1 November 2026

The ATO has published its third research and development (R&D) report on data about R&D tax incentive entities. The report includes R&D entities that have claimed the R&D tax incentive (R&DTI) for the 2023–24 income year and those that have claimed or amended their claim to the R&DTI for the 2021–22 and 2022–23 income years.

Key highlights include:

• The total amount of R&D expenditure claimed for the 2023–24 income year is $16.7bn, with 13,490 companies having claimed R&D expenditure for the 2023–24 income year.
• Public and multinational businesses invested the most in R&D in the 2023–24 income year, with a total of $9bn claimed.
• Small businesses had the highest number of claimants, with a total of 6,920 claimants, making up 51% of the total population.
• The professional, scientific, and technical services industry claimed more R&D expenditure than any other industry and made up 44% of the number of claims.
• Australian-owned companies accounted for 93% of this year’s population, with 12,561 reporting R&D expenditure.

The ATO has released a decision impact statement in respect of the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Hicks [2025] FCAFC 171, which concerned the application of section 45B and Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to a series of steps carried out as part of a restructure of a private group of entities. Under the scheme, shareholders of a company received capital distributions through the selective buy-back of shares to facilitate the repayment of Division 7A loans within the group.

The Full Federal Court dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal and found that each of the taxpayers was not liable to tax as a result of section 45B or Part IVA. Broadly, the Court concluded that:

• Section 45B did not apply as the capital distribution could not be viewed as being made in substitution for a dividend, due to the relevant ‘profits’ being profits of a trust.
• Part IVA did not apply as the Court, in considering what ‘might reasonably be expected to have happened’ in the absence of the scheme, accepted the taxpayer’s alternative postulate.

For further detail on the Full Federal Court decision, see the February 2026 edition of Monthly Tax Update.

In its decision impact statement, in relation to the consideration of section 45B, the ATO indicates the following:

• It was open to the Court to conclude, on the facts at issue and in respect of the scheme identified by the ATO, that the factors identified in subsection 45B(8) did not support the conclusion that the participants entered into or undertook the scheme for the purposes of enabling any party to gain a relevant tax benefit. This conclusion considered factors such as the fact that the profits accumulated prior to acquisition, the absence of a dividend paying history in other group companies, and the fact that the majority of the issued shares were pre-CGT assets.
• The ATO agrees with the Court’s observation that for the purposes of subsection 45B(9), it is not necessary to identify an alternative hypothetical dividend that meets any of a ‘possible’, ‘reasonably expected’, or ‘would have happened’ standard.
• The ATO considers that the Hicks case may limit application of paragraph 45B(8)(a) where distributions relate to trust profits rather than company profits. However, it will identify steps that introduce trusts merely to align with the Hicks case as part of a broader scheme that may attract the application of section 45B.
• The ATO agrees with the Court’s observation that paragraph 45B(8)(a) may be enlivened even where the company that paid the capital benefit itself has no distributable profits.
• The ATO agrees with the Court that the term ‘attributable’ in section 45B(8)(a) does not require profits to have caused the capital return decision.

On Part IVA, the ATO indicates that where the choice of alternative could affect the amount of the tax benefit, it is presently its practice to seek to identify what, in its view, is the most likely alternative having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection 177CB(3), as well as relying on other apparently reasonable courses of action by way of alternative, should the ATO’s preferred postulate not be accepted. It also indicates that the ATO will seek to obtain findings of fact as to the reasonableness and likelihood of all postulates advanced by either party.

The ATO confirms that it is reviewing the impact of this decision on related advice or guidance, including:

• Practice Statement PS LA 2005/24 Application of General Anti-Avoidance Rules, which provides guidance to tax officers who are contemplating the application of Part IVA or other general anti-avoidance rules to an arrangement
• Practice Statement PS LA 2008/10 Application of section 45B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to share capital reductions, which provides instruction and guidance to tax officers on the application of section 45B to a share capital reduction by a company

Comments on the decision impact statement close 20 November 2026.

In Traynor and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation and business) [2026] ARTA 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal has upheld assessments issued to three taxpayers within a private group, finding that amounts received by them from the group’s main corporate trading entity were loans to which Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applied.

