Importantly, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has confirmed that there is no substantive change to its interpretation of the underlying goods and services tax (GST) law, commonly known as the ‘Netflix Tax’.

Instead, the draft ruling clarifies and expands upon the existing guidance by addressing both parts of the Australian consumer test, incorporating the safeguard approach, and expanded compliance guidance.

Residency and consumer elements – greater focus on consumer limb

The definition of an Australian consumer remains unchanged and continues to require both the residency element and the consumer element to be satisfied. That is that the recipient is an Australian resident for income tax purposes and is either not registered for GST, or if registered, does not acquire the supply for the purpose of an enterprise.

However, GSTR 2026/D1 significantly expands on the consumer element, which was only lightly addressed in GSTR 2017/1. The earlier ruling focused more heavily on residency indicators, such as billing address and IP data, with comparatively limited practical guidance on GST registration and the purpose of acquisition.

The draft confirms that where a recipient provides an Australian business number (ABN) and represents to the supplier that they are registered for GST, a supplier may rely on that representation not only to establish GST registration, but also to conclude that the acquisition is made for enterprise purposes.

The safeguard approach under section 84-100

A central feature of the draft is the clearer articulation of the ‘safeguard approach’ under section 84-100. While not new, it is now framed as a more structured methodology for forming a reasonable belief about whether a recipient is not an Australian consumer.

This approach provides a pathway for suppliers to treat a supply as ‘not made to an Australian consumer’, provided they:

• collect specified information (e.g. ABN, declarations that the recipient is registered for GST)
• maintain consistent records
• apply defined system controls.

The key being that the supplier has undertaken all reasonable steps to form its conclusion.

Where the safeguard approach is followed, a greater level of certainty and protection is provided to the supplier, particularly for automated or high-volume environments where individual review is impractical.

Attribution and compliance approaches

The draft expands guidance on timing and attribution, making it clear that a recipient’s status is generally determined at the time of invoice or receipt of consideration. This is particularly important for subscription and other ongoing arrangements, where a customer’s circumstances may change over time or additional information becomes available after the initial transaction.

The draft also introduces more detailed compliance approaches, particularly in relation to the consumer element safeguard. For initial supplies to a recipient, greater leeway is provided where an ABN check indicates that the recipient is not registered, but the recipient has provided evidence of registration to the supplier.

For ongoing supplies, more structured processes are expected, including:

• ongoing monitoring (e.g. regular ABN Lookup checks at least every 6 months)
• annual GST registration verification.

The draft reiterates that suppliers may rely on comparable jurisdiction approaches (EU, UK, NZ, and Norway) for determining residency.

Where suppliers operate outside the safeguard, reliance is generally limited to information already held within their systems to determine only if the recipient acquires the supply for the purpose of its enterprise.

How SW can help

GSTR 2026/D1 does not change the legal framework, but it clearly raises expectations around how businesses implement and provide evidence of compliance. In particular, the increased focus on GST registration, the consumer element, and ongoing verification means more structured processes will be required than under GSTR 2017/1.

Businesses should review their onboarding procedures, ABN validation processes, and system controls to ensure they align with the draft and can support a defensible position if reviewed by the ATO. Early alignment with the ATO’s compliance approaches will help reduce risk and improve consistency across cross-border transactions.

The ATO has invited public comments on the draft ruling, with submissions due by 24 July 2026.

If you would like to understand how these changes may impact your cross-border GST obligations, please contact your SW advisor or speak with our GST specialists.

Contributors

Dylan Kelly | Senior Consultant, Tax

The post Know your consumer: ATO’s new draft ruling for GST cross-border supplies appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Consistent with the draft, the final determination sets out the Commissioner’s view on when an ancillary fund is taken to ‘provide a benefit’ for the purposes of:

• subsection 15(4) of the Guidelines (minimum distribution requirement)
• subsection 22(3) (prohibition on benefits to related entities).

While TD 2026/3 largely adopts the draft position, there are targeted refinements that are particularly relevant for trustees in practice.

Comparison – TD 2025/D3 (Draft) vs TD 2026/3 (Final)

The changes between the guidance in its draft and finalised form have been summarised in the table below.

