For many domestic builders, the practical impact is the introduction of a new set of financial measures that must be monitored on an ongoing basis:

• Adjusted Net Tangible Assets (ANTA)
• Maximum Construction Capacity (MCC)
• ANTA Threshold
• Total Value of Domestic Building Work (TVDW)

Key requirements

The Minimum Financial Requirements (MFRs) introduced by the Building and Plumbing Commission are centred around two core concepts: Maximum Construction Capacity (MCC) and Adjusted Net Tangible Assets (ANTA).

A registered domestic builder must ensure at all times that the Total Value of Domestic Building Work being undertaken does not exceed its MCC, and that its ANTA does not fall below the ANTA Threshold required to support that MCC.

The regime also introduces a number of financial monitoring and reporting obligations for domestic builders. These include:

• Quarterly Internal Management Accounts where the builder’s MCC is $2m or greater. These must be prepared within 30 days of each quarter-end and include a profit and loss statement, balance sheet, cash flow statement, and aged debtors and creditors report (unless waived by the BPC).
• Notification obligations to the BPC, requiring builders to notify the BPC within seven days if they become aware they are likely to breach, or have breached, the MFR requirements.
• Information requests from the BPC, with builders required to provide financial information and supporting documentation within 14 days of a request.

It is worth noting that the requirements to monitor and maintain the required MFR ratios are continuous. The quarterly reporting requirement does not mean compliance is tested quarterly. Builders must maintain MCC and ANTA requirements on an ongoing basis and as noted above notify the BPC within 7 days if they become aware they are likely to breach the MFR requirements.

Accordingly, the practical compliance requirements for most domestic builders are to understand their MCC, monitor their ANTA, ensure they remain within their approved construction capacity, prepare management accounts where required, and maintain sufficient records to demonstrate compliance if requested by the BPC.

Effective dates and transitional rules

Existing domestic builders with an active Letter of Eligibility (from their designated insurer) on 30 June 2026 automatically transitioned into the MFR framework. Their existing Total Construction Limit became their Maximum Construction Capacity and they were not required to reapply to the BPC on 1 July 2026. These builders automatically became subject to the ongoing MFR obligations administered by the BPC.

New applicants for domestic builder registration and existing builders seeking to increase their MCC must engage directly with the BPC under the MFR framework. This requires the submission of an MFR Application or Change Application, together with financial information that enables the BPC to assess the builder’s financial capacity, determine its ANTA, and establish an appropriate MCC.

Builders seeking increased capacity must apply to the BPC before entering into contracts that would cause them to exceed their approved MCC. Where the requested capacity exceeds $2m, certain financial information must be verified by an independent qualified accountant.

Maximum Construction Capacity

Maximum Construction Capacity (MCC) represents the maximum value of domestic building work a builder can have underway at any point in time.

The legislation provides the following formula with two MCC thresholds:

Worked examples of MCC calculations

Adjusted Net Tangible Assets

Adjusted Net Tangible Assets (ANTA) is calculated as:

ANTA = Assets − Liabilities − Disallowed Assets

Total Value of Domestic Building Work (TVDW)

A builder’s Total Value of Domestic Building Work (TVDW) is calculated as the sum of:

1. The Contract Price under every Insurable Domestic Building Contract entered into by the builder, excluding contracts where either:

• the Completion Date has occurred
• the contract has been terminated.

Plus

2. The market value of all Speculative Domestic Building Work carried out by the builder where Home Warranty cover has commenced, excluding speculative projects that have reached Completion Date.

What happens if a builder breaches the MFRs?

Failure to comply with the MFR requirements may result in:

• disciplinary action under the Building Act 1993
• immediate suspension of registration
• requests for further information from the BPC
• entry into an MFR Agreement with the BPC to restore compliance.

The BPC must immediately suspend a builder’s registration if it reasonably believes the builder has ceased to meet the MFRs.

Proposed requirements removed from the final framework

Several features discussed during the consultation phase were not included in the final framework. It is important for builders and advisers to distinguish between the consultation proposals and the requirements that ultimately commenced from 1 July 2026. 

In particular, the following proposed measures did not form part of the final regime:

Key takeaway

For many domestic builders, the MFR regime does not replace existing insurer, banking, or commercial reporting requirements. Instead, it introduces a new layer of financial compliance focused on:

• maintaining ANTA
• staying within MCC limits
• monitoring Total Value of Domestic Building Work
• preparing quarterly management accounts (where required)
• demonstrating ongoing compliance to the BPC.

How SW can help

The new MFR regime introduces a number of new financial concepts and compliance obligations for domestic builders, including MCC, ANTA, ANTA Thresholds, and ongoing monitoring requirements.

SW can help builders understand these requirements, calculate ANTA and MCC, prepare Internal Management Accounts, assess compliance risks, and implement practical reporting processes to monitor their position throughout the year. We can also assist with BPC information requests, capacity increase applications, and strategic planning to support future growth.

Our focus is on translating the technical requirements into practical business advice, allowing builders to focus on building while maintaining confidence in their compliance obligations.

The post Victoria’s new Minimum Financial Requirements for domestic builders appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Introduction

In the 2026–27 Federal Budget, the Government announced a 30% minimum tax on discretionary trusts, with the stated policy objective to limit income splitting and better align the tax on trust income with the rates paid by wage and salary earners.

While we understand the policy goal of maintaining a genuine 30% floor on discretionary trust income, we hold significant concerns that key elements of the measure, as currently framed, are over-inclusive, administratively burdensome, and, in places, penal. Our submission proposes practical, targeted refinements that preserve the 30% floor while avoiding unfair outcomes.

Even if the significant variations to the proposed regime submitted to Treasury by SW are accepted, there would still be significant impacts on longstanding and accepted structures – in particular the inability for family groups to offset (pre-tax) discretionary trust distributions against losses at the beneficiary level, for example, losses in companies and trusts.

What SW has submitted

In response to the limited scope questions on which consultation was sought, a brief outline of the key points submitted by us are as follows:

A statutory definition of ‘discretionary trust’

The measure should not simply capture any trust that fails the existing ‘fixed trust’ test in Schedule 2F of the ITAA 1936. That bar is exacting and would produce a large number of ‘false positives’, drawing in unit trusts and other structures that are, in substance, fixed. SW submits there should be a purpose-built definition targeting trusts with a substantive power to redirect the economic enjoyment of income or capital between beneficiaries, with express carve-outs for managed investment trusts (MITs), attribution managed investment trusts (AMITs), and most unit trusts.