Following an audit of the main trading company, a private company within the group, the Commissioner of Taxation found that loans that had been made from the company to three taxpayers (the company director and two trusts) had not been accounted for in those taxpayers’ returns between 2016 and 2020. The Commissioner made amended assessments for the taxpayers in those income years, assessing them under Division 7A.

The Tribunal found that the taxpayers had described the group’s accounting practices only in general terms. The evidence provided by the taxpayers, although it may have highlighted funds coming from the main trading entity or being transferred between different entities, did not specifically address payments made to the three taxpayers or provide a reconciliation of such payments in any detailed way. The bank statements and other evidence provided did not give a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the taxpayers’ assertion that amounts recorded in the financial statements were not loans but rather transactions between entities for ‘working capital’ in the group.

On balance, the Tribunal considered that the evidence provided demonstrated that the main trading company made loans to the three taxpayers in the relevant income years, and that such loans were not fully repaid before the lodgment day for the income years in question. The unrepaid amounts were therefore assessable to the taxpayers as deemed dividends.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has released draft Practice Statement PS LA 2026/D4, which outlines when the Commissioner may assess an employer’s SG shortfall and SG charge liability for a qualifying earnings day without a voluntary disclosure statement from the employer. As a general principle, under the draft Practice Statement, the employer should first be told of the apparent shortfall and how it was identified, and be given a reasonable opportunity to correct reporting errors, provide further information, or lodge a voluntary disclosure. Exceptions may apply where there is a risk of flight or dissipation of assets, or where there is a history of non-cooperation.

The ATO has also updated PS LA 2007/10, which deals with making default SG charge assessments, and PS LA 2021/3, which deals with the remission of additional SG charge, to confine them to periods ending on or before 30 June 2026.

Employers should ensure that ATO correspondence about apparent SG shortfalls is escalated promptly, given the limited window to respond before an assessment is raised.

Comments on PS LA 2026/D4 close on 13 November 2026.

The ATO has finalised Practice Statement PS LA 2026/2, which sets out the matters the ATO will consider when deciding whether to determine, under subsection 18C(4) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, that a class of employers has been affected by exceptional circumstances for the purposes of Payday Super.

PS LA 2026/2 provides that relief is not automatic. A determination can only be made for a class of employers (for example, by location, system or platform, or sector), not for individual employers, and only for natural disasters or widespread technology outages that disrupt the contribution process for a sustained period. Where a determination is made, affected employers will have 20 business days (rather than the usual seven) to make “on-time” contributions. Cash flow difficulties and routine payroll or system issues are not, of themselves, considered exceptional circumstances.

PS LA 2026/2 applies from 1 July 2026. Where a determination is made, employers should self-assess whether they fall within the specified class and retain supporting evidence, such as incident notices, system reports, and correspondence from service providers.

In Kay and Commissioner of Taxation [2026] ARTA 2310, the Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed SG charge assessments issued to a water truck business in respect of a worker engaged under a verbal “handshake” arrangement for four years. The worker invoiced weekly under his own ABN and was paid hourly to operate a truck owned by the business. Despite the absence of a written contract, the Tribunal found the contract was wholly or principally for his labour, was not satisfied on the evidence that any delegation had occurred, and confirmed that an agreement that the hourly rate was inclusive of superannuation would not have relieved the business of its SG obligations.

The decision is a reminder of the importance of having comprehensive written contracts in place that are reflective of the intended rights and obligations of the parties. It also serves as a reminder that the onus of proof rests with the taxpayer, and that obtaining an ABN from a contractor or agreeing a GST-inclusive rate will not displace the application of section 12(3) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. 

The High Court has refused the taxpayer’s application for special leave to appeal against the Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Toowoomba Regional Council [2026] FCAFC 50. In this case, the Full Federal Court held that a “commercial parking station” for FBT purposes does not require an intention to make a profit.

Employers providing car parking, particularly those relying on the absence of nearby parking stations operated without a profit motive, should review their car parking fringe benefits position.

In Carbery v Fire Rescue Victoria [2026] FCA 1488, the Federal Court has held that the taxable value of expense payment fringe benefits arising from an employer’s reimbursement of employee contributions to a union-administered income protection scheme was 28.4% of the contributions, after applying the otherwise deductible rule in section 24 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986.