From a structural perspective, TD 2026/3 closely mirrors TD 2025/D3. The substantive changes are broadly confined to:

• paragraphs 22 – 29 in the draft (now paragraphs 23 – 27) which deal with non-binding promises of future payment
• the addition of a more detailed Appendix addressing enforceability of commitments.

Outside of these areas, the guidance remains materially unchanged.

Key clarification – non-binding promises and when a benefit is ‘provided’

The final determination refines the guidance around non-binding promises of future payment. In this section, the ATO confirms that:

• a benefit is only ‘provided’ where it is actually conferred on the DGR (i.e. the fund must cause the DGR to have the benefit)
• a non-binding promise of future payment does not constitute a benefit, as it creates no legal right or entitlement for the DGR
• accordingly, arrangements such as:
  • grant approvals
  • notifications
  • accounting entries
• will not amount to the provision of a benefit unless they result in a legally binding obligation.

This is illustrated through expanded examples, including multi‑year pledges and non-binding grant notifications, which show that an intended or announced payment is insufficient without a binding commitment.

Whilst TD 2025/D3 expressed the same principle, it only dealt with it briefly and included a single example. TD 2026/3 builds on this by expanding the explanation of non-binding promises, introducing additional examples and more clearly distinguishes between a mere expectation of payment and a legally enforceable obligation.

The underlying position is unchanged, but the final determination makes the practical application much clearer.

The included Appendix to TD 2026/3 provides important context for the revised non‑binding promise analysis by focusing on when a commitment gives rise to a legally binding obligation. In particular, paragraph 58 explains that a promise to make a future payment will not generally be binding where:

• the trustee is committing in advance to the outcome of a discretion that must be exercised later
• the promise restricts the trustee from making the relevant discretionary decision at the time the payment is to be made
• the trust deed does not permit the relevant power to be exercised at the time the promise is made.

In these cases, the promise does not create any legal rights in favour of the DGR and therefore does not result in the provision of a benefit. More broadly, the Appendix reinforces that the analysis turns on the legal effect of the trustee’s actions under the governing trust deed, including whether a power has been validly exercised to bind the fund and confer enforceable rights at the relevant time. This highlights that, for the purposes of subsection 15(4), the focus is on whether a binding obligation arises, rather than the trustee’s intention, approval, or communication of a proposed grant.

Key takeaway

TD 2026/3 represents a finalisation of the ATO’s draft position, with only limited drafting changes. However, the refinements to the treatment of non‑binding promises are significant in practice.

Trustees must ensure that distributions are legally effective at the relevant time, rather than relying on informal approvals or expectations. While narrow in scope, these changes directly affect minimum distribution compliance and year-end risk management and should be carefully considered in the administration of ancillary funds.

How SW can help

SW can assist ancillary funds in ensuring that any benefits they wish to provide fall within the scope of the Guidelines as clarified in TD 2026/3. We can review proposed distributions and related party arrangements to confirm they meet the ATO’s definition of a ‘benefit’ and do not trigger penalties under subsection 22(3).

For assistance in establishing or managing a fund, please contact our private client specialist, Heather Dyke.

Contributors

The post ATO finalises guidance on when ancillary funds ‘provide a benefit’ appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

This is a landmark outcome for the taxpayer. The High Court has dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal, confirming that UPEs arising from a trust’s setting aside of its distributable income to a private company beneficiaries will not be classified as a loan for Division 7A purposes. However, the decision of the High Court may only benefit a small number of taxpayers on the basis that:

• The decision appears to be limited to the particular fact pattern. Critical to the High Court’s decision was the specific terminology used in the distribution minute and deed to ‘set aside’ net income to be held in a ‘separate trust…pending payment’.
• There doesn’t appear to be an ability to unwind unpaid present entitlements that were previously converted to legal form complying Division 7A loans.
• The provisions of Subdivision EA within Division 7A could have applied to tax Mr Bendel, rather than the 2005 Trust.
• Section 100A must still be considered where there is a retention of funds by the trustee.
• The Federal Budget has introduced a proposed 30% minimum tax on discretionary trust distributions, expected to apply from 2028, which will eliminate the benefits of distributing to corporate beneficiaries from a discretionary trust.