Carve-out for tax-exempt entities

A non-refundable 30% withholding on distributions to income tax-exempt entities (such as charities and ancillary funds) would, in effect, tax the exempt sector and reduce philanthropic funding by up to 30%. We submit that the offset should be refundable for exempt beneficiaries, or that such distributions be carved out entirely.

Remove the double tax on corporate beneficiaries

Denying company beneficiaries a credit for the trustee-level tax produces an effective rate of 60%, and up to 69.7% once distributed to individuals. SW proposes a ‘restricted franking account’ mechanism that delivers a non-refundable offset to the company and quarantines the credit so it can never be refunded to low-rate shareholders. This maintains the 30% floor without double taxation – and largely removes the need for complex rollover relief.

Workable rollover relief & state duty

If the penal treatment of corporate beneficiaries proceeds, rollover relief becomes critical. We warn that, without matching state duty concessions, restructures could trigger duties of up to 6.5%. We submit that relief should not require all assets to be transferred, and that the Commonwealth should secure aligned state duty relief or provide an income tax offset for duty paid.

Collection, lodgement & the Bendel decision

SW recommends aligning trust and individual lodgement dates, making the trustee and beneficiary jointly and severally liable (to avoid widespread deed amendments), refunding excess franking credits to the trustee, and confirms that no further Division 7A changes are needed following the High Court’s decision in Bendel.

Who is impacted

• Private business and family groups operating through discretionary trusts, particularly those with corporate beneficiaries.
• Unit trusts and other structures that are commercially ‘fixed’ but may fall within the current definition by default.
• Charities, ancillary funds, and other income tax-exempt beneficiaries of discretionary trusts.
• Property, investment, and testamentary trust structures, and those weighing restructures ahead of 1 July 2028.

How SW can help

SW is actively advising clients on the practical implications of the proposed regime. Our team can model the impact of the minimum tax on your current structure, assess whether existing arrangements remain fit for purpose, and evaluate restructuring options ahead of the 1 July 2028 commencement, including the interaction with state duty. We will continue to keep clients informed as the consultation progresses and draft legislation is released.

Please contact your SW advisor to discuss how these proposed changes may affect you or your clients.

Contributors

Ned Galloway | Associate Director, Tax

Related links

Treasury – Minimum tax on discretionary trusts: Consultation Paper (8 July 2026)

ATO – Tax reform: introducing a minimum tax on discretionary trusts

SW insight – Proposed testamentary trust rules: Understanding the 30% minimum tax exemption

This alert is general in nature and does not constitute advice. The measure is not yet law and remains subject to consultation. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

The post Trust in the detail: SW calls for a fairer 30% minimum tax on discretionary trusts appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Fraud does not always begin with a dramatic event but can appear as a duplicated invoice, an unexplained change to a supplier’s bank account, an employee record that does not match HR files, or a payment approved outside the usual process.

While an isolated irregularity may be an administrative error, recurring exceptions or unusual patterns can indicate a wider control weakness or potential misconduct. Importantly, a red flag is not proof of fraud, but it is a signal that a transaction or process may warrant closer review.

Fraud prevention should therefore extend beyond relying on the honesty of employees and suppliers. It requires clear accountability, effective approval controls, reliable data, and a willingness to investigate activity that does not align with normal business operations.

Here are five common fraud red flags every business should know.

1. Duplicate payments

Duplicate payments occur when the same invoice or financial obligation is paid more than once. They may result from human error, inconsistent invoice processing, poor system configuration, or gaps between finance and procurement systems. However, repeated duplicate payments can also indicate deliberate invoice resubmission, manipulation of payment records, or collusion.

Warning signs may include:

• invoices with the same amount, supplier, and date but different invoice numbers
• repeated payments made within a short period
• invoices submitted through multiple channels
• slight variations in supplier names or invoice references
• duplicate payments followed by refunds to an unusual account
• payments made without a matching purchase order, contract, or evidence of delivery.

Businesses can reduce their exposure by reviewing accounts payable data for exact and near-duplicate transactions, standardising the way invoices are received, and requiring appropriate supporting documentation before payment. Duplicate-payment analytics should also account for small variations in invoice numbers, dates, descriptions, and supplier records, as exact-match testing alone may not identify every anomaly.

A duplicate payment does not necessarily mean an employee or supplier has acted dishonestly. However, where the same supplier, employee, cost centre, or approver appears repeatedly, the pattern should be examined.

2. Unusual supplier activity

Supplier and contractor relationships can create significant fraud exposure, particularly where onboarding, procurement, and payment responsibilities are concentrated among a small number of people.

Unusual supplier activity may include:

• unexpected changes to supplier bank details
• new suppliers receiving high-value payments soon after onboarding
• multiple suppliers sharing bank accounts, addresses, or contact details
• suppliers with incomplete registration or ownership information
• invoices containing vague or generic descriptions
• repeated use of one contractor without genuine market testing
• contracts or purchase orders split to remain below approval thresholds
• urgent or retrospective approvals becoming routine
• payments that do not align with the supplier’s contracted services.

The Australian Taxation Office describes false invoicing as arrangements in which invoices are issued despite no goods or services being provided. It notes that payments may be transferred to the invoicing entity before most of the amount is returned to the business owners, with the business then improperly claiming deductions or GST credits.

Unusual closeness between an employee and a supplier can also warrant attention. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners identifies an unusually close association with a vendor or customer as a recurring behavioural red flag, while noting that the presence of a red flag does not itself establish that fraud has occurred.

Effective supplier controls should include appropriate due diligence at onboarding, independent verification of changes to payment details, and periodic reviews of supplier master data. Reviewing spend by supplier, approver, and business unit can also help identify concentrations, unusual trends, and relationships that may not be visible when individual invoices are considered separately.

3. Payroll anomalies

Payroll is often one of a business’s largest and most frequent expenditure streams. It’s a combination of sensitive employee data, recurring payments, manual adjustments, and tight processing deadlines that can create opportunities for error and misconduct.

