1 April 2026

The Department of Industry, Science and Resources recently undertook consultation on proposed requirements that must be met for a company to access the Critical Minerals and Hydrogen Production Tax Incentives. This includes:

• Practical enforcement of the Voluntary Tax Transparency Code

• Meeting criteria consistent with a satisfactory Statement of Tax Record from the ATO (i.e. up to date with registration requirements, lodged at least 90% of tax obligations due in last four years, and does not have undisputed tax debt of $10,000 or more), and

• A published Production Tax Incentive Community Benefit Report reviewed by a Registered Company Auditor, which details how the project will provide community benefits for each income year the production tax incentive is claimed. 

The first claim year for the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive and Hydrogen Production Tax Incentive will be the first income year starting on or after 1 July 2027.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued an Addendum to Taxation Ruling TR 2017/1 to clarify the Commissioner’s view on the ordinary meaning of ‘exploration or prospecting’ in the context of Division 40 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (capital allowances). The Addendum applies to years of income commencing both before and after its date of issue.

The Federal Government has announced that it will introduce technical amendments to ensure individuals do not exceed their concessional contributions cap in the 2026-27 year as a result of the transition from the current quarterly SG system to the new Payday Super system. 

This amendment is expected to ensure that the concessional contributions cap for the 2026-27 year (which is expected to increase to $32,500) is not exceeded because of the inclusion of the June 2026 quarterly SG contribution, which might also be made in the 2026-27 financial year.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Regulations 2026 have been made to support the Payday Super reforms. The Regulations primarily amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations 2018 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (SIS Regulations), while making consequential and supporting amendments across several other instruments. 

The Regulations set out methods for reducing an employer’s administrative uplift amount, consolidate the payments and employees excluded from qualifying earnings, prescribe exceptional circumstances for the Commissioner’s determination power (such as natural disasters and widespread technology outages), and update defined benefit member and benefit certificate settings. The SIS Regulations have also been updated to impose a uniform deadline of three business days for allocating or refunding contributions (for regulated superannuation funds other than SMSFs), while the existing 28-day allocation treatment for SMSFs has been retained.

The ATO has published draft Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2026/D2, which deals with the administration of penalties for failure to comply with Single Touch Payroll (STP) reporting obligations. 

PS LA 2026/D2 explains how the ATO will administer penalties that an entity becomes liable to pay when it fails to comply with its STP reporting obligations.

Submissions can be made on the draft PSLA by 24 April 2026. 

In Commissioner of Taxation v Baya Casal [2026] FCAFC 11, the Full Federal Court has unanimously dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal, upholding the Federal Court’s decision in Baya Casal v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 87 that the taxpayer’s employment position was genuinely redundant.

In this case, the taxpayer that had been employed as an early learning centre assistant at a school was offered alternative roles following an internal restructure, with each of these roles involving reduced weekly hours and a corresponding reduction in annual salary of approximately 20–40%. The taxpayer declined the new roles and her employment was terminated, resulting in a payment of $15,327 being made to her. The school treated the payment as an employment termination payment (ETP) under section 82-130 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997). The taxpayer subsequently applied to the Commissioner for a private ruling, arguing the payment should have instead been classified as a tax-free genuine redundancy payment under section 83-175 of the ITAA 1997, however, the Commissioner ruled that the payment was an ETP rather than a genuine redundancy payment.

The Commissioner’s position was that if the employer still had a job that it wished the employee to perform then there may not be a genuine redundancy, particularly if the duties of that job were not too dissimilar from the existing ones. The facts demonstrated that the skills and duties required for the new roles were similar to the skills and duties of the taxpayer’s existing role. 

The taxpayer’s case was that the alternative positions offered were not appropriate because they involved a material reduction in hours, and in remuneration, with the working days changed.

The Full Federal Court found that the Commissioner’s approach focused too narrowly on the specific tasks an employee performed. Although it was to be accepted that a reduction in remuneration did not of itself demonstrate that a position had become redundant, it could support a conclusion that a position had become redundant where the reduction in remuneration resulted from a change to the scope of the responsibilities or duties to be performed, the scale of the tasks to be carried out or the location of the role. 

