many still seem to favour, is to impose the company taxation system on the discretionary trust (that is, tax them as companies). Due to the presence of the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Imputation/In-detail/Utilising-franking-tax-offsets-and-effect-on-losses---corporate-tax-entities/">refundable franking credit tax offset rule</a>, taxing trusts as companies would not really address the central issue of tax minimisation. 
Trusts would still be able to manipulate allocations of money across low-rate beneficiaries and change allocations from year-to-year to avoid tax. However, it would remove the availability of the capital gains tax discount to discretionary trusts.
Another option is to use an attribution approach to trusts, just as the social security system does and as family law effectively does. Under the attribution model, the person who contributed the assets to the discretionary trust and/or the person who controls the assets in the trust are deemed to own the income and the assets. This would largely reflect general law entitlements of each spouse and very often reflect the economic contributions to building up those assets.
Of course, this model has challenges in design and in enforcement. However, given the complexity of rules in Australia’s income tax and the enforcement issues that confront the Australian Taxation Office in numerous areas, any difficulties with the attribution model are easily overcome. And of course, it’s already part of the social security regime for assets and income tests.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-boccabella-15706" target="_blank">Dale Boccabella</a> is Associate Professor of Taxation Law, UNSW and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Family trusts often cause more harm than good

<html><body>
The budget announcement of taxing vacant homes as a measure to free up housing stock is still unclear, with the tax office unable to provide any guidelines on how it will implement it. 
Treasurer Scott Morrison said during the budget presentation that the measure “is intended to encourage foreign owners of residential property to make their properties available for rent where they are not used as a residence and so increase the number of dwellings available for Australians to live in”.
The federal government is only expecting to tax 1,000 vacant foreign-owned properties in 2019-20 – for a total $5 million in revenue.
The new charge is expected to bring in $16.3 million over the forward estimates being monitored by the Australian Tax Office, but with few details on its implementation.
There is a  Victorian tax set for introduction too, which will be self-reporting. 
The vacancy tax in Melbourne will be at 1 percent, multiplied by the capital improved value of the taxable property. 
The new tax is expected to raise about $80 million over four years.
Victoria say it will rely on self reporting with owners will be expected to inform the State Revenue Office when their property becomes vacant.
Owners of vacant homes will have to pay least $5000 in the Federal Government tax.
But the ATO said it couldn't yet provide any details on how it will determine whether dwellings are left unoccupied and out of the rental market for six months or more out of every year, as this would be contained in legislation that had not yet passed through parliament, The Australian Financial Review reported.
"Unfortunately we are unable to answer your question as the government announcement is yet to be legislated," an ATO spokeswoman was quoted as saying by the AFR.
A federal treasury spokeswoman was cited by the AFR as saying the department was working on the rules.
"The government is developing legislation as a matter of priority and anticipates that it will be introduced into Parliament later this year," she said.
"The measure is not about raising revenue, but ensuring vacant properties are released into the market both now and into the future."
Housing think tank Prosper Australia says electricity meters could be used to track occupancy, but it would be costly to administer.
According to a study by Prosper Australia last year, more than 82,700 residential properties — or 4.8 percent of Melbourne’s housing stock — sit empty.
But if the new regimes are pursued, foreign owners of vacant properties in Victoria, at least, can expect to take a double hit from both state and federal vacancy taxes.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