Potential payroll fraud red flags may include:

• duplicate employee records
• multiple employees sharing the same bank account
• payments made to former or inactive employees
• unexplained or recurring manual adjustments
• unusual overtime, allowances, bonuses, or expense reimbursements
• changes to bank details shortly before a pay run
• employees without corresponding HR or onboarding records
• payroll payments that do not reconcile to approved employment terms
• inconsistent termination dates or payments.

Payroll anomalies require careful interpretation. Shared bank accounts may be legitimate, and manual payments may be necessary in some circumstances. The key is whether the transaction is supported, appropriately approved, and consistent with the employee’s status and agreed conditions.

4. Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest arises when a person’s private, financial, family, or other interests could interfere, or appear to interfere, with their responsibilities to the organisation. Conflicts may be actual, potential, or perceived, and it is not automatically evidence of wrongdoing.

The risk increases when a conflict is not disclosed or properly managed. An employee involved in selecting a supplier, for example, may have a personal or financial connection to that business. Even if the supplier provides legitimate services, the undisclosed relationship can undermine confidence in the procurement decision and create an opportunity for favouritism, inflated pricing, confidential information sharing, or collusion.

Warning signs may include:

• an employee repeatedly directing work to the same supplier
• personal relationships between decision-makers and contractors
• unexplained resistance to competitive tendering
• gifts, hospitality, or benefits that may influence decisions
• an employee participating in decisions involving a related party
• supplier ownership or contact information linked to an employee
• procurement decisions that cannot be supported by documented evaluation criteria.

Businesses should maintain a practical conflict-of-interest framework that encourages disclosure, documents how conflicts will be managed, and requires decision-makers to step aside where appropriate. Periodic declarations can be useful, but they should be supported by training, accessible reporting channels, and controls that test for undisclosed relationships.

5. Weak approval processes

Approval processes are designed to ensure that transactions are legitimate, accurate, properly documented, and within delegated authority. When those controls are unclear, inconsistently applied, or easily overridden, the opportunity for fraud increases.

Weaknesses may include:

• one person creating a supplier, approving an invoice, and releasing payment
• shared system credentials or approval accounts
• approvals completed after a purchase or payment has occurred
• repeated use of ‘urgent’ exceptions
• transactions split to avoid delegated authority limits
• missing purchase orders, contracts, or evidence of delivery
• senior employees overriding controls without documented reasons
• approvers authorising transactions without reviewing supporting records
• staff retaining system access after changing roles or leaving the business.

Excessive control over a process or an unwillingness to share duties is recognised by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners as a behavioural warning sign.

Segregation of duties is an important safeguard, but it must be proportionate to the organisation. Smaller businesses may not have enough employees to separate every step. In those circumstances, compensating controls could include independent bank reconciliations, owner review of payment reports, alerts for changes to supplier details, and periodic analysis of transactions processed outside standard workflows.

What to do if you identify a fraud red flag

Businesses should respond carefully and consistently when suspicious activity is identified. Immediate confrontation or premature accusations can compromise evidence, affect employee wellbeing, and create legal or procedural risks.

A proportionate initial response may include:

• preserving relevant financial records, system logs, emails, and approvals
• restricting information about the review to those who need to know
• confirming whether there is a reasonable operational explanation
• assessing whether similar transactions or relationships exist
• involving appropriate legal, HR, risk, internal audit, or forensic advisors
• considering whether access, payment, or approval controls require immediate protection
• documenting decisions and maintaining an objective record of the response.

The appropriate approach will depend on the nature and seriousness of the concern. The ATO’s current fraud and corruption framework emphasises prevention, early detection, and effective response, alongside integrating controls into decision-making and knowing how concerns should be reported.

Moving from reactive investigation to proactive fraud prevention

Finding one irregular payment may resolve an immediate issue, but it may not address the underlying weakness that allowed the transaction to occur.

A stronger fraud risk management program combines:

• clearly defined policies and responsibilities
• fraud and corruption risk assessments
• effective supplier and employee due diligence
• proportionate segregation of duties
• reliable approval and documentation requirements
• transaction monitoring and data analytics
• confidential reporting and whistleblower channels
• fraud awareness training
• regular testing of controls
• a documented incident-response process.

ASIC notes that internal audit can support corporate governance by independently reviewing and suggesting improvements to an organisation’s financial and non-financial controls, risk-monitoring processes and governance arrangements.

How SW can help

SW’s Forensic Services team can help organisations identify, assess, and manage fraud and corruption risks through practical, evidence-based support tailored to their size, sector, and risk profile.

Our services include fraud and corruption risk assessments, internal control and policy reviews, transaction and data analytics, procurement and payment reviews, integrity programs, investigations, training, and incident-response support.

If you have identified unusual transactions, supplier activity, payroll discrepancies, undisclosed relationships, or weaknesses in your approval processes, contact SW to discuss an appropriate and confidential response.

The post Five red flags that could indicate fraud in your business appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

The pressure is not uniform. The housing supply challenge remains national, but the conditions differ across states. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Quarterly Report – March 2026 reported that, on a rolling 12-month basis, building approvals were up 8% in NSW, down 1% in Victoria, up 16% in Queensland, and up 13% in Western Australia. Building completions showed a different pattern, with NSW down 3%, Victoria down 12%, Queensland up 4%, and Western Australia up 16%.

For developers and construction businesses, this creates a sharper risk environment. Where projects are under margin pressure, approval pathways are slow, contractor capacity is stretched, or funding assumptions have shifted, the risk of fraud, misconduct, and control override can increase. This does not mean fraud is inevitable. It does mean Boards, executives, and project leaders need to be more alert to the points where commercial pressure can weaken discipline.

The issue is particularly important given the scale of financial distress in the sector. Analysis of ASIC insolvency data reported that 3,435 construction companies entered external administration for the first time in 2025–26, down from 3,596 in 2024–25, but still representing around 24.5% of all company insolvencies nationally. Construction therefore remains one of the most exposed sectors in the economy, even if the rate of insolvencies has started to ease.

For property developers, fund managers, builders, and project owners, the key question is not simply whether fraud has occurred. It is whether the organisation has the fraud risk framework, procurement controls, financial crime processes, and investigation capability to identify issues early and respond appropriately.

Procurement & contractor fraud are pressure points in major projects

Procurement remains one of the highest-risk areas in property and construction because it sits at the intersection of commercial urgency, significant spend, and complex third-party relationships.