The scheme comprised a discretionary trust and an insurance policy, entitling members not only to income protection benefits but also to be considered for other benefits that would not have been deductible to the employee. The employee argued that the scheme was effectively income protection, such that the taxable value should be nil. The Court disagreed, finding that the contributions served both deductible and non-deductible purposes and required a fair and reasonable apportionment, and accepted the employer’s methodology (agreed with the Commissioner) based on income protection claims paid and the income protection share of the insurance premium.

The decision highlights the importance of understanding what an employer is actually reimbursing when applying the otherwise deductible rule, particularly where products bundle deductible and non-deductible features. It also illustrates the flow-on effect of reportable fringe benefits amounts for employees, including on income-tested government payments and child support.

The High Court has refused the taxpayer’s application for special leave to appeal against the NSW Court of Appeal decision in SKG Cleaning Services Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCA 122. In this case, the NSW Court of Appeal upheld that commercial cleaning contracts were “employment agency contracts”, such that payments to subcontracted cleaners were taxable wages for New South Wales (NSW) payroll tax purposes.

Businesses that on-supply labour obtained from subcontractors to clients should review their payroll tax positions. Importantly, the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in this matter required consideration of the nexus between the services provided and the client’s ordinary business activities, potentially widening the net for these provisions to apply, even where clients do not have a high degree of control over the personnel performing the services.

The Victorian State Revenue Office (SRO) has released its compliance areas of focus for 2026–27. In the previous financial year, the SRO completed more than 13,500 investigations and found non-compliance in more than 90% of cases, raising substantial additional assessed tax and penalties.

From a payroll tax perspective, it will focus on employers who do not correctly disclose wages (including contractor payments, employee share schemes, and fringe benefits), lodge annual reconciliations late, should be grouped, or engage in labour hire arrangements.

Employers with Victorian operations are encouraged to review these areas ahead of any compliance activity. For other Victorian tax compliance priorities of the SRO, refer to the State tax update section in this Monthly Tax Update. 

The ATO has issued an Addendum to Taxation Ruling TR 2013/1, which considers how the “employer” is identified for the short-term visit exception in the Income from Employment article of Australia’s tax treaties. Reflecting the decisions of the High Court in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 and the Full Federal Court in JMC Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 76, the Addendum states that this requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of employee under domestic law (as explained in TR 2023/4) as well as the context, object, and purpose of the treaty provision.

The Addendum applies both before and after its date of issue.

Employers hosting inbound short-term business travellers, particularly under secondment or recharge arrangements, should review whether their reliance on the exception for PAYG withholding purposes remains appropriate.

The ATO has released draft Legislative Instrument LI 2026/D20, which proposes to alter some of the basic attribution rules in Division 29 of the GST Act for certain supplies made by an entity through an agent to ensure GST, input tax credits, and adjustments only become attributable once the entity becomes aware of the transaction. For the purposes of this Instrument, an entity will become aware of the transaction when they gain an actual awareness of something that has happened, from information provided by their agent, that enables the entity to attribute the GST, input tax credits, or adjustments to a tax period.

The draft Instrument repeals Goods and Services Tax: (Particular Attribution Rules for Supplies and Acquisitions made through Agents) Determination 2017, and will commence on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Comments on the draft Instrument close 20 November 2026.

The ATO has issued an Addendum to Taxation Determination TD 2022/9 in response to changes made to the ‘global intangible low-taxed income’ (GILTI) regime by the United States (US) One Big Beautiful Bill Act 2025 (OBBBA). The Determination concludes that the GILTI regime (section 951A of the US Internal Revenue Code) is not a provision of a law of a foreign country that corresponds to Australia’s controlled foreign company (CFC) attribution rules (sections 456 or 457 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936). This means GILTI inclusions are not treated as ‘subject to foreign income tax’ under section 832-130(5) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 when working out hybrid mismatch outcomes.

The Addendum clarifies that the OBBBA amendments to the GILTI regime—now referred to as ‘net CFC tested income’ (NCTI)—which apply to US taxable years beginning after 31 December 2025, do not change the Commissioner’s view in the Determination. Section 951A remains an inclusion provision for a minimum tax regime and continues to impose a minimum rate of tax on foreign income.

The Addendum applies on and from 1 January 2026.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has released its eleventh edition of the full version of the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2025.

This edition contains the full text of the Model Tax Convention as it read on 18 November 2025, including the Articles, Commentaries, non-Member economies’ positions, the Recommendation of the OECD Council, as well as the historical notes and full texts of a number of background reports adopted after 1977.