No clarity from ATO yet on how vacant homes tax will be imposed

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77308/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australians are concerned about housing affordability, so much so that 45.4 percent say they would be willing to see the value of their home stop growing to improve the situation, only 31.8 percent of those polled wouldn’t. 
An ANU poll shows 51.7 percent of Australians are also in favour of removing tax concessions like negative gearing.
The poll surveyed 2,513 people (representative of the population) and found 63.6 percent were willing to see an increase in supply of public housing. Only 32.3 percent are opposed to relaxing planning restrictions. 
With these numbers in mind, it is perhaps surprising that state and federal governments have done so little of any substance in housing policy for decades, if anything they’ve contributed to the problem rather than improved the situation.
Potential policy changes that many believe will improve housing affordability, including removing or reducing tax incentives such as the capital gains tax discount or removing supply impediments, have all been considered too politically difficult by the current government.
The government has justified this by playing to the fear that the value of people’s home may decline or that more liberal planning arrangements may mean that new buildings may spoil the look and feel of local neighbourhoods. 
The latest ANUpoll shows Australians are very concerned that future generations may be locked out of home ownership. Three quarters believe home ownership is part of the Australian way of life.
In terms of their own investments we found that nearly 68 percent of homeowners cite emotional security, stability and belonging as a reason for becoming a homeowner. In terms of security factors, 51 percent cite financial security, 42 percent refer to “renting is dead money” and 41 percent cite security of tenure and being able to “bang nails in the wall”. 
Of those families who have an investment property (17 percent in this poll) the primary motivation for the investment was a “secure place to store money” (27.4 percent) closely followed by rental income (24.3 percent). Only 11.9 percent cited negative gearing as the primary motivator and 13.7 percent were motivated primarily by the capital gains discount. 
Housing remains easily the most popular investment vehicle, with 30 percent saying their preferred investment for spare cash would be an investment property, followed by 18.5 percent preferring to upgrade their own home. Only 12.6 percent preferred shares as an investment. 
In spite of recent talk of a housing bubble the general population is not particularly concerned with immediate price drops, with 85 percent expecting house prices to rise over the coming five years. Only 5.4 percent expect prices to fall and just 1.7 percent expect prices to decrease a lot.
If interest rates were to increase by 2 percentage points, 6.4 percent of mortgage holders expected to be in “a lot” of financial difficulty and 16.7 percent in “quite a bit”. Only 27.9 percent would be in no difficulty. While financial difficulty does not mean default, in mortgage markets it may not take a large share of loans to default to cause financial problems for an economy.
As pointed out earlier negative gearing was the least cited reason for property investment which suggests removing the incentive would at least not make a dramatic difference to the level of housing investment in Australia.
The ANUpoll shows that the public are concerned about housing affordability and where policy is directed at improving affordability they are likely to be supportive. The policy options, be they demand side - reducing tax incentives, or supply side - building more dwellings and/or relaxing planning restrictions, are available, but greater political nerve may be required to undertake such options.
Ben Phillips is associate professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods (CSRM), Australian National University and author for The Conversation.
He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Government out of touch on housing policies ahead of budget: poll