Major projects commonly involve developers, builders, subcontractors, consultants, financiers, project managers, certifiers, planners, and suppliers. When timelines are tight and margins are under pressure, the risk of shortcuts increases. This can include inadequate due diligence on contractors, poor segregation of duties, weak review of variations, or insufficient scrutiny of supplier relationships.

The IBAC ‘procurement risks in major projects’ guidance identifies fraud, bribery, undue influence, and collusion as risks that can arise at every stage of major projects, from planning through to construction. It also identifies fraudulent invoicing, false timesheets, and overcharging as vulnerabilities in high-value and complex projects.

For private sector developers, the same risk logic applies. The highest-risk areas are often not the headline construction contracts, but the cumulative areas of spend: variations, subcontractor claims, professional services, site works, consultant fees, plant and equipment, remediation, defects rectification, and project management charges.

Common red flags include:

• repeated use of the same contractors without genuine market testing
• variation claims that lack supporting evidence or are approved under time pressure
• splitting contracts or purchase orders to stay below approval thresholds
• unusually high use of urgent or retrospective approvals
• duplicate invoices, inflated quantities, or vague descriptions of services
• conflicts between project staff and contractors
• weak documentation around tender evaluation and contractor selection.

This is where data analytics can be particularly effective. SW’s Fraud & Forensics capability includes fraud investigations, fraud risk assessments, integrity programs, data analytics, and procurement-related reviews, all of which are relevant to identifying unusual spending patterns and control gaps across complex contractor environments.

Bribery, conflicts & improper influence are not just a public sector issue

Bribery and corruption risks are often associated with public sector procurement, but the underlying behaviours can occur in private sector property and construction as well.

In a constrained market, access to opportunities, land, preferred contractors, project information, or approvals can become highly valuable. That creates risk around gifts and benefits, conflicts of interest, undisclosed relationships, side arrangements, and improper influence over procurement or commercial decisions.

The IBAC ‘corruption risks in major projects’ guidance highlights bid rigging, collusion, conflicts of interest, pressure to favour specific suppliers, fraudulent invoicing, and the involvement of multiple players as factors that can obscure oversight and facilitate corruption.

For developers and construction groups, this risk can arise in several places:

• tender processes where one bidder appears to have inside information
• employees recommending contractors with whom they have a personal relationship
• consultants influencing procurement decisions without transparent evaluation criteria
• gifts, hospitality, or informal benefits offered during tender or contract negotiation
• pressure to approve claims to preserve delivery timelines
• related-party arrangements that are poorly disclosed or documented.

A practical anti-bribery and corruption program should go beyond a policy. It should include targeted training, scenario-based awareness, conflict declarations, contractor due diligence, gifts and benefits monitoring, whistleblower pathways, and periodic testing of high-risk processes.

Project feasibility, cost pressure & reporting integrity

The economic environment is also increasing pressure around project reporting. Developers and builders are being asked to make decisions in a market where approvals, construction costs, sales rates, finance costs, and delivery timeframes can shift quickly.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics Building Approvals, Australia, May 2026 reported that total dwellings approved fell 1.1% in the month of May 2026 to 17,019, while private sector dwellings approvals, excluding houses fell 10.4% to 6,034. The same release reported that the value of total residential building approvals fell 5.7% to $10.24 billion, while non-residential building rose 41.0% to $10.83 billion.

That mix matters. Detached housing, apartments, mixed-use developments, and non-residential projects are not moving in the same way. For developers, the risk is that internal reporting does not keep pace with market reality.

Areas of concern include:

• overly optimistic feasibility assumptions
• delayed recognition of cost overruns
• understated contingency risk
• pressure to maintain forecast margins
• unsupported claims about project progress
• failure to escalate contractor distress
• insufficient challenge of sales, leasing, or funding assumptions.

These issues may not always involve deliberate misconduct. However, weak project reporting can mask problems until losses become significant. In a distressed environment, there is also greater risk of management override, selective disclosure, or pressure on finance and project teams to ‘make the numbers work’.

For Boards and executives, the focus should be on whether reporting is sufficiently independent, whether assumptions are challenged, and whether project governance provides early visibility of emerging issues.

Financial crime exposure for developers & property transactions

Financial crime is becoming more relevant to property and construction, particularly for developers involved in the sale or transfer of property.

AI is increasingly being used for identity fabrication and impersonation, false documents, and laundering scam proceeds. This is particularly relevant where developers, agents, or advisers are relying on identity documents, purchaser information, beneficial ownership declarations, or source of funds material.

Controls that should be considered include:

• customer and investor due diligence
• beneficial ownership checks
• source of funds and source of wealth enquiries
• monitoring for unusual transaction structures
• escalation pathways for suspicious matters
• staff training on red flags and reporting obligations.

SW’s Fraud & Forensics capability includes financial crime and risk assessments, transaction monitoring frameworks, financial crime controls, and regulatory compliance support.

Subcontractor failure & misconduct risk

The continuing pressure in construction creates a further integrity risk for developers and head contractors.

When contractors or subcontractors are financially distressed, several behaviours can emerge:

• inflated progress claims
• accelerated billing before work is complete
• substitution of lower-quality materials
• underpayment or non-payment of subcontractors
• phoenix activity or related-party transfers
• pressure to approve unsupported variations
• misrepresentation of capacity to complete works.

The reported ASIC-based analysis showing construction remained around 24.5% of all company insolvencies in 2025–26 indicates that sector distress remains material, notwithstanding a fall in construction insolvencies from the prior year.

For developers, this means contractor financial health should be treated as an active risk management issue, not a once-off prequalification exercise. Due diligence at appointment is important, but ongoing monitoring is equally important throughout the project lifecycle.

Practical steps include:

• financial health checks on key contractors
• review of subcontractor payment practices
• tighter approval of variations and claims
• site-based verification of work completed
• exception reporting for unusual payment patterns
• early-warning indicators for contractor distress
• independent review of high-risk claims.

This is where forensic and commercial disciplines intersect. The objective is not simply to investigate after a failure, but to identify patterns early enough to prevent loss, disruption, and reputational damage.

Cyber-enabled payment fraud & impersonation

Property and construction businesses remain attractive targets for cyber-enabled fraud because they regularly process large payments to multiple third parties.