In this alert, we outline the final decision and what this means in practice for clients with Division 7A exposures.

High Court outcome confirms position

The High Court has confirmed the earlier Full Federal Court decision, but found that:

• This UPE does not constitute a loan under Division 7A. However, central to this decision is the specific wording included in the trust deed and resolutions. The effect of the deed and resolutions was to create a fixed trust over the property representing the net income for each period and without further actions by Gleewin Investments, there was no debtor creditor relationship. However, if the trust deed and resolutions contained words to the effect that net income “be applied” and the “application [be] effected by crediting the said amounts to such beneficiaries in the books of the trust” there may have been a debtor creditor relationship.
• Leaving an amount unpaid under a separate fixed trust does not amount to the provision of financial accommodation unless the amount has been called for by Gleewin Investments.
• Subdivision EA was the appropriate provisions within Division 7A to tax the arrangement. Subdivision EA applies where a trust has an unpaid present entitlement to a corporate beneficiary and the trust subsequently makes a loan, payment, or forgives a debt to the shareholder or associate of the shareholder of the private company. In this particular case, the 2005 Trust had made loans to Mr Bendel, whilst there were subsisting unpaid present entitlements.

Why this matters

For more than 15 years, the ATO has treated UPEs as Division 7A loans, requiring taxpayers to:

• enter into complying loan agreements
• structure sub-trust arrangements
• make principal and interest repayments to avoid deemed dividends.

The High Court decision overturns this administrative approach, representing a fundamental shift in the application of Division 7A for particular trust structures.

We would recommend that a detailed review of the trust deed and resolutions is undertaken prior to seeking any amendments to assessments. As we mentioned at the beginning of this alert, there will be small number of taxpayers with a very particular fact pattern that will benefit from this decision.

It will be interesting to see whether there are legislative changes made prior to the commencement of the proposed budget changes and the ATO’s response. We will provide further alerts if this happens.

How SW can help

The High Court decision in Bendel creates an opportunity to revisit Division 7A positions, but it also requires careful consideration to manage risk and ensure compliance with broader anti-avoidance rules.

SW can assist by reviewing your trust structures and existing Division 7A arrangements, assessing the treatment of UPEs and any historical exposures, and advising on how the proposed 30% minimum tax may impact your overall structure.

Contributors

The post Division 7A update: High Court confirms Bendel decision on UPEs appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Upcoming ATO reporting obligations

The ATO requires employers that issue shares or share options to employees to complete their reporting obligations. The deadlines to comply with the reporting requirements are:

• ESS statements are due to be issued to employees by 14 July 2026
• ATO reports are due for lodgement with the ATO by 14 August 2026

What do the ATO reporting obligations mean for you?

Our innovative solution | CTS ESS Toolkit

Our CTS ESS Toolkit, an ATO-approved and compliant software solution, enables employers to simplify their online annual employee share scheme reporting obligations.

We are one of only a handful of providers to have passed ATO testing and have ATO approval for our specialised software. Using the CTS ESS Toolkit, SW has been successfully working with businesses to meet their ESS lodgement requirements.

The table below outlines the types of companies that are most likely to benefit from using the CTS ESS Toolkit.

Significant global entities (SGE)

SGEs are entities that have an annual global turnover of A$1bn or more. SGEs are subject to increased Failure to Lodge (FTL) penalties for late lodgement of every ATO document or approved form. The SGE penalties are currently $165,000 for each 28 days in which an approved form is lodged after the due date, up to a maximum of $825,000. The lodgement of ESS reporting falls within this definition.

The public officer of the company is responsible for the company’s obligations under the income tax law, including the timely lodgement of approved forms with the ATO. If your company is part of an SGE, we recommend implementing systems to ensure timely lodgement of ESS reports with the ATO.

How SW can help

There is limited time to meet ESS reporting requirements, and the ATO is placing particular emphasis on ensuring corporates comply with timely and accurate reporting obligations.

Now is the time to ensure your business is prepared for the reporting season. We offer a fully outsourced ESS reporting service or a software licensing option.