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/74545/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Is “value capture” a wonderful untapped opportunity to fulfil all our infrastructure dreams? Or is it just a new way to sting the taxpayer? Our new report casts a cold, hard gaze over value capture, and finds that it’s a good tax in theory, but will prove very hard to put into practice.
Value capture is the name given to a policy whereby governments capture some of the increased value of land that results from building a new piece of infrastructure. Typically, the money the government “captures” is used to help fund the project.
At first glance, value capture seems marvellously fair, because it applies only to those who benefit from the particular project. So the people of western Sydney do not help fund a new railway station on the North Shore. But look a little closer: it also means that affluent inner-city residents don’t help fund a better railway station in Melbourne’s outer northern suburbs.
Federal ministers from the prime minister down are enthusiastic about value capture and are pushing the states to embrace it. Only last week, Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher reiterated that the Commonwealth does not want to be “just an ATM” for the states. But if the federal ministers face up to some home truths, they may find value capture less to their liking.
Value capture is a tax
Home Truth No. 1 is that a value-capture scheme is a tax. That’s how it raises revenue. Politicians tend to shun the “T word”. They prefer to present value capture as an innovative financing mechanism. Sorry, it’s a tax.
Some advocates point to Hong Kong, where a private company builds and operates the rail lines, in return for cheap access to development rights around the new stations – a non-cash subsidy. Yes, integrating new infrastructure with rezoning and other planning changes is a great idea. But a similar model in Australia would have to be much smaller in scale.
That’s because in Hong Kong the government owns all the land. In addition, the city is dramatically denser than Australian cities: more than 7 million people live in a built-up area of around 285 square kilometres, compared with Sydney’s population of about 5 million in around 2,000 square kilometres. In a very dense city, good access to mass transit is highly valued.
Others in the value-capture camp point to tax increment financing (TIF) schemes. These have been used in the US with mixed success.
TIF schemes don’t involve a new tax, or indeed a funding source of any kind. Instead, they are financing schemes that earmark an expected increase in future revenue from existing taxes, such as land taxes, which can be attributed to a new piece of infrastructure. This increase is then used to repay special-purpose bonds.
But TIF schemes are of little value in the Australian context, since Australian governments have strong credit ratings and can borrow at extremely low rates of interest – more cheaply than private sector financiers can. Not only this, but TIF schemes generally do not offload project risk. They may instead come with a hidden government guarantee.
Family home would be captured
Which brings us to Home Truth No. 2: to raise a reasonable amount, a value-capture tax would need to include the family home. Owner-occupied housing accounts for around 65 percent of total land values in Australia, and increases in its value are taxed very lightly (see the chart below).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20491-1fsjall.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20491-1fsjall.png" alt="">
To minimise the distortions value capture could have on the economy, it should be charged on unimproved land value, as a flat proportion of the land-value uplift attributable to the new infrastructure, with no exemptions.
A tricky question of who’s in and who’s out
Home Truth No. 3 is that many taxpayers are likely to feel aggrieved. Property prices go up – and down – for many reasons.
Drawing a boundary around a new piece of infrastructure to distinguish between those who must pay the new tax and those too far away to benefit is bound to involve rough justice.
Also, it won’t be easy for governments to convince people that their new tax bill still leaves them better off. Homeowners get the benefit of the new project on paper, but have to pay the tax bill in cash. Is this sounding like a political nightmare yet?
A way to reduce the political heat
There is, however, a way to implement value capture that could take a bit of the political heat out of individual decisions. Governments could pass general legislation that applies value capture to every transport infrastructure project with certain characteristics:
an identifiable beneficiary catchment
a project that’s expected to makes an area significantly more accessible
the amount of revenue to be raised far outweighs the cost of administering the scheme. 
So, for example, value capture might apply to all urban passenger rail projects costing over A$50 million. The tax might then be levied on all properties within 800 metres (i.e. walking distance) of a new station.
Once such legislation is in place, each value-capture tax may be slightly less politically fraught. This approach will minimise the opportunities for rent-seeking or corruption that arise from designing bespoke schemes for every individual project.
Broad-based land tax is better still
A better answer still could be a broad-based land tax. Such a tax is highly efficient, because land is an immobile tax base (see the chart below).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20523-5e9xex.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/03/20/image-20170316-20523-5e9xex.png" alt="">
While it would not zero in on the beneficiaries of new infrastructure, a land tax would capture the effects of all infrastructure, old and new, as these translated into land values, making it scrupulously fair. A broad-based land tax would also be simpler to administer than a value-capture tax. That’s because there would be no requirement to police the geographic boundary of the catchment area.
So a broad-based land tax has some distinct advantages over a value-capture tax.
Some will say our conclusions are pessimistic, that a little more creativity could devise a way to design value capture so it painlessly funds public infrastructure. To which we would say: there’s no magic pudding when it comes to public money – the only sources of funding for public infrastructure are user charges or a tax. Value capture may involve taxing beneficiaries more than the general taxpayer, but it’s not a bucket of free money.
Yes, if value capture is done the right way, as a tax that embraces the principles of equity, efficiency and simplicity, it could make a positive contribution to infrastructure funding in Australia. But the truth is, there is nothing easy about capturing value.
 
Marion Terrill is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480"> </a>Transport Program Director, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marion-terrill-169480" target="_blank">here</a>.
Owain Emslie is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/owain-emslie-250445"> </a>associate, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/owain-emslie-250445" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
 