In the circumstances of this case, the primary attributes of the taxpayer’s role were not limited to the precise tasks she was to carry out but extended to the scope and scale of her tasks and duties. Her position was to perform duties and tasks on an hourly basis and she was remunerated according to hours worked. The scope of the taxpayer’s role had diminished to a degree to which her position had become redundant. 

In SoClean Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWSC 161, the taxpayer, a commercial cleaning business servicing shopping centres in the Sydney region, sought to challenge payroll tax assessments (including 25% penalty tax and market rate interest) on payments made to subcontractors. 

In this case, the taxpayer provided cleaning services, including what it called “day-to-day” cleaning services and “specialised services” such as deep cleaning. 

The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) deemed these arrangements to constitute employment agency contracts, with payments to subcontractors deemed wages pursuant to section 40 of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW) (PTA). 

The Court ultimately rejected the taxpayer’s appeal, affirming the Commissioner’s determination that the specialised services procured by the taxpayer constituted services that (much like ‘day-to-day services’) it considered to be both necessary and appropriate for the delivery of its contracted cleaning services to its clients. It was found to have procured these services on a regular basis, “under” its client contracts within the meaning of section 37. 

Additionally, the Court declined to remit either penalty tax or the market rate component of interest, finding the taxpayer had not established that it took reasonable care to comply with the law or that the default arose from circumstances beyond its control.

In Living Works Education (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 80, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) reviewed payroll tax assessments issued to the applicant, a provider of suicide intervention training programmes, for the financial years ending 30 June 2022 to 2024. The Chief Commissioner assessed payroll tax on the basis that individuals engaged by the applicant to deliver its “safeTALK” and “ASIST” workshop programmes were employees. The applicant contended the trainers were independent contractors engaged under various forms of written agreement, including an “Independent Contractor Agreement” and a “Service Agreement”. 

Applying the principles in CFMEU v Personnel Contracting [2022] HCA 1, the Tribunal examined the contractual terms to determine the character of the relationship. While certain features such as the applicant’s control over workshop content, use of prescribed materials, and compliance with company policies were consistent with employment, the Tribunal found that other factors carried more weight against that conclusion. In particular, the Tribunal placed significant weight on the trainers’ ability to refuse work, their obligation to obtain their own insurance, the indemnities they provided to the applicant, the fee structure (a flat rate per workshop rather than payment for hours worked), and the ability to subcontract with consent. The Tribunal also considered, but did not place determinative weight on, the GST treatment of the trainers’ invoices, which was consistent with independent contractor status. 

The applicant conceded that the agreements were “relevant contracts” under section 32(1) of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW) but argued they were excluded by section 32(2)(b)(iii) (the 90-day exemption). The Tribunal found that one contractor had provided services exceeding 90 days in certain financial years, and the applicant failed to adduce evidence showing those services were not “similar services” to those under other contracts, thereby failing to discharge the onus of proving the exemption applied. 

The Tribunal held that the trainers were not employees and the assessments could not stand on that basis. However, due to unresolved issues concerning the “relevant contracts” provisions and the scope of the amounts in dispute, the assessments were remitted to the Chief Commissioner for reconsideration.

The ATO has finalised the following Legislative Instruments, which have the effect of varying PAYG withholding to nil:

• Taxation Administration (PAYG Withholding Variation for Company Directors and Certain Office Holders) Legislative Instrument 2026 (F2026L00198), which applies to payments made to an individual appointed as a director, member of a committee of management, or office holder, and where the individual must pass the full amount to another entity of which they are a director, partner or employee. This instrument repeals and replaces the previous instrument that was issued in 2016, and while it is substantially the same in effect as the 2016 instrument, it also provides an exemption from certain STP reporting requirements introduced after the 2016 instrument was made.

• Taxation Administration (PAYG Withholding Variation for Certain Insurance and Compensation Payments when an ABN is not Quoted) Legislative Instrument 2026 (F2026L00197), which applies to certain insurance and compensation payments where the payee has not quoted their Australian Business Number (ABN). This instrument repeals and replaces the previous instrument.