The risk is heightened where project teams are dealing with urgent payment requests, changing bank account details, new suppliers, settlement flows, or multiple approval layers. Fraudsters do not need to compromise every control. They often only need to create enough urgency or credibility to bypass one step.

Typical scenarios include:

• false bank account change requests
• impersonation of executives, project managers, or suppliers
• compromised contractor email accounts
• fraudulent invoices inserted into real payment chains
• fake settlement or deposit payment instructions
• AI-enabled identity or document fraud.

AUSTRAC’s 2026 update specifically notes that AI is increasing the efficiency and sophistication of identity fraud, realistic fake documents, and impersonation used to access financial and non-financial systems.

For property and construction businesses, the response should include dual authorisation, independent call-back controls, payment change verification, supplier master file reviews, fraud awareness training, and incident response protocols.

SW’s capability in cyber and digital forensics, digital evidence collection, eDiscovery, cyber incident response, and data analytics is relevant where organisations need to investigate incidents, preserve evidence, understand what occurred, and strengthen controls.

What this means for property developers

For property developers, the key risk is not one single event. It is the accumulation of commercial pressure across the lifecycle of a project.

A development may begin with optimistic feasibility assumptions, move into a pressured approval or funding environment, face contractor cost escalation, absorb variation claims, encounter purchaser complexity, and then manage settlement, defects, and stakeholder scrutiny. Each stage creates different fraud and integrity risks.

Boards and executives should be asking:

• Have we updated our fraud risk assessment to reflect current market conditions?
• Are our procurement, contractor, and variation controls operating effectively?
• Do we have clear anti-bribery and corruption expectations for staff and third parties?
• Are conflicts of interest being actively managed rather than passively declared?
• Can we identify unusual payment patterns, supplier behaviour, or project cost anomalies?
• Are whistleblower and speak-up channels trusted and well understood?

The organisations best positioned to manage these risks will be those that treat fraud risk management as part of project governance, not as a reactive investigation process.

How SW can help

SW’s Fraud & Forensics team assists organisations to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud, misconduct, and financial crime risks through:

• fraud risk assessments and fraud control framework reviews
• fraud and corruption investigations
• anti-bribery and corruption risk assessments
• anti-bribery and corruption training and awareness programs
• procurement and supplier fraud reviews
• conflict of interest reviews and investigations
• whistleblower and speak-up program assessments
• governance and integrity reviews
• data analytics to identify unusual transactions, claims, and payment patterns.

Anthony Hodgkinson has more than 30 years’ experience in fraud and corruption risk management, forensic investigations, and governance advisory services. SW’s forensic capabilities span fraud and corruption investigations, workplace misconduct investigations, financial crime, cyber and digital forensics, fraud control frameworks, whistleblower programs, ethics and integrity reviews, risk assessments, and awareness training.

The post Fraud and integrity risks in property & construction: Why pressure in the market is increasing the risk profile appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

While the practical outcome remains largely unchanged, the ruling provides greater clarity on how the Duties Act applies to these transactions and modernises the SRO’s analysis.

What has changed?

Under the former DA‑020 ruling, the SRO focused on whether a transfer of land arising from the incorporation or amalgamation of an association was exempt from duty under section 53A of the now repealed Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Vic).

The new ruling adopts a different analytical approach. It confirms that:

• property vested in an incorporated association under sections 9 or 21 of the AIR Act constitutes a statutory vesting of land
• statutory vesting is a dutiable transaction under sections 7, 7A, and 8 of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic)
• an exemption is then available under section 218 of the AIR Act where the vesting occurs to give effect to the incorporation or amalgamation.

This clarification aligns the ruling with the modern Duties Act framework for statutory vestings and successor entities.

What remains the same?

Importantly, the practical duty outcome is unchanged in most cases. The SRO continues to accept that duty relief is available where either:

• land was held on behalf of an unincorporated association before incorporation
• land was held by at least one constituent incorporated association before an amalgamation.

The evidentiary requirements remain largely consistent, with taxpayers required to demonstrate the pre-existing ownership arrangements and the connection between the transfer or vesting and the incorporation or amalgamation process.

Additional guidance

A notable enhancement in DA‑020v2 is the inclusion of practical examples covering both incorporation and amalgamation scenarios. These examples assist taxpayers and advisors in understanding how the exemption applies in practice and provide greater transparency regarding the Commissioner’s approach.

Key takeaway

Although DA‑020v2 does not materially alter the availability of duty relief for incorporated associations, it provides a more detailed and technically accurate explanation of how the exemption operates under current Victorian legislation. Incorporated associations, sporting clubs, community organisations, and their advisors should ensure future duty analyses are framed by reference to the statutory vesting provisions in the AIR Act and the corresponding exemption in section 218, rather than the repealed provisions relied on in the former ruling.

How SW can help

SW can assist incorporated associations, sporting clubs, community organisations, and other similar entities to navigate the updated ruling, assess whether duty relief is available, and prepare the supporting evidence required by the SRO. We can also review proposed incorporation or amalgamation steps early in the process to help identify duty risks, structure transactions efficiently, and ensure the relevant statutory requirements are properly addressed.

If you would like to discuss how these changes may affect your organisation, please reach out to your SW advisor or contact our team for further assistance.

Contributors

Blake Trad | Senior Consultant, Tax

The post Victorian SRO updates duty ruling for incorporated associations appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

While fraud is often associated with isolated incidents of theft or misconduct, today’s risks are broader and more complex. They can arise through supply chains, capital projects, ESG reporting, cyber-enabled attacks, or third-party relationships. The consequences can extend well beyond financial loss, affecting operational performance, reputation, investor confidence, and social licence.

Below are five areas that energy and mining organisations should be discussing as part of their risk and governance agenda.

1. Bribery, corruption & third-party risk

Mining and energy companies often operate across multiple jurisdictions, engaging contractors, consultants, agents, and joint venture partners to support exploration, development, and operational activities.

While these relationships are essential, they can also create exposure to bribery, corruption, and misconduct risks. Interactions with regulators, government agencies, landholders, community representatives, and third-party intermediaries can present challenges if governance frameworks are not sufficiently robust. Industry commentary continues to identify licensing processes, government interaction, and reliance on third-party representatives as key corruption risk areas within the sector.

Questions organisations should consider include:

• Do we understand our exposure to bribery and corruption risks across jurisdictions?
• Are third-party due diligence procedures operating effectively?
• Could conflicts of interest be influencing procurement or commercial decisions?
• Are whistleblower mechanisms and reporting channels working as intended?

