30% Trust Tax (Proposed)

With all the chat on CGT, no one talking about the 30% Trust Tax?

Proposed 30% Trust Tax:

  • Effective Date: Starts 1 July 2028 (2028-29 income year).
  • Target: Applies to discretionary trusts (family trusts).
  • Mechanism: Trustees pay a minimum 30% tax on the taxable income of the trust. Non-corporate beneficiaries receive non-refundable tax credits for the tax paid by the trustee to avoid double taxation.
  • Impact on Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries with marginal tax rates below 30% will not get a refund for excess credits; those above 30% will pay top-up tax.

I purchased property and shares under a trust for my retirement (no need to negatively gear) and to partly fund my retirement when I stop working.

Between my wife and myself, from the rental/dividend income I was hoping to stay in the 0 or 15% tax bracket (which is what it would be if the properties were our names) but under the proposed rules, we would pay a flat 30% tax in rent/dividends in retirement.

Edit. Looks like I jumped the gun

ATO will allow you to rollover to another entity without CGT if you do it within 3 years.

However we don’t know if stamp duty will apply.

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • what i think:

    When an average person sets up trusts etc instead of simpler methods, such as purchasing property and shares in their own name and making smaller reasonable personal investments, the government may view those as sophisticated investors. As a result, they need to be punished to higher taxes for the benefit of society.

    /s

    • Obviously this is view of a socialist that relies on government handouts and despises anyone trying to get ahead.

      Its actually the responsibility of every Australian to minimise thier tax. If you don't you are a mug!

      Note I said tax minimisation which is 100% legal. Not tax avoidance!

      • Note I said tax minimisation which is 100% legal. Not tax avoidance!

        Interestingly, according to Wikipedia:

        Tax avoidance is the legal use of the tax regime in a single territory to one's own advantage to reduce the amount of tax that is payable. A tax shelter is one type of tax avoidance, and tax havens are jurisdictions that facilitate reduced taxes. Tax avoidance should not be confused with tax evasion, which is illegal.

        Emphasis mine. However according to ATO it appears to be something really bad. Can we have the term standardised?

        • You’re forgetting one important thing.

          Tax avoidance has an integrity measure built into tax law. It’s called Part IVA.

          Avoidance is already (and actively) punished.

          Minimisation and avoidance are mutually exclusive

          • @bemybubble: I wasn't arguing whether "tax avoidance" is legal. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in terminology used by ATO and Wikipedia (which I guess has broader acceptance internationally).

            Legal Illegal
            ATO Tax minimisation Tax avoidance
            Wikipedial Tax avoidance Tax evasion

            So whenever someone mentioned "tax avoidance" in discussions, one needs to be very specific.

            • @scotty:

              So whenever someone mentioned "tax avoidance" in discussions, one needs to be very specific.

              100% agree

              Poor choice of words on my part.

              You’re forgetting let’s not forget one important thing.

              Case in point. Words matter 🫠

  • We have trusts in our family. Despite people's thoughts about tax avoidance (not a thing, minimisation, yes and improved estate management), they are used to handle what are, complex estates.

    We foresaw the changes to trusts a while back but regardless, established another only last month.

    The biggest issues for us have been:

    • succession planning. I appreciate that many think that only the 'rich' do this but in families where black sheep are present, trusts provide added protections, especially when it comes to elder abuse through coercion and financial control.
    • management of estates for minors and young people. One trust is to manage a) a black sheep and b) protect two orphaned children (now in their adulthood)
    • finally, one protects multigenerational succession on a decades old business. If it hadnt been in place, another black sheep would have crippled the business through divorce, causing insolvency and unemployment for dozens.

    Tax is a reality. We all get that. But trusts are not evil and they exist for a multitude of reasons. Are there alternatives? Sure. But try managing property under life estates. Friggin nightmare.

    The tax changes for trusts really didn't need to occur. Other