• Taxation Administration (Withholding Variation for Payments to Indigenous Artists who do not Quote an ABN) Legislative Instrument 2026, which applies to certain payments for artistic work provided by an Indigenous artist who lives or works in certain remote locations and who does not quote an ABN.

• Taxation Administration (Withholding Variation for Certain Payments to Religious Practitioners) Legislative Instrument 2026, which applies to certain payments made to a religious practitioner.

A joint media release from the ATO and Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) indicated that there will be a renewed focus on identifying and penalising sham contracting arrangements.

The ATO and FWO will work in collaboration to act on community insights and data matching across Taxable Payments Annual Reporting (TPAR), tax returns, and Single Touch Payroll reporting to proactively identify instances in which workers have been engaged under sham contracting arrangements as a means of avoiding the payment of worker entitlements.

The FWO has confirmed that it currently has a number of investigations on foot into alleged sham contracting in sectors such as building and construction, and road transport.

The ATO is encouraging businesses to proactively review their arrangements and use the ATO’s online resources or engage with their tax advisors to work out if their worker is an employee or independent contractor. 

The ATO has also issued an Addendum to the Detailed Food List GSTII FL1 that provides details of the GST status of major food and beverage product lines. This is to:

• Ensure consistency with GSTD 2026/1 (see above)
• Revise and merge entries relevant to malt and malt extract, and
• Provide more context to snack foods that are taxable and GST-free.

The ATO has finalised two Addenda to GST Rulings concerning new residential premises to reflect the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision in Domestic Property Developments Pty Ltd as trustee for the Dals Property Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] AATA 4436.

The updates made to GST Rulings GSTR 2003/3 (which covers when a sale of real property is a sale of new residential premises) and GSTR 2009/4 (which deals with new residential premises and adjustments for changes in extent of creditable purpose) both reflect:

• The AAT position that the five-year period in section 40-75 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 must be a continuous period.
• The AAT confirmation that marketing premises for sale is a ‘use’ of premises for the purposes of section 40-75 of the GST Act.
• The AAT clarification that the meaning of ‘applied’ in Division 129 of the GST Act and ‘used’ should not be interpreted consistently as a matter of course, and that ‘used’ takes its ordinary meaning.

Both Addenda apply both before and after their date of issue.

The ATO has finalised the following legislative instruments concerning specific attribution rules, which would have otherwise sunset on 1 April 2026:

• The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Attribution Rules – Certain Motor Vehicle Incentive Payments made to Motor Vehicle Dealers) Determination 2026, which allows a motor vehicle dealer to attribute the GST on the sale of a motor vehicle to the tax period in which the dealer knows the total amount they will receive for that vehicle. This would usually be when they enter into a contract with the customer to sell the vehicle. The instrument only applies in circumstances where the dealer receives an amount as an incentive payment from the vehicle manufacturer, distributor or importer in an earlier tax period, which forms a part of the total amount they will receive for the vehicle, or if the dealer issues an invoice for that incentive payment in the earlier tax period. The instrument helps ensure that the motor vehicle dealer can attribute the correct amount of GST to the appropriate tax period.
• The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Attribution Rules – Prepayment for a Telecommunication Supply) Determination 2026, which allows telecommunications providers to delay attribution of GST for certain telecommunication supplies (such as telephone, mobile or internet services) to the tax period in which an invoice is issued (or would have been issued) for the supply in cases where a prepayment for that supply has been received in an earlier tax period. The instrument prevents the basic GST attribution rules from applying inappropriately in these circumstances.
• The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Attribution Rules – Supplies of Electricity Distribution Services) Determination 2026, which allows a supplier of electricity distribution services to attribute GST and adjustments on supplies it has made to the tax period in which it receives from its billing agent all the information that is necessary to ascertain the total amount it will receive for the supply. This applies in circumstances where a billing agent issues an invoice for the supply on behalf of the supplier.

The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Frequency of Fund-raising Events) Determination 2026, effective 4 March 2026, allows an endorsed charity, a gift-deductible entity or a government school to treat all supplies it makes in relation to a fund-raising event as being input taxed where it holds 15 or fewer like or similar fund-raising events in a prescribed accounting year. Where a fund-raising event forms part of a series or regular run of like or similar events that exceed 15, the endorsed charity, gift‑deductible entity or government school is not able to choose to treat supplies made in connection with any of the events held in that prescribed accounting year as input taxed.