</body></html>

Value capture: a good idea to fund infrastructure but not easy in practice

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
You may have heard that Victoria announced a new tax this month that will cost landlords $20 million a year, and that's just in the beginning.
Many observers believe that investors will be squeezed over time by increasing tax rates that raise the state government's take.
How does this new tax affect you as a property investor? Let's look at it closely.
First, here are the details of the tax:
• It will be charged every calendar year from January 1, 2018, together with your land tax.
• It will be imposed on houses and apartments in the inner and middle suburbs of Melbourne that lie vacant for more than six months per year.
• It will cost you 1 percent of your property’s capital improved value. For example, if the capital improved value is $500,000, you will have to pay $5,000 in tax every year.
• There are exemptions: holiday homes (if your principal place of residence is in Australia), a city unit for work purposes, properties in deceased estates and homes subject to legitimate temporary absences (e.g. medical care, overseas appointments).
• You can avoid this tax by selling, moving into or renting out your vacant Melbourne property.
Is Victoria a safe place to invest?
The biggest question raised by this new tax, which is just the latest strand of red tape strewn across Melbourne’s CBD in recent years, is whether the state is any longer a safe place for property investors to put their money.
Property investment is almost always a years-long commitment to a location. Time can expose you to many unforeseen risks, so the smart investor tries to avoid at least those that seem obvious.
And it does seem obvious that Victoria's leaders will impose more taxes on property investors in the years to come. The Australian Financial Review reckons that the latest move is "just the start of a push by the state to collect more revenue from property owners."
True, most of these fees and taxes have targeted foreign investors, but this latest levy makes no distinction between offshore and local absentee owners. 
Who’s Next?
Pickpockets operating on a crowded street never limit themselves to just one wallet, but pick as many as they can. Just so, governments pursuing new revenue never limit themselves to taxing —as in the case of foreign buyers— just the smallest share of those within their reach. Not when there is a far richer wallet to be picked. Australian property investors: that wallet belongs to you.
What's most puzzling about this behaviour is that property investors have contributed much to Victoria. You have added hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs to the local economy. By purchasing units off the plan, you have made possible the construction of development projects that otherwise would have remained nothing more than architectural drawings. All this building has provided tens of thousands of new homes for Victorian residents.
Worst of all is the government's shallow claim that housing affordability is its real goal. Victoria’s recent development boom was made possible, in large part, by property investors. The most powerful thing the state government could do for first home buyers would be to encourage the very property investors who make new construction possible.
The new residences that investors create give homes to renters and provide opportunities for new buyers to grasp the property ladder and climb onto the first rung. 
Unfortunately, the state is taking exactly the opposite tack.
Real estate agents can profit
While investors may be dismayed, real estate agents can profit from the new vacant property tax. It represents a golden ticket for real estate agents who, due to their deep local knowledge, may be aware of which residences are vacant. I'm sure smart agents are already calling and emailing owners of vacant property to help them to sell or lease up the homes for them.
Perhaps most puzzling of all is that Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas says the State plans to use utility usage to determine which homes are left empty. At Bunnings right now you can buy timers that give you precise control of both water and electrical usage in your property. Is the State so naive as to impose a tax that anyone can foil by installing a couple of $20 electronics? Installing a timer on one faucet and another on a single outlet seems likely to ensure an owner’s utility usage falls within the minimum range.
Gavin Norris is head of Australia for Juwai.com, the No. 1 Chinese international property portal and can be contacted <a href="https://list.juwai.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

What Victoria’s new vacant property tax means to you: Juwai's Gavin Norris 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Howard government, when flush with revenue, made a bad tax decisions which continue to haunt current policy makers. 
It removed the tax on the retirement phase of superannuation, this has been partly resolved by current government’s recent changes. But the Howard government also replaced the full taxation of real capital gains with concessional treatment of capital gains (only 50% of gains taxed). This remains as a tax avoidance loophole which both parties acknowledge but are reluctant to act upon.
The reason is straightforward. Assets put into superannuation in the accumulation phase and held until the retirement phase, can then be sold with no, or minimal, capital gains tax payable. This a major incentive to put assets into super and hold them until the retirement phase.
Without further changes to superannuation taxation, this is simply going to worsen the social problem of the well-off adopting tax minimisation strategies by piling as many assets into super as possible. Remember, it will still be possible to contribute up to A$100,000 per annum as non-concessional contributions.
Consequently, the well-off could easily build up a pool of assets of several million dollars or more, which when sold in retirement will still get very, very, favourable capital gains tax treatment under super.
If superannuation assets in retirement are under the A$1.6 million cap, no tax will be payable on capital gains from sales of assets. If assets are above the cap, the tax rate applied to capital gains is 10%.
For example, an asset costing $100,000 and held for 15 years, increasing in price at an average of 7% per annum would be sold for $276,000. If in super, tax payable would be $17,600. If outside of super, on the top marginal tax rate (including levies) of 49%, the tax payable would be $43,096.
If the concession on capital gains tax was reduced (without addressing the concessionary rate in super), the incentive would be even bigger. For example, if the concession was reduced to 25%, tax payable on the capital gain outside of super would be $64,644, an even larger gap to the tax payable in super of $17,600.
Putting $100,000 per annum into super for 15 years with an average 7% capital gain per annum generates a portfolio worth $2.7 million. The capital gains tax savings on this being in super, rather than outside, are more than $1 million!
So, what are the consequences if a brave government elects to reduce the concession applied to capital gains tax? If they make no changes to super tax arrangements there are at least two likely consequences.
First, there is increased incentive for individuals to set up self managed super funds to exploit these tax arbitrage or minimisation loopholes.
Second, despite taxation of earnings on retirement income balances over the A$1.6 million cap, maximising non-concessional contributions into self managed super funds will remain attractive, to take advantage of the difference in capital gains tax rates on assets inside versus outside super – to the detriment of future government budgets.
The consequences for self managed super funds incentives to borrow (via non-recourse arrangements involving trusts) to purchase assets such as property are unclear. As described on one adviser’s website:
Such borrowing will enable trustees to acquire assets over and above the assets that can be obtained from contributions. The caps on contributions can therefore be “overcome” by such borrowings.
However, it is doubtful that there are tax arbitrage benefits from using leverage to purchase assets via super (because higher marginal tax rates mean higher tax deductions for interest on borrowings outside of super).
For reasons of social equity, any general changes to the capital gains tax rate will also need to address capital gains tax within super. Admittedly there is already a lower concession in the case of super (two-thirds of gains are taxed versus one-half).
But that means taxing capital gains in super at only a 10% rate, leaving strong incentives to thwart higher capital gains tax by locating assets within super. Failing to reduce the capital gains tax concession in super would be likely to undo a substantial part of the effectiveness of any general changes the government has already made.
Kevin Davis is research director of Australian Centre for Financial Studies and Professor of Finance at Melbourne and Monash Universities, Australian Centre for Financial Studies. He is an author for The Conversation and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-davis-3497" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Despite superannuation changes, one tax loophole remains: Kevin Davis