The OECD has released a revised user guide for the GloBE Information Return (GIR) XML Schema, which supports the automatic exchange of information of GIR information as part of the implementation of the Global Minimum Tax (Pillar Two). The revised GIR XML Schema and User Guide reflect recent 2026 revisions to the GIR, following the adoption of the Side-by-Side Package by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, as well as several technical improvements.

The previous version of the GIR XML schema (version 1.0) and its accompanying User Guide, released in January 2025, will continue to apply to exchanges of GIR information until 15 June 2028. This latest 2026 XML schema (version 2.0) and its accompanying User Guide will apply from 25 June 2028 to all exchanges, including those relating to amendments and corrections of previously exchanged GIR information.

The OECD has released its ninth annual Country-by-Country reporting peer review report, which presents the findings of the 2025–26 peer review of the implementation of CbC reporting across 142 jurisdictions that provided relevant legislation or information.

For each jurisdiction, the review covers the domestic legal and administrative framework, the exchange of information framework, and the measures in place to ensure the confidentiality and appropriate use of CbC reports. Key findings from this review include:

• Over 120 jurisdictions have a domestic legal framework for CbC reporting in place, with a number of jurisdictions having final legislation approved that is awaiting official publication.
• Of the jurisdictions included in the review, 110 jurisdictions have multilateral or bilateral competent authority agreements in place.
• 106 jurisdictions have undergone an assessment by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes concerning confidentiality and data safeguards, and did not receive any action plan.
• 94 jurisdictions have provided detailed information, enabling the Inclusive Framework to obtain sufficient assurance that measures are in place to ensure the appropriate use of CbC reports.

The OECD has released the latest OECD Secretary-General Tax Report to G20, which was prepared by the OECD ahead of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Meeting held in Bangkok, Thailand on 15 October 2026.

The report provides an update on developments in the OECD’s tax work since the last Secretary-General report in April 2026, with a focus on the role tax policy can play in supporting business dynamism and economic growth. Highlighting ongoing research by the OECD, the report explores how corporate income tax policies can support business dynamism—by examining the effects of tax rates, compliance costs, loss-offset provisions, financing frictions, and competitive distortions—and provides an overview of how tax policy can support a more dynamic and competitive business environment.

In relation to Pillar Two, the report indicates that as at mid-2026, around 65 jurisdictions have legislated or taken active steps to introduce the Global Minimum Tax in some form in their domestic legislation. It was reported that the Central Record shows that 44 jurisdictions have completed the transitional qualification mechanism for their Income Inclusion Rule, and 50 jurisdictions have completed the process for their Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT) rules and QDMTT Safe Harbours.

Treasury has released exposure draft legislation and draft regulations that correct technical or drafting defects, remove anomalies, and address unintended outcomes in legislation under the Treasury portfolio.

From a tax perspective, amendments are proposed to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that individuals can access tax offsets for unused annual leave and long service leave payments received due to bona fide redundancy, regardless of whether an additional payment was issued. These amendments would apply in relation to income years starting on or after the first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, or 1 October to occur after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Additionally, from a tax perspective, the draft regulations propose amendments to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 2019 to remove the carve-out for GST-free treatment where a higher everyday living fee is charged by a supplier. The draft regulations also propose to correct current drafting in relation to the total superannuation balance value of a notional superannuation interest as referenced in the Income Tax Assessment (1997 Act) Regulations 2021.

Comments on the draft amendments closed 18 October 2026.

In Sunna v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 133, the Full Federal Court has dismissed both the taxpayer’s appeal and the Commissioner’s cross-appeal, and held that an erroneous, now unamendable, assessment that taxed part of a capital gain in the wrong income year did not stop the Commissioner amending the correct year’s assessment out of time to tax the whole gain.

In June 2019, the taxpayer entered into a contract for the sale of a property. The taxpayer had received a deposit in 2020, with the contract of sale settled and the taxpayer receiving the balance of the sale price in August 2022. The taxpayer’s 2019 tax return did not disclose a net capital gain and instead any gain was reported in part across the taxpayer’s 2020 and 2023 tax returns.