Legislative instrument Taxation (Multinational-Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Qualified GloBE Taxes) Amendment (Measures No. 1) Determination 2026 updates the list of jurisdictions, with varying application dates, that are considered to have qualified taxes for purposes of applying Australia’s implementation of the Pillar Two Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules. 

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued a decision impact statement in response to the High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v PepsiCo Inc & Anor [2025] HCA 30, which concerned whether a payment included any royalty that would have been subject to royalty withholding tax and the potential application of the diverted profits tax (DPT).

The ATO sets out detailed comments on various aspects raised in the case. Among other points relevant to the royalty issue, the ATO states that it will examine closely any changes made to existing arrangements under which a non-resident IP holder receives compensation for making IP available so that there is no longer a payment (actual or constructive) of a royalty to a non-resident. Specifically, it states that such altered arrangements are considered high-risk for the purposes of the general anti-avoidance provisions (Part IVA) and the DPT.

Furthermore, the ATO observes that the Court’s finding that the DPT did not apply because there was no tax benefit present was based on ‘critical facts, unique to these appeals’ and that it does not expect that this set of ‘unique’ and ‘critical’ facts will be common to other cases. Because of this, it considers that the majority’s analysis as to tax benefit in this case has limited implications for the application of the DPT or Part IVA in other cases.

In conclusion, the ATO has indicated that it is reviewing the impact of this decision on Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2005/24 Application of General Anti-Avoidance Rules, and draft Taxation Ruling TR 2024/D1 Income tax: royalties – character of payments in respect of software and intellectual property rights.

Comments on the decision impact statement close 1 May 2026.

The Australian and Canadian governments have committed to modernising the Canada-Australia Tax Treaty to facilitate greater investment, including joint investments, in nation-building projects in both countries. Both countries have agreed to prioritise the negotiations.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) have formalised their partnership with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in the margins of the Platform for Collaboration on Tax’s 2026 Conference on Tax and Development, held on 2-3 March in Tokyo, Japan.

The agreement builds on a collaboration that began in 2018 under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) in Mining Programme. The MoU provides a framework for IISD and the OECD to continue their support to developing countries in strengthening domestic resource mobilisation, with a focus on the extractive sector and international taxation.

Under the MoU, the two organisations will deepen their work to address BEPS-related risks in mining, strengthen fiscal and administrative frameworks, and support countries in implementing international tax reforms. This work further covers the design and use of tax incentives, as well as emerging issues, such as environmental taxation and carbon pricing.

Since the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Administration’s ‘IEEPA tariffs’ are unlawful, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) has issued a nationwide refund order to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) without regard to IEEPA duties. The Court confirmed that all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling, not only those that filed suit. Read more in this Alert that has been updated for this latest development. 

On 24 March 2026 Australia and the European Union (EU) concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA), marking a major step forward in trade and investment between the parties. The FTA is expected to reduce trade barriers, create new opportunities in the services sector, and establish a more predictable business environment. While conclusion of negotiations is a significant milestone, the FTA is not yet in force. Businesses should start preparing now to be ready to claim preferential duty rates once implementation of the FTA is complete. Read more in our Alert. 

In March 2026, the Tax Ombudsman released its report following a review into the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) decision-making in relation to the general interest charge (GIC) on tax debts.

The review found the ATO’s inconsistent decision-making, vague guidance, and poor communication were leading to confusion and unfair outcomes for taxpayers seeking a remittance (reduction or refund) of the interest charges accumulating on tax debts. The report includes several recommendations, including:

• The ATO agree an up-front interest-free payment plan for eligible taxpayers who enter into and maintain compliant payment plans

• The ATO build on their recent improvements to address inconsistency in GIC decision making 

• The ATO conduct a post-implementation review of the changes to GIC remission made in late 2025 and early 2026, within 12 months of their completion. This includes the introduction of a centralised function for decision making, the standard application form, and website updates, including revised guidance and published examples of how remission criteria are applied.