Please contact Sam Morris or Justin Batticciotto to learn how to comply with the ATO reporting requirements and to discover how our CTS ESS Toolkit can assist.

2026 Federal Budget announcement

Whilst the 2026 Federal Budget does not directly impact the ESS rules, the proposed capital gains tax (CGT) reforms, which would replace the 50% CGT discount with inflation indexation and introduce a minimum 30% tax rate from 1 July 2027, will change the benefit of some ESS plans for employees. As a result, ESS structures, particularly for start-ups, may become less tax advantaged and may require redesign if the proposed changes proceed without any adjustments for start-ups.

Additional services

ESS plan and review

We can conduct a comprehensive review of your ESS framework and plan(s) to support your business in understanding and addressing key areas. As part of this review, we can:

• assess your existing share scheme structure
• confirm whether awards are taxed at grant or deferred
• identify payroll tax implications and risks
• provide clear guidance on ATO and state reporting obligations
• review prior year ESS reporting for errors or gaps
• prepare and lodge amendments and voluntary disclosures
• liaise with the ATO and state revenue offices
• help minimise penalties, interest, and audit risk
• advise on new plan design or changes to existing schemes
• assist with annual reporting and documentation.

Contacts

Sam Morris
E: smorris@sw-au-com

Justin Batticciotto
E: jbatticciotto@sw-au.com

The post Simplify employee share scheme reporting with the CTS ESS Toolkit appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Join our Property Development specialists online as they unpack these key developments and what they mean in practice.

Developers are facing increasing complexity across funding models, profit allocation arrangements and governance. This webinar will provide a clear, practical overview of the evolving tax and structuring landscape, and what you need to know to manage risk and support future projects.

Topics include:

• Property development structures and emerging ATO focus areas
• PCG developments and governance considerations
• Federal Budget updates impacting the property sector

The webinar will also include an opportunity for discussion and questions with our specialists.

SW Speakers

Blake Rodgers
Director, Business & Private Client Advisory 

Sejla Kadric
Director, Business & Private Client Advisory 

Matt Birrell
Director, Tax

The post Property Developers update webinar  appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

The story so far

Toowoomba Regional Council applied for a private ruling asking whether Grand Central’s car park — which offers three hours’ free parking, a $20 all-day maximum cap, and multiple free-parking concessions — qualifies as a ‘commercial parking station’ under sections 39A and 136 of the FBTAA. The answer matters because the Council’s premises are location within one kilometre of the centre, which would trigger FBT on free employee parking.

How the case unfolded

Round 1: February 2025 - Logan J (FCA)

‘Commercial’ requires a profit-making purpose. As the Grand Central car park was operated to attract shoppers rather than generate profit, the Council succeeded.

Round 2: April 2026 - McElwaine, Feutrill & Wheatley JJ (FCAFC)

The Full Federal Court rejected that approach, holding that ‘commercial’ simply means engaged in commerce, with no profit motive required. The Commissioner’s appeal was allowed.

What the Full Court held

The majority (McElwaine and Wheatley JJ) held that the statutory text does not confine a ‘permanent commercial car parking facility’ to operations run for profit. Instead, the definition requires physical permanence, availability to the public in the ordinary course of business, and the payment of a fee — nothing more. Parliament cast the net wide to address tax inequity, and that introducing a profit requirement would bring an unverifiable internal management test that the legislation simply does not support.

Feutrill J reached the same result, but by a different route, stating that a ‘commercial parking station’ must be a facility where fees reflect arm’s length market value. On that view, the Explanatory Memorandum examples, including penalty-rate shopper car parks, are not appropriate comparators precisely because their fees do not reflect that market value. However, that is not the same as requiring the operator to be profit-motivated.

The Full Court also noted that the 1994 amendment expressly excluded kerbside parking meters, which are unlikely to be profitable, confirming that profitability was never a precondition in the original text.

What this means for you

The ATO’s interim decision impact statement (DIS), which directed continued reliance on TR 2021/2, has been vindicated. Employers who stopped treating shopping centre, hospital, university, or hotel car parks as ‘commercial parking stations’ following Logan J’s decision should now review their compliance position for:

• the current FBT year (ended 31 March 2026) and consider their car parking FBT position
• the prior FBT year (ended 30 March 2025) and consider whether amended returns are needed.