<html><body>
The Turnbull government is planning to cut capital gains tax concessions for property investors, according to a report in The Australian Financial Review.
It says the policy backflip will be unveiled in the May budget.
"It is understood the policy being worked on within government would be confined to property investment, and not apply to all investments such as shares, as Labor's plan would," reporter Phillip Coorey wrote.
The options being worked on include following Labor in halving the 50 percent discount on capital gains tax to 25 percent, or reducing it by another amount. The other is adopting a phased model in which the discount would increase the longer the property was held. A property would have to be held for several years before the investor was eligible for the full 50 percent discount.
The suggestion has been wrapped up as seize the initiative on housing affordability but will provide revenue to help replace soon-to-be dumped budget cuts.
"Neither would the Coalition policy target negative gearing, as Labor is doing."
But Malcolm Turnbull this morning said the Government did not support the Labor Party’s plans to increase capital gains tax or negative gearing.
“We do not support the Labor Party’s plans to increase capital gains tax or indeed their plans to outlaw negative gearing.
"Our policy is… focused on encouraging investment and employment and the economic growth and opportunity that Australians need”.
“The only party that is an advocate for higher taxes is the Labor Party… We are a party of lower taxes, supporting investment, supporting employment, and bringing the Budget back into balance”.
</body></html>

Property investor capital gains tax mooted to rise in 2017 Federal Budget

<html><body>
New tax rules in place since July 2016 now apply to vendors disposing of certain taxable Australian property under contracts.
Conveyancers may need to register with the Tax Practitioners Board, when assisting clients to meet new requirements under the foreign resident capital gains tax withholding measures. Ian Taylor, chair of the Tax Practitioners Board, said depending on whether a conveyancer’s client is the vendor or purchaser, foreign resident capital gains withholding forms may need to be completed and submitted to the ATO which include clearance certificate, rate variation application and the purchaser payment notification form. 
"The TPB considers there are sections of each of these forms that involve the provision of a tax agent service. 
"It is also recognised that conveyancers, who perform certain services relating to the purchaser payment form, are exempted from being registered with the TPB as a tax agent until 31 December 2017.   "Before assisting clients to meet the requirements of the foreign resident capital gains withholding regime, all conveyancers who are not registered with the TPB as tax agents, need to understand what they can or cannot do under the TASA.   "If conveyancers complete and submit these forms to the ATO on behalf of a client for a fee or reward, they may need to be registered with the TPB, either immediately or in the future"   For further information about whether or not conveyancers need to be registered with the TPB <a href="https://tpb.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f1bfb3d6593e3b7312cde4bc0&amp;id=9c07a3e754&amp;e=c8397a77b6" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</body></html>

Property 101: Conveyancing and the TASA

<html><body>
Foreign buyers of property in Vancouver now have to pay a 15 percent transaction tax.
British Columbia legislators passed the new law which means new tax means non-Canadian residents buying a $2 million home will have to pay an additional $300,000 in tax.
"While investment from outside Canada is only one factor driving price increases, it represents an additional source of pressure," British Columbia Finance Minister Michael de Jong said in a statement.
"This additional tax on foreign purchases will help manage foreign demand while new homes are built to meet local needs.
Meanwhile the City of Vancouver has identified the need for a vacancy tax in order to meet rental supply issues.
The new foreign buyer tax could face a court challenge as it may be in violation of the Canada-China Bilateral Investment Treaty.
</body></html>

Taxation

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Taxation

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News