At first instance in Sunna v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 1499, the Federal Court found that the Commissioner was entitled to amend the taxpayer’s 2019 assessment to include the net capital gain, despite being outside the usual time limits, under section 170(10AA) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936), even though the taxpayer had included a smaller capital gain in his 2020 return and that assessment could no longer be amended. The primary judge also set aside the Commissioner’s amendment removing the gain from the 2020 assessment. This left the taxpayer taxed on the full gain in the 2019 year while the erroneous 2020 assessment remained in place.

At the Full Federal Court, the taxpayer argued that, although correctly calculated, the amended assessment for the 2019 year was excessive by reason of the existence of the erroneous original assessment for the 2020 year, which could not be lawfully amended or withdrawn (because the Commissioner was out of time to amend the original 2020 assessment). The Full Federal Court determined that such a contention had no support in the statute or in the authorities.

The Full Federal Court also dismissed the Commissioner’s cross-appeal against the Federal Court’s judgment in respect of the 2020 year. An amendment of the original assessment for the 2020 year was not necessary to facilitate the issue of the amended assessment for the 2019 year. The Court also dismissed the Commissioner’s alternative ground of appeal that the issue of the amended assessment for the 2020 year was nonetheless “for the purpose of giving effect to” section 104‑10(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), which determines the time at which CGT event A1 occurs.

The notice of the original assessment for the 2020 year was not evidence that CGT event A1 occurred in relation to the particular asset in that year of income. The existence of the original assessment for the 2020 year did not prevent the Commissioner or a court from forming a view about the correct operation of the law to tax the gain in a different year of income.

Importantly, the Full Court confirmed that section 170(10AA) of the ITAA 1936 is “not a power to correct an error in the assessment of a capital gain”. It is a power to give effect to the retrospective operation of the time of CGT event A1 in section 104-10(3) of the ITAA 1997.

As for the position that the taxpayer was left in, the Full Federal Court noted that the Federal Court primary judge had been correct to observe that it was open to the taxpayer to request that the Commissioner accept the lodgment of an objection to the original 2020 assessment out of time and for the Commissioner to allow that objection and give effect to that allowed objection by issuing an amended assessment for the 2020 year.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued an interim decision impact statement to outline the ATO’s response to Hilton International Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2026] FCA 1325, a case which concerned the application of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in relation to a scheme consisting of a pre-sale restructure within the corporate group immediately before a sale of shares in an eligible tier-1 (ET-1) company within a multiple entry consolidated (MEC) group, which owned a hotel in Sydney.

In this case, the Federal Court upheld the Commissioner’s Part IVA determination and accordingly dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against the objection decision. It held that the taxpayer obtained a tax benefit, as the Commissioner’s three alternative postulates, each of which resulted in the obtaining of a tax benefit of the same amount, were all reasonable alternatives to the scheme. The taxpayer has since appealed to the Full Federal Court of Australia (for a full analysis of the Federal Court case, refer to our Tax Alert).

In the interim decision impact statement, the ATO notes that the Federal Court’s decision provides significant guidance on the analysis required by section 177CB (the bases for identifying tax benefits) as to the identification of reasonable alternatives to a scheme for the purposes of establishing a tax benefit. This includes matters such as identifying a reasonable alternative to the scheme, the substance of the scheme and alternative postulates under subsection 177CB(4), and whether a postulate can be a reasonable alternative if it is itself a Part IVA scheme.

Until the appeal is decided, the interim decision impact statement indicates that the ATO will continue to identify a single preferred alternative wherever the choice of alternative could affect the amount of the tax benefit. It will also identify all reasonable alternatives. Taxpayers testing an arrangement against Part IVA or responding to an ATO review should expect the ATO to put forward several alternatives.

Note that this interim decision impact statement is intended to be read with the ATO’s decision impact statement on Commissioner of Taxation v Hicks [2025] FCAFC 171 (see Corporate tax update in this edition of the Monthly Tax Update).

Treasury has released a consultation paper on reforms to take action against perpetrators of financial abuse who use the tax and social security systems to create debts as a form of coercive control. The purpose of the consultation paper is to seek feedback on:

• The details on the mechanisms to give effect to the Government’s 2026–27 Federal Budget announcement relating to strengthening the ATO’s and the Tax Practitioners Board’s ability to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud against the taxation and superannuation system
• Potential policy options to take action against perpetrators of financial abuse who use the tax, superannuation, social security, family payment, and child support systems to create debts as a form of coercive control

New powers will help the ATO to:

• Collect debts from tax agents who commit fraud
• Pause or cancel debts for taxpayers who are victims of fraud by tax agents
• Issue garnishee notices to collect tax debts from jointly held assets, with safeguards

The consultation closes 27 November 2026.