For employers who did comply with TR 2021/2 throughout, no change is required.

How SW can help

For employers who may now have FBT exposure on car parking because of the Toowoomba decision, SW can assist in assessing your position and ensuring compliance with the ATO’s current interpretation. This includes reviewing historical and current FBT obligations, identifying potential amendments, and advising on practical next steps.

For tailored support with your FBT car parking obligations, our CTSplus FBT team can help you navigate the requirements and manage your compliance obligations with confidence and clarity. To find out more, click here to email our CTS team and a member of our team will be in touch within one business day. You can also visit our CTSplus FBT page to learn more about how we can support your FBT compliance needs.

Contributors

Rahul Sanghani

The post Full Federal Court confirms hospital, university & shopping centre car parks can be ‘commercial’ for FBT purposes appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Our seminar will be delivered in an interactive format with SW experts Daren Yeoh, Tax Director, Antony Cheung, Associate Director and Ross Kelly, Transfer Pricing Manager. Our speakers will equip you with invaluable insights into the latest developments in corporate and international income tax.

This seminar will explore the following topics:

• Corporate tax updates – An overview of recent and proposed legislative changes, including debt and financing rule changes, non‑resident capital gains tax developments, ATO compliance priorities, recent court decisions, and other emerging issues relevant to corporate groups.
• Transfer pricing update – Key developments in transfer pricing, with a focus on changes to Country‑by‑Country (CbC) reporting requirements and what these mean in practice.
• Pillar Two update – An outline of Pillar Two compliance obligations, including practical considerations for the preparation and lodgement of the GloBE Information Return and the Combined Global and Domestic Minimum Tax Return.

SW Speakers

Daren Yeoh
Partner and Corporate & International Tax Director

Antony Cheung
Associate Director

Ross Kelly
Transfer Pricing Manager

The post Corporate Tax update appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Treasury has released draft legislation that would materially widen the scope of assets subject to Australian capital gains tax by broadening the definition of taxable Australian real property. This would extend beyond land and buildings to a wider range of land‑connected assets, including infrastructure, energy projects, and certain water rights and entitlements.

The proposals include ‘clarifying’ amendments with retrospective effect and would significantly reshape exit economics for foreign investors – particularly in sectors where value is derived from Australian land or natural resources. While a temporary concession is offered for renewable energy investments, the overall policy direction is toward tougher enforcement, a broader CGT base, and reduced structural certainty for inbound capital.

What is being proposed

A broader CGT net focused on energy and infrastructure assets

The reforms retrospectively (from 2006) expand the definition of Taxable Australian Real Property (TARP) beyond traditional land and buildings to capture assets with a close economic connection to Australian land or natural resources. In practical terms, this significantly widens the CGT net over energy and infrastructure assets, including solar farms, wind projects, battery energy storage systems, and associated transmission assets, many of which have historically been treated as outside the foreign resident CGT regime.

The expanded definition also extends, on a prospective basis, to other land‑connected resource interests such as water rights and water access entitlements, particularly where these are integral to the productive use or value of land.

Federal tax law to override state property concepts (retrospective)

The draft legislation confirms that state and territory property law concepts – such as severance rules or statutory characterisations of fixtures, chattels, or resource rights – do not determine whether an asset is real property for federal CGT purposes.

Tightened rules for indirect interests

The principal asset test for indirect interests in companies and trusts is refined, moving from a point in time (CGT event date) to a 365-day test, reducing the ability to manage CGT exposure through timing or balance‑sheet structuring.

Time-limited concession for renewable energy assets

A targeted concession provides a 50% CGT discount for qualifying disposals of renewable energy assets (and certain indirect interests) by foreign residents, available only until 30 June 2030. While it offers transitional relief for solar, wind, and battery projects, the concession is expressly temporary and does not alter the longer‑term expansion of the CGT base.

The concession does not extend to other natural‑resource interests, such as water rights, and does not mitigate any historical exposure arising from the retrospective asset‑definition changes.