The ATO has agreed to all recommendations, and the Ombudsman has welcomed the ATO’s recent changes to address inconsistency in GIC remission decisions.

The Government has announced that it will increase the distribution rate for giving funds, setting the minimum annual distribution rate for both private and public giving funds at 6% of net assets. This will ensure more benefits flow to charities to help them to provide their services, while still allowing giving funds to invest and provide benefits into the future. By way of background, giving funds allow donors to receive an upfront tax deduction for their gifts, provided the fund makes a minimum annual distribution to charities that are deductible gift recipients.

The new rate will apply from the first financial year following amendments to the giving fund guidelines, and existing giving funds will not need to meet the new distribution rate for two years.

In Aitken v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 18, the Full Federal Court has unanimously dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, finding that the exercise of a put option and the execution of a novation deed on the same day in relation to a forestry interest held by the taxpayer constituted two separate CGT events.

When the taxpayer acquired the forestry interests, he was required by the scheme to acquire an equal number of put options. On 1 July 2015, the taxpayer exercised the put option and then, later on the same day, entered a novation deed in relation to his forestry interests excluding certain rights which were retained by the taxpayer.

In the Federal Court decision in Aitken v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 372, the primary judge dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, finding that there were at least two CGT events that happened in relation to the appellant’s forestry interests — one on the exercise of the put option and the other on entry into the novation deed. Further, the Court found that the taxpayer had not shown, as required under the relevant law that the reduction in the market value and/or subsequent market value of the interest in the project, as at 1 July 2015, was less than the amended assessment. 

The Full Federal Court upheld the Federal Court’s decision that there had been two CGT events. Further, the existence of the put option, and the fact that all investors or ‘Growers’ in the project held put options in relation to their forestry interests on the same terms as the put option, was material for the purposes of determining the market value of the taxpayer’s forestry interests, and that the exercise of the put option decreased the market value of the taxpayer’s forestry interests. 

The Full Court further noted that it was necessary for the taxpayer to adduce various items of evidence, which they had not provided. In such circumstances, not all material facts which bore upon the impact on the market value of the taxpayer’s forestry interests of the relevant CGT events were known or before the primary judge, with the consequence that the primary judge was correct to find that the taxpayer had not discharged his onus of proof.

In Brisbane Club v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCA 220, the Federal Court has found for the taxpayer in part, with only one of the contested assets being exempt from CGT on the basis that the assets were acquired pre-CGT.

The taxpayer acquired land in 1963. On 8 May 1985, the taxpayer entered into a deed with a developer to redevelop the land and, on 10 January 1986, entered into a building agreement with the developer, with construction on the land commencing on or after 14 February 1986. In June 1986, the taxpayer (as lessor) granted a lease over the whole of the land (including the building), with two subleases also entered into over parts of the building for a term commencing on 1 September 1986. The building was completed in 1988. In June 2021, the land, building, and the two subleases (among other property) were sold. 

In respect of the building, the Federal Court found that the entry into the deed on 8 May 1985 was the relevant contract for the construction of the building. Although the building agreement was a condition of the deed, it did not affect the formation of the deed. Accordingly, the capital gain made on the disposal of the building was to be disregarded as it was pre-CGT. However, the same could not be said in relation to the subleases, which were between different parties, not between the developer and the taxpayer, with the Court finding that the relevant subleases had not been acquired before 20 September 1985 and hence were subject to CGT.

In Commissioner of Taxation v Shaw [2026] FCA 197, the Federal Court has dismissed each of the Commissioner’s grounds of appeal in a case concerning deductibility of meal expenses.

The taxpayer was a long-haul truck driver in Western Australia and was away from home for considerable periods each year. He was paid a travel allowance by his employer and claimed a deduction for meal expenses, calculated by multiplying the number of days he was away from home by the maximum reasonable daily allowance under Taxation Determination TD 2020/5 as relevant for the applicable income year. Following an audit, the claimed deduction was reduced by the Commissioner. 