On 1 October 2026, ancillary funds became known as giving funds. The name change is part of the Australian Government’s philanthropy reforms aimed to help double philanthropic giving by 2030. The new name better reflects the role these funds play in facilitating charitable giving and strengthening the not-for-profit (NFP) sector. As this is a name change only, it does not affect a fund’s endorsements, obligations, or regulatory requirements. Funds do not need to update their governing documents or change their names to reflect the new terminology.

The ATO has announced that it will acquire visa data from the Department of Home Affairs for 2026–27 through to 2028–29.

The data items include, among others, address and contact history for visa applicants, sponsors, and migration agents, as well as international travel movements undertaken by visa holders (arrivals and departures), visa subclass name, and specified education providers. The objectives of this program are to, among other goals, help ensure that individuals and businesses are fulfilling their tax and super reporting obligations.

Following the Reserve Bank of Australia’s Review of Merchant Card Payment Costs and Surcharging, the ATO has announced that it will stop accepting credit cards as a payment method. Initially, the ATO announced it would stop accepting such payments after 30 November 2026; however, this deadline was subsequently extended to 30 June 2027.

Taxpayers who wish to continue using a credit card to meet their tax obligations after 30 June 2027 may continue to use third-party payment providers. However, the ATO encourages taxpayers considering these options to carefully consider relevant fees, charges, and processing timeframes.

The ATO has updated its Practice Statement PS LA 2001/6, which sets out principles to apply when examining taxpayer claims for deductions for home office running expenses and electronic device usage expenses, namely phone calls and data.

In addition to general changes throughout to provide clarity and make minor style and formatting adjustments, the basic principles set out in the Practice Statement have been updated to provide clarity in relation to phone and internet expenses being work expenses, which must be substantiated with written evidence.

Additionally, the ‘method for claiming incidental phone and internet usage expenses (up to $50 total) with limited documentation’ has been removed. This is because the introduction of the standard deduction for work-related expenses in section 25-130 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 makes this unnecessary.

The ATO has issued an Addendum to TD 2012/8 , which explains which absences form part of a continuous period of foreign service for purposes of applying the foreign earnings exemption in section 23AG of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The exemption is limited to people such as aid workers, staff of certain charities, and members of disciplined forces deployed overseas.

The Addendum confirms that short, unexpected work-related trips back to Australia are not treated as part of a person’s continuous foreign service. It also confirms that work performed in international waters or international airspace does not count as foreign service.

This Addendum applies to the 2026–27 income year and later income years.

In O’Connor and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 2141, the Administrative Review Tribunal has found that the fact that the taxpayer was once a temporary Australian resident did not mean he was subject to the Departing Australia Superannuation Payment (DASP) rules on release of his superannuation.

In December 1983, the taxpayer arrived in Australia from the Republic of Ireland on a temporary visa that expired in March 1984. In January 1984, the taxpayer departed Australia and returned to Ireland. During that period, the taxpayer did not undertake any employment and did not accrue any superannuation. In September 1985, the taxpayer returned to Australia on a permanent resident visa and was later granted Australian citizenship in 1989. Between 1985 and 1991, the taxpayer worked in Australia and accrued superannuation. In June 1991, the taxpayer departed Australia for Ireland and did not return until December 2007. Since then, he visited Australia on five occasions for between two weeks and one month on each occasion.

In September 2023, the superannuation balance was voluntarily transferred to the Commissioner in accordance with section 22 of the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 (Lost Members Act). In November 2024, the taxpayer requested the release of all superannuation moneys held in his name by the ATO. The Commissioner determined that the required conditions existed under section 20H of the Lost Members Act and by operation of section 301-170(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 this release was treated as a DASP with tax assessed on that basis.

The taxpayer argued that as his superannuation was accrued when he was either a permanent resident or citizen of Australia and he did not receive any superannuation whilst he was a temporary resident, he had been incorrectly classified as a former temporary resident.