Treaty impact

Treasury proposes to amend the International Tax Agreement Act to ensure that the definition of real property and immovable property in Australia’s double tax agreements (DTAs) will be in line with the proposed domestic definition.

Most of Australia’s treaties already permit Australia to tax capital gains derived from real property situated in Australia, including gains from indirect interests in land‑rich entities. The reforms operate by materially expanding the domestic definition of ‘real property’, meaning that a broader range of assets is more likely to fall within those existing treaty taxing rights. As a result, while treaty protection remains available in principle, fewer assets will qualify for it.

Importantly, the retrospective nature of the domestic law changes will impact investors in various jurisdiction differently, depending on the allocation of taxing rights to income not expressly mentioned in DTAs.

Who is most affected

Investments in Australian land‑connected assets may now be subject to Australian CGT, and may, in some cases, have already been subject to CGT even where they were previously treated as outside the regime.

Taxpayers most affected by these proposals include:

• foreign investors in energy and infrastructure assets, including solar, wind, battery energy storage projects, transmission assets, and other land‑connected infrastructure
• investors holding interests in land‑rich companies, trusts, or stapled structures, particularly where value is driven by fixed assets installed on Australian land
• foreign investors relying on state‑law characterisation or treaty assumptions to support CGT outcomes for land‑connected assets
• funds with near‑term exit, refinancing, or portfolio rebalancing events, where CGT now affects pricing and internal rates of return
• investors in agricultural or farmland assets where water rights or water access entitlements are a significant component of asset value, particularly where those rights are economically integrated with land use or productivity.

Timing and transitional snapshot

The proposed statutory definition of ‘real property’ (including assets with a close economic connection to Australian land) is intended to apply retrospectively to CGT events occurring on or after 12 December 2006, except for water rights, which will apply prospectively.

By contrast, the broader net‑widening reforms to the foreign resident CGT regime generally apply prospectively to CGT events occurring from the quarter following when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The 50% CGT discount for renewable energy assets applies only from commencement until 30 June 2030 of the legislation and does not provide relief for any historical or retrospective exposure.

How SW can help

We can assist you in understanding the proposed reforms and their potential impact on existing and future investments. In particular, we can help you to:

• map assets and investment structures against the expanded definition of taxable Australian real property
• re‑model exit scenarios on the basis of full Australian CGT exposure
• reassess reliance on treaty protections and state‑law concepts in light of the proposed changes
• identify eligibility and timing constraints associated with the renewable energy CGT concession
• engage early in transaction planning and, where appropriate, prepare submissions as part of the consultation process
• incorporate CGT risk more explicitly into acquisition, holding, financing, and exit decisions.

Contributor

Ned Galloway

The post Foreign investors in the firing line: Treasury’s expanded CGT regime appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Following public consultation and the release of Taxpayer Alert TA 2026/1, which we discussed in a previous alert here, this new draft guideline focuses on PDAs where a landowner engages a related-party developer in projects spanning more than one income year.

These structures are not uncommon in the property industry and are not inherently problematic when used for commercial reasons. However, the ATO is concerned about non-arm’s length PDAs under common ownership that are designed to defer payment of tax.

Key compliance framework: green vs red risk zones

PCG 2026/D2 divides arrangements into two risk zones – green (low risk) and red (high risk) – based on the features of the deal and how income is recognised for tax purposes. The risk categorisation will determine the ATO’s level of compliance scrutiny:

Green zone (low risk)

Characterised by profit recognition during the project. Common green zone features include instances where:

• progress payments are made by the landowner to the developer as the project progresses, and the developer correspondingly returns income progressively over the project’s life
• no progress payments are made, but the developer still recognises income in stages, similar to an estimated profits basis under Taxation Ruling TR 2018/3 for long-term construction contracts
• annual land value increases are returned as income under trading stock rules, where the landowner holds the land as trading stock for tax purposes and annually includes any increase in the land’s value due to development work, in their assessable income.

Red zone (high risk)

Characterised by arrangements that artificially defer or mismatch income and deductions. Common red zone features include all the following:

• related parties and non-arm’s length terms
• use of a separate developer entity as a ‘buffer’
• timing mismatch, with deductions upfront and income deferred
• no trading stock income recognition by the landowner
• group-wide tax benefits arising from losses.