Strong governance over third-party relationships remains one of the most effective ways to mitigate integrity risks before they become investigations.

2. Procurement & supply chain fraud

Few sectors rely on complex supply chains to the same extent as energy and mining.

Large operational sites, major capital projects, and extensive contractor networks create opportunities for procurement fraud and misconduct, particularly where oversight is fragmented or processes are inconsistent.

Common risk areas include:

• supplier collusion
• inflated or duplicate invoices
• unauthorised contract variations
• undisclosed relationships between employees and vendors
• fictitious suppliers and shell entities.

These issues are often difficult to identify through traditional financial controls alone. Increasingly, organisations are adopting data analytics and targeted fraud risk reviews to identify unusual patterns and anomalies before they lead to material losses. Supply chain fraud continues to be recognised as a significant risk across the sector.

For organisations managing significant contractor expenditure, fraud prevention should be considered an operational discipline rather than a periodic compliance exercise.

3. ESG reporting & sustainability integrity

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance has become a strategic priority across the energy and mining sector.

Investors, regulators, communities, and customers are placing greater emphasis on the accuracy and reliability of sustainability-related disclosures. This includes reporting on emissions, rehabilitation obligations, water usage, environmental impacts, safety performance, and community engagement.

As reporting requirements become more sophisticated, so do the associated risks.

In many cases, issues arise not through deliberate misrepresentation but through inconsistent data sources, weak control environments, or inadequate oversight of reporting processes. Industry observers have highlighted growing scrutiny of ESG disclosures, including concerns relating to inaccurate reporting and greenwashing risks.

Boards should ask:

• Can management demonstrate the integrity of ESG data?
• Are sustainability metrics subject to the same level of scrutiny as financial information?
• Do governance processes support transparent and reliable reporting?

As sustainability performance becomes increasingly tied to access to capital and stakeholder trust, reporting integrity is no longer solely an ESG issue — it is a business-critical risk.

4. Cyber-enabled fraud & operational disruption

The digital transformation of the energy and mining sector has delivered significant operational benefits, but it has also increased exposure to cyber-enabled fraud.

Threats are no longer confined to corporate systems. Operational technology, production environments, and critical infrastructure are increasingly being targeted by sophisticated threat actors. Recent industry analysis highlights that the energy sector remains one of the most frequently targeted industries globally for cyber-attacks and ransomware activity.

Emerging risks include:

• business email compromise
• payment redirection scams
• deepfake impersonation of executives
• vendor fraud
• ransomware attacks
• data manipulation.

The challenge for many organisations is that these attacks often exploit human behaviour and trusted relationships rather than purely technical vulnerabilities.

A robust approach requires coordination between cyber security, risk management, finance, and operational teams, supported by ongoing training and awareness programs.

5. Capital projects, asset reporting & performance pressure

Large-scale capital projects are a defining feature of the energy and mining sector.

Whether developing new assets, expanding operations, or investing in infrastructure, organisations are often managing significant expenditure, multiple stakeholders, and complex commercial arrangements.

Periods of market volatility can create pressure around:

• project performance reporting
• cost forecasting
• asset valuations and impairment assessments
• production reporting
• joint venture reporting
• commercial claims and disputes.

While most organisations have established governance frameworks, history demonstrates that significant issues often emerge when commercial pressures intersect with weak oversight or insufficient challenge.

Boards should ensure there is appropriate scrutiny of key assumptions, reporting methodologies, and project governance processes, particularly on large or strategically important investments.

Looking ahead

The risks facing energy and mining companies continue to evolve. Traditional fraud risks remain relevant, but Boards are increasingly focused on broader themes including corruption, supply chain integrity, ESG reporting, cyber-enabled threats, and large-scale project governance.

The organisations that respond most effectively will be those that view fraud and integrity risks not as isolated compliance matters, but as strategic risks requiring active oversight, strong governance, and a culture of accountability.

In a sector where trust, reputation, and operational performance are critical to long-term success, proactive management of these risks is becoming a competitive advantage rather than simply a regulatory requirement.

How SW can help

SW works with energy and mining organisations to strengthen fraud risk management, internal controls, and governance through services including fraud risk assessments, internal audit, forensic investigations, procurement and third-party risk reviews, and ESG governance advisory.

If you would like to discuss how these risks may impact your organisation, reach out to your SW advisor, or contact our Fraud & Forensics or Internal Audit specialists.

The post The risks Boards are talking about: Fraud, financial crime & integrity challenges in the energy & mining sector appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

From financial crime and cyber-enabled scams through to procurement misconduct and valuation integrity, Boards and Audit & Risk Committees are placing greater scrutiny on how fraud risks are identified, managed, and monitored across their organisations.

Below are five fraud risks that property fund managers should be discussing as part of their governance and risk management agenda.

1. Financial crime risk is moving from compliance to governance

Australia’s evolving threat and fraud risk environment means that property funds management businesses are attractive targets for the movement and concealment of illicit funds, with increasing regulatory focus on how organisations identify and manage those risks.

For property fund managers, the challenge extends well beyond ongoing compliance obligations. Investor onboarding processes, beneficial ownership assessments, source of funds verification, and ongoing transaction monitoring are all becoming critical components of a broader financial crime risk framework.

At the same time, Boards are increasingly asking whether existing governance structures provide sufficient oversight of emerging financial crime risks and whether internal controls remain fit for purpose in a changing regulatory environment.

As regulatory expectations continue to evolve, financial crime risk is rapidly becoming a governance issue requiring coordinated input from compliance, risk, internal audit, and forensic specialists.

2. Procurement & development fraud

Funds involved in property development, capital works programs, or significant asset refurbishment projects face heightened fraud risks due to the volume and complexity of third-party expenditure.

These risks are often difficult to detect through traditional financial controls alone, particularly where relationships with contractors, project managers, and consultants have developed over many years.

Given the significant financial investment associated with development projects, even isolated incidents can result in material losses and reputational damage.

3. Valuation & performance reporting integrity

Property valuations sit at the heart of fund performance, investor reporting, and decision-making. In volatile markets, pressure can emerge to demonstrate stable performance, maintain distributions, or support fundraising activities.