The Tribunal agreed with the taxpayer. It noted that the intention of the DASP provisions is to claw back Australian superannuation tax concessions in circumstances where superannuation benefits are accessed before retirement following departure by a former temporary resident. The purpose of the provisions was not to impose an additional tax on Australian citizens accessing their superannuation in retirement who happen to have been, at some former time, temporary residents. As the taxpayer had attained the eligibility age of 65 years, the Tribunal found that the correct and preferable decision was that the payment would not be deemed a DASP and not be otherwise subject to tax.

The Home Ownership and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) has completed its passage through the Queensland Parliament and received Royal Assent on 22 October 2026. The Bill amends legislation administered by the Commissioner of State Revenue to make a range of amendments in relation to housing and duties.

The Bill clarifies the application of revenue and grants legislation, including the Duties Act 2001 (Qld) and Land Tax Act 2010 (Qld), for participants of the Queensland Boost to Buy and Commonwealth Help to Buy shared equity programs. In addition, and among other changes, the Duties Act 2001 (Qld) is also amended to:

• Expand the concept of ‘vacant land’, for the purposes of the transfer duty first home vacant land concession, to include land with certain existing structures on it
• Update the transfer duty exemption for particular vestings of dutiable property
• Correct a minor drafting error in the reassessment provision of the additional foreign acquirer duty concession for eligible build-to-rent developments
• Update the vehicle registration duty exemption for primary producers and concessional vehicle registration duty rate for special vehicles
• Extend availability of the vehicle registration duty exemption for particular service persons to eligible current as well as former defence force members

Amendments are also made to the Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld) to ensure that taxpayers seeking appeal or review of related tax matters can proceed to either the Supreme Court or the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), but not to both.

The Commissioner of State Revenue has also updated several public rulings and practice directions to reflect consequential amendments from the Home Ownership and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026.

The Queensland Commissioner of State Revenue has updated Public Ruling DA000.19.3.

The Public Ruling sets out the terms of an administrative arrangement to provide an exemption from transfer duty, landholder duty, or corporate trustee duty for certain transactions or acquisitions occurring as part of an eligible pharmacy business complying with the ownership and interest requirements under the Pharmacy Business Ownership Act 2024 (Qld).

The updated Ruling clarifies the operation of certain conditions, extends the availability of the exemption to transfers and redistributions of interests in certain circumstances, and reflects amendments made to the Pharmacy Business Ownership Act 2024 (Qld).

The updated Ruling is effective from 20 October 2026.

The Victorian State Revenue Office has updated Revenue Ruling DA-055v4, which identifies the concessions and assistance available to taxpayers in meeting their obligations under the landholder provisions in Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic). A landholder is any company or unit trust scheme (whether private or public) that has land holdings in Victoria with an unencumbered value of $1m or more.

This updated version of the ruling replaces Revenue Ruling DA-055v3 to clarify the application of the landholder provisions to land holdings comprising leasehold estates, and interests and fixtures on third party land. In particular, the Ruling now states that the value of a leasehold estate includes any fixtures attached to the land under the lease when determining whether an entity is a landholder and whether phasing-in applies. It also adds a new section on fixtures on third party land. It notes that where fixtures are installed under a standard commercial lease, the Commissioner will generally charge duty only on the value of the fixtures.

The Ruling sets out various lodgment concessions and examples of the calculation of duty. It also identifies certain duty concessions that may apply, including where a landholder’s land holdings include leasehold estates, fixtures owned separately from the land on which they are located, and/or primary production land.

The updated Ruling has effect from 8 October 2026.

The Victorian State Revenue Office (SRO) has released its compliance areas of focus for 2026–27. In the previous financial year, the SRO completed more than 13,500 investigations and found non-compliance in more than 90% of cases, raising substantial additional assessed tax and penalties. For 2026–27, the SRO says it will target areas where its data and intelligence point to a higher likelihood of error or deliberate non-compliance, including land tax grouping and exemptions, vacant residential land tax, related-party and foreign purchaser transfers, and investor acquisitions of commercial, industrial, energy, infrastructure, and data centre landholders.