During appeal at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Shaw and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2025] ARTA 224, the Tribunal allowed the full amount of the claimed deduction. Ultimately, the ART concluded that the taxpayer did incur the disputed expenses in gaining or producing his assessable income. The Commissioner’s submission that where the maximum reasonable daily allowance in TD 2020/5 is claimed as the deductible expense, but more is said to have been spent (as was the case here), the taxpayer is required to substantiate all expenses was rejected by the Tribunal, i.e. the exception to the substantiation provisions within section 900-50 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 applied.

The Commissioner put forward a number of grounds of appeal to the Federal Court, including that the ART’s approach effectively reversed the onus of proof by requiring the Commissioner to prove that the meal expenses were not deductible, and that the ART erred in its approach to apportionment. The Federal Court ultimately dismissed each of the Commissioner’s grounds of appeal, finding that in the face of uncertainty as to how much of each amount on the bank statement was spent on meals, the ART could (and did) rely on other evidence in being persuaded that the claimed amounts for meals had been incurred by the taxpayer.  

Section 24(1) of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) provides that dutiable transactions relating to separate items or separate parts of dutiable property are to be aggregated and treated as a single dutiable transaction where the contracts of sale are entered into within 12 months and the dutiable transactions together form, evidence, give effect to or arise from what is, substantially, one arrangement. The Victorian State Revenue Office (SRO) has issued the following draft Revenue Rulings in respect of the aggregation of dutiable transactions:

• Draft update DA-026v3, which clarifies how and when the Commissioner of State Revenue will aggregate dutiable transactions including:
  • An explanation of the legislative criteria being the 12-month period and the ‘substantially one arrangement’ criteria
  • The factors the Commissioners will take into account in making a determination that there is ‘substantially one arrangement’, including examples, and
  • Disclosure requirements, duty calculation, and exceptions.
• Draft ruling DA-071, which clarifies the application of the exception from aggregation for registered domestic builders, with particular emphasis on registration requirements. It also explains how and when transactions will be reassessed where residential premises are not constructed. When finalised, the draft ruling will apply to dutiable transactions arising from a contract of sale entered into on or after 1 June 2026, and to dutiable transactions that occur on or after 1 June 2026.

Comments on both draft Rulings close 21 April 2026.

In R.C. Land Management Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VSC 49, the Victorian Supreme Court has allowed a taxpayer’s appeal, finding that land held by one trustee for two discretionary trusts could not be assessed on an aggregated basis. 

The taxpayer was trustee of two discretionary trusts, which were established to be used together in a land development business. Each trust was a ‘partner’ with an equal 50% interest in multiple parcels of land acquired by the taxpayer as trustee. The Commissioner issued land tax assessments for each of the relevant years, aggregating the land held by the trusts, and increasing the total land tax payable. Alternatively, the Commissioner argued that the land was held by the taxpayer in its own right, or as trustee, or, in a further alternative, that the taxpayer had been correctly assessed as a ‘joint owner’ by the operation of section 38 of the Act.

The taxpayer argued on the basis that the Commissioner had incorrectly assessed the trustee on an aggregated basis rather than a separate, 50% assessment basis, which, the taxpayer argued, contradicted sections 46A(2) and 46G(3) of the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic).

The Court accepted the taxpayer’s construction that under section 46G(3) of the Act, “the trustee of the trust is to be assessed for land tax on the whole of the land subject to the trust as if the land were the only land owned by the trustee”. Because the taxpayer held each parcel of land as to a 50% interest for each of the two discretionary trusts, each trust’s landholding must be assessed separately rather than aggregated. The Court found that the joint owner provisions in section 38 had no application, as a trust is not a “person” and there is no deeming provision in the Act treating a trustee of two trusts as two separate persons.  

The Government has announced that it has commenced public consultation on reforms to prevent perpetrators of family and domestic violence from receiving the superannuation death benefits of their victims.

Under current superannuation law, a fund may be required to pay death benefits to a person who used family and domestic violence against the deceased. This can lead to unfair outcomes for victim-survivors and their families. The Government is consulting on changes to superannuation law that could:

• Prevent perpetrators from receiving victims’ super death benefits

• Make the distribution of benefits in cases of family or domestic violence fairer and more consistent, and 

• Ensure payments are made without unnecessary delay.

Treasury’s consultation paper outlines several policy options and seeks views on how they should work in practice.

Comments close 15 April 2026.