Boards should ensure that valuation governance frameworks provide sufficient independence, transparency, and challenge, particularly where valuation outcomes have a direct impact on investor returns and fund performance metrics.

Strong governance over valuation processes is not simply an accounting issue, it is fundamental to maintaining investor confidence.

4. Cyber-enabled payment & identity fraud

Fraudsters are increasingly leveraging technology to target organisations involved in high-value transactions.

The challenge for property fund managers is that many of these attacks exploit trusted relationships rather than technical vulnerabilities.

A payment request that appears to come from a known supplier, executive, or investor can bypass controls where verification processes are inadequate.

Organisations should regularly review their payment approval frameworks, vendor management processes, and employee awareness programs to ensure controls evolve alongside emerging threats.

5. Conflicts of interest & related-party transactions

Many significant investigations do not begin with the discovery of a financial irregularity. Instead, they start with concerns raised by employees, investors, or whistleblowers about decision-making transparency.

In many cases, the issue is not the existence of a conflict itself, but rather whether it has been appropriately identified, disclosed, and managed.

Effective governance requires clear policies, transparent reporting, and a culture where potential conflicts are proactively raised rather than retrospectively explained.

Looking ahead

The fraud risks facing property fund managers today are broader than they were even five years ago. Financial crime obligations are expanding, cyber-enabled fraud is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and stakeholder expectations around governance continue to rise.

While each organisation’s risk profile will differ, the common theme is clear: fraud risk management is no longer just an operational responsibility but a strategic issue that requires ongoing oversight from Boards, executives, and Audit & Risk Committees alike.

Organisations that take a proactive approach to identifying emerging risks, assessing the effectiveness of controls, and building a strong governance culture will be better positioned to protect investor value and maintain stakeholder trust.

How SW can help

SW can assist property fund managers in identifying, assessing, and responding to evolving fraud and financial crime risks through a combination of forensic expertise, risk advisory, and internal audit capabilities.

Our specialists can help organisations strengthen their fraud risk frameworks, assess the effectiveness of existing controls, support governance and risk reporting, and provide independent insight into emerging threats.

By taking a proactive approach to fraud risk management, organisations can strengthen governance and build resilience in an increasingly complex operating environment.

To discuss how SW can support your organisation in managing fraud and financial crime risks, please reach out to your SW advisor.

The post The 5 fraud & finance crime risks property fund managers should be discussing in 2026 appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Key principle

While the consideration often simply equals the purchase price, in many transactions the purchaser also takes on additional costs or liabilities. It’s not uncommon for contracts to include clauses requiring the buyer to pay a portion of the vendor’s outstanding taxes related to the property.

DA-070 outlines that ‘consideration’ is not limited to the sale price as stated in a contract of sale and that payments by the purchaser towards a tax liability for which the vendor is liable for in respect of the land (Assumed Tax Liability Amount) can form part of the consideration for a transfer of land.

Importantly, DA-070 clarifies that the characterisation of Assumed Tax Liability Amount as consideration will hinge on its substance as opposed to its form. Further, the SRO also notes that labels and payment directions, such as ‘to the vendor directly’ or ‘to a third party’, will not determine the characterisation. Consistent with case law, DA-070 outlines that an Assumed Tax Liability Amount forms part of the consideration for a transfer of land if, assessed at the time of transfer and viewing the transactions as a whole, is part of what moves the transfer.

DA-070 zeros in on specific taxes: land tax, windfall gains tax (WGT), the congestion levy, and rates.

Land tax

DA-070 highlights Section 10G of the Sale of Land Act (1962) (SLA), which prohibits vendors from passing on land tax to purchasers for properties sold where the sale price of the land is less than the ‘threshold amount’. Relevantly, the threshold amount from 1 January 2026 is $10.7m. Therefore, any such purported assumption of land tax would not be able to move a transfer of land and, therefore, cannot form part of the consideration.

However, where the sale price is at or above the threshold amount, then it’s legal for a contract to require the purchaser to pay some of the vendor’s land tax. In those cases, DA-070 states that such a payment will be part of the dutiable consideration, provided it’s truly part of the deal.

Windfall gains tax

Section 10H of the SLA prevents vendors from passing on an existing WGT liability to purchasers at the time of contract, in the same way that section 10G applies to land tax. Accordingly, if a WGT liability has already been assessed when the contract is signed, the vendor cannot make the purchaser pay it, therefore, an existing WGT liability cannot be included as consideration for the transfer of land.

Where no WGT liability exists when a contract of sale is made, it may be included in the contract that if a liability should arise before settlement, the purchaser will assume some or all of the vendor’s WGT liability. In those circumstances, the amount will form part of what moves the transfer of land if it is provided in addition to the sale price, such that the vendor would not transfer the land without that payment. As such, it will be considered part of the consideration.

Congestion Levy

The congestion levy is imposed each year on owners of a car park on leviable parking spaces within the levy area, with owners being solely liable or jointly and severally liable depending on the type of car park.

Under a contract of sale for a car park, the purchaser can agree to cover some or all of the vendor’s congestion levy liability by paying an additional amount. DA-070 provides that if this payment is made on top of the sale price and is essential for the vendor to proceed with the transfer, it is treated as part of the consideration for the land.

Rates

When settlement occurs, rates for the current rating period are usually adjusted so the purchaser reimburses the vendor for any rates paid covering the post-settlement period. This reflects the vendor’s pre-payment for a time when the purchaser will own the property. Under DA-070, the Commissioner will not treat these adjustments as consideration for the transfer of land.

How SW can help

Taxpayers should pay close attention to sale contracts as any assumed tax liabilities could potentially result in a larger duty liability arising.

Our State Taxes team can assist with guiding you through the complexities of land transfer duty and tax liability assumptions, ensuring your transactions complies with the latest SRO rulings.

Contributors

Blake Trad | Senior Consultant, Tax

The post Assumed tax liabilities: What counts as consideration for land transfer duty? appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Following the Federal Budget announcement, SW and Westpac have partnered to deliver a series of practical sessions designed to help individuals and businesses understand the proposed tax changes and their potential implications.

Before making major decisions based on media commentary, join SW specialists Matt Birrell, John Dorazio, Chris Dexter, Blake Rodgers, and Dale Sloman as they unpack the proposed changes and explain what they may mean for you.