Specifically, the SRO has indicated that it will focus on the following:

• Land tax: The SRO will focus on landowners who:
  • Should be grouped for land tax purposes
  • Incorrectly claim the principal place of residence exemption or primary production exemption
  • Do not tell the SRO that they own land as a trustee or absentee owner
• Vacant residential land tax: Since this tax now applies to all of Victoria, the SRO’s areas of focus will include landowners who do not tell the SRO about vacant properties, and those who give false or incorrect property information, including claims for the holiday home exemption.
• Land transfer duty: The SRO will continue to target transactions with a heightened risk of underpayment or incorrect classification, including transactions between related parties, those involving foreign purchasers who do not disclose their status, and those that claim residence-based concessions and exemptions.
• Landholder duty: In response to growing investor activity in Victoria’s commercial and industrial property market, the SRO’s areas of focus will include:
  • Acquisitions in Australian companies and unit trusts with commercial and industrial land holdings in Victoria
  • Offshore transactions involving foreign entities that indirectly own energy, infrastructure, or data centre assets in Victoria
• First home owner grant: The SRO will continue to focus on applicants who give false information or ignore the eligibility rules. This includes applicants who do not meet the residency requirements, disclose their spouse or partner has previously received a grant, or disclose a prior relevant property interest.

The SRO says significant penalty and interest discounts apply to voluntary disclosures made before an investigation starts.

In Hughes v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] VCAT 806, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has found that the taxpayers were not entitled to the holiday home exemption for the purposes of the Vacant Residential Land Tax (VRLT) in the relevant years.

During the relevant years, the taxpayers owned two properties: a home that was their principal place of residence for land tax purposes and an apartment in a neighbouring Melbourne suburb. In 2019, the taxpayers notified the Commissioner that the apartment had been vacant for more than six months of the 2018 calendar year and sought an exemption from VRLT on the basis that they used the apartment as a holiday home and therefore were entitled to exemption from VRLT under section 88A of the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic).

The Tribunal found that the exemption was not available. Based on the material before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the taxpayers used and occupied the apartment as a holiday home for a minimum of four weeks in each of the relevant years for the purposes of section 88A(1)(a)(ii). Further, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the distance between the apartment and the taxpayers’ home supported a finding of use and occupation as a holiday home. The distance was not consistent with travel that ordinarily would be undertaken where a person has a day or several days available for a holiday.

The Tribunal observed that this was the first decision to consider the application of the holiday home exemption for the purposes of VRLT, which came into effect from 1 January 2018. The decision applied the law as it stood in the years in dispute. From 1 January 2025, use by a relative of the owner can also count towards the four-week requirement, and VRLT now applies across all of Victoria.

The Stamp Duties (Residential Purposes and Residential Land) Amendment Bill 2026 (SA) has completed its passage through the South Australian Parliament with amendments and has received Royal Assent.

The Bill amended the South Australian stamp duty law to clarify the concepts of residential purposes and qualifying land, prescribed exclusions from residential treatment, and the vacant land exemption and refund provisions.

The Bill was passed with amendments, including those concerning the treatment of short stay accommodation.

The changes apply both prospectively and retrospectively, and clarify that historic stamp duty transactions are not impacted.

RevenueSA has also updated its Information Circular 103—Stamp Duty on Conveyances or Transfers of Non-residential, Non-primary Production Real Property (Qualifying Land). RevenueSA is progressively updating related website content and guidance materials to reflect the changes made by the Bill.

The Finance Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2026 (WA) has passed the Western Australian Parliament and since been given Royal Assent. The Bill implements a range of duty and First Home Owner Grant amendments to give effect to measures announced in the WA 2026–27 State Budget Housing Taxation Package. This includes:

• An increase in the First Home Owner Rate (FHOR) of duty exemption and concession thresholds by $100,000
• Removal of the requirement for a property to be under the First Home Owner Grant (FHOG) cap to qualify for the FHOR
• The introduction of a new ‘build-to-sell’ exemption from foreign transfer duty for foreign persons that build and sell a house that adds at least one more dwelling to the housing stock

These changes apply to transactions entered into on or after 7 May 2026 (announcement date).

The amending Act also made the following changes to the off-the-plan duty concession:

• Extend the concession for two years until 30 June 2028
• Increase the concession thresholds by $50,000 so the maximum concession rate applies to purchases valued up to $800,000 (up from $750,000), with the concession phasing down to the base concession rate for purchases valued above $900,000 (up from $850,000)
• Expand the concession to include properties in a survey-strata or community titles (land) scheme