The ATO has provided several examples of high-risk structures. One such structure is shown below.

If the ATO is successful in applying Part IVA, the structure will be disregarded from an income tax perspective. From the ATO’s perspective, the key issue is the timing of income and deduction recognition, as the overall tax cost will be the same. However, if Part IVA applies and the tax benefit is denied, a taxpayer that previously reported tax losses may instead be placed in a taxable position, with interest and penalties applying.

Implications for property developers and landowners

For property developers and landowners in development projects, the Draft PCG serves as a clear warning. The ATO’s compliance radar is trained on any arrangement where profits from property development are earned collectively but taxed selectively. The key takeaways include:

Self-assess your risk profile

Taxpayers involved in property developments should immediately benchmark their arrangements against the PCG’s green and red zone criteria.

High risk of audit and Part IVA application for red zone cases

Those identified as high risk should prepare themselves for the possibility of ATO review and potential dispute.

Existing projects are not exempt

The Draft PCG will apply to both new and existing arrangements once finalised, so property groups currently using related-party development structures must not assume they are outside the scope.

Legitimate commercial arrangements remain acceptable

The ATO is careful to clarify that not all related-party development arrangements are problematic. Standard commercial practices, such as a one-off project where a landowner partners with a developer and appropriately shares project income, or where deferred payment terms are agreed but income is still accounted for each year, are generally considered not a compliance concern.

How SW can help

We are actively assisting clients in the property and construction sector to navigate the ATO’s increased focus on property development arrangements. Our team can review existing and proposed structures against the PCG’s green and red zone criteria, identify key tax and compliance risks, and provide practical recommendations to strengthen positions and align income recognition with ATO expectations.

Please contact your SW advisor to discuss how these developments may impact your arrangements and how we can support you.

Contributors

Stephen Peries

Ned Galloway

Antony Cheung

The post PDAs in public: When your property development arrangement gets the ATO’s attention appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.

Effective from 1 April 2026, these measures are designed to provide immediate financial relief and improved cash flow flexibility for eligible businesses impacted by increased fuel expenses. Alongside a temporary reduction in fuel excise and adjustments to fuel tax credit rates, the ATO has launched a dedicated Fuel Response Plan to help affected taxpayers manage their tax obligations during this period of heightened cost pressure.

ATO options for impacted taxpayers

The ATO is offering streamlined access to a new temporary Fuel Response Plan in response to the impact of higher fuel prices on businesses.

Who may be eligible

Your business may qualify if you are an ABN holder and meet the following criteria:

• operating costs have increased directly due to higher fuel costs, or indirectly due to higher transport, logistics, or other supply chain costs
• you have incurred a new tax debt or are finding it difficult to meet existing payment arrangements
• you can demonstrate a reduced capacity to pay specifically as a result of increased fuel costs (separate to a general downturn in business or ordinary cash flow issues)
• all tax lodgements are up to date or will be brought up to date within three months.

Key features of the plan

The Fuel Response Plan includes a number of flexible support measures designed to assist with cash flow management, including:

• no upfront payment required
• up to 36 months to repay
• possible remission of General Interest Charges (GIC), subject to satisfying conditions
• equal monthly instalments to assist with cashflow management.

How SW can help

Navigating ATO support measures and determining eligibility can be complex, particularly where multiple financial pressures are involved. Our team can work with you to assess whether your business qualifies for the Fuel Response Plan, taking into account your specific circumstances and cash flow position.

We can also assist in preparing and lodging the applications with the ATO, including remissions of GIC, liaising on your behalf to streamline the process and improve the likelihood of a successful outcome. In addition, we can help you review your broader tax position, manage existing payment arrangements, assisting with cashflow forecasts and implement strategies to reduce business overhead costs, support cash flow and ongoing compliance during this period.

If your business is experiencing pressure from rising fuel costs, we encourage you to contact one of our experts to discuss how we can support you.

Contributors

Dee Newman

Nuwani Jayaweera

The post How the ATO’s Fuel Response Plan can support your business in 2026 appeared first on SW Accountants & Advisors.