Series program

Session 1 – Discretionary Trust

Gain insight into the proposed changes to the taxation of discretionary trusts, including the introduction of a minimum tax, and what these reforms could mean for business owners, family groups, and succession planning.

Session 2 – Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

Explore the proposed CGT reforms, including changes to the 50% discount and proposed minimum tax measures, and what these changes could mean for investments, business assets and future planning.

Session 3 – Negative Gearing

Understand the proposed changes to negative gearing, including limits on deductible losses for future property investments, and what these reforms could mean for investors, cash flow, and long-term wealth strategies.

Expert speakers

Matt Birrell
Director
SW

Blake Rodgers 
Director
SW

Chris Dexter
Director
SW

Dale Sloman
Associate Director
SW

John Dorazio
Director
SW

The post SW / Westpac | Keep Calm and Listen to Your Accountant appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

The changes, contained in the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (NSW) which received assent on 29 June 2026, represent a notable shift in policy. While foreign investor surcharges were originally introduced to moderate demand from overseas purchasers of residential property, the NSW Government has acknowledged that these measures may also discourage the investment needed to increase housing supply. The reforms are intended to support the delivery of long-term rental accommodation and retirement living developments by improving project feasibility and foreign investment into the NSW housing market.

Legislative changes

The reforms are implemented through amendments to Chapter 2A of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) (Duties Act) by expanding the existing surcharge purchaser duty relief provisions and introducing a new Part 3A – ‘refunds relating to build-to-rent properties, retirement villages and other properties’.

Part 3A introduces a number of new defined concepts including:

• Australian corporation
• build-to-rent land tax concession
• exempt transferee
• exempt transferee approval
• refund eligible transfer
  • a refund eligible transfer broadly includes a transfer of residential-related property entered into on or after 1 July 2026 that is not made pursuant to an agreement entered into before that date.

The new provisions are primarily contained in:

• section 104ZJC – refunds for qualifying BTR developments
• section 104ZJD – refunds for retirement village developments and expansions
• section 104ZJE – refunds for acquisitions of existing retirement villages
• section 104ZJF – calculation of refunds
• sections 104ZJG–104ZKC – exemptions for approved exempt transferees.

Build-to-rent acquisitions

The amendments introduce new section 104ZJC of the Duties Act, which provides a refund mechanism for surcharge purchaser duty where land transferred to a foreign purchaser subsequently becomes entitled to a BTR land tax concession under section 9E or section 9F of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) (LTMA). In effect, the amendments further align the transfer duty and land tax regimes, ensuring that developments satisfying the State’s BTR policy objectives can benefit from both acquisition and holding cost concessions.

Importantly, the amendments are not limited to the acquisition of development sites intended to be converted into BTR projects. Relief may also be available in respect of transfers of completed and operational BTR assets, provided the land continues to qualify for the relevant BTR land tax concession requirements for the prescribed period.

This is a significant development for foreign developers, as it recognises that a BTR market relies not only on development activity, but also on an active secondary market that enables developers to recycle capital into new projects and allows long-term investors to acquire stabilised assets.

From a commercial perspective, the availability of surcharge purchaser duty relief may materially improve the attractiveness of NSW BTR investments for foreign developers. Given the current surcharge purchaser duty rate of 9%, the concession can represent a substantial reduction in upfront acquisition costs and may improve project feasibility, investment returns, and transaction activity across the sector.

SW recently examined the range of BTR duty, land tax, and foreign investor surcharge concessions available across Australia. Read our article Build-to-rent | State taxes comparison for a comparison of the current state-based tax settings and incentives available to developers and investors.

Retirement village relief

The changes also introduce new surcharge purchaser duty concessions for retirement village projects. While much of the public discussion surrounding foreign investor surcharge reform has focused on BTR projects, the retirement living sector has historically faced similar challenges in attracting institutional investment due to the application of foreign purchaser surcharges to large-scale acquisitions.

To address these concerns, the amendments insert new sections 104ZJD and 104ZJE of the Duties Act, which extend surcharge purchaser duty relief to qualifying retirement village transactions.

Under section 104ZJD, surcharge purchaser duty relief may be available where an Australian corporation acquires land and subsequently constructs a retirement village or develops at least 50 new or additional retirement village dwellings. The adoption of a minimum dwelling threshold demonstrates a policy intent to direct the concession towards larger-scale retirement living projects that are more likely to attract institutional investment and contribute meaningfully to housing supply and retirement living infrastructure.

In addition, section 104ZJE provides relief for acquisitions of existing retirement villages comprising of at least 50 dwellings. This aspect of the reform may be particularly significant for institutional investors seeking to acquire established retirement living portfolios. The concession acknowledges that the acquisition of operational retirement villages can be just as important to the ongoing development of the sector as the construction of new projects.

The legislation also introduces an exemption from surcharge purchaser duty in relation to transfers of retirement village dwellings from residents back to village operators. This amendment addresses a transaction that commonly occurs within retirement village operating structures and helps remove unnecessary tax friction that could otherwise arise in the ordinary course of village operations.

These measures also reflect a broader trend in NSW tax policy towards distinguishing between foreign investment that supports the delivery and operation of essential housing infrastructure and investment that merely increases demand for residential property. In that respect, the retirement village reforms mirror the NSW Government’s approach to the BTR sector, with both concession regimes seeking to channel institutional capital into long-term housing assets that are expected to generate broader community benefits.

Key takeaways

The NSW reforms represent a notable expansion of surcharge purchaser duty relief for foreign investors.

In particular, the amendments:

• expand the surcharge purchaser duty relief framework under Chapter 2A of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW)
• introduce new refund mechanisms under sections 104ZJC–104ZJE
• provide exemption pathways for approved exempt transferees
• further align the surcharge purchaser duty regime with existing BTR land tax concessions
• encourage investment in large-scale rental housing and retirement living developments
• support the NSW Government’s broader housing supply objectives.

How SW can help

SW’s State Taxes team can assist clients with:

• determining eligibility for surcharge purchaser duty refunds and exemptions
• reviewing acquisition and investment structures
• assessing eligibility under the BTR concession regime
• advising on retirement village acquisitions and developments
• managing Revenue NSW applications and refund claims.

Contributors

Blake Trad | Senior Consultant, Tax

Robert Parker | Consulting Director, Tax

The post NSW expands surcharge purchaser duty relief for build-to-rent and retirement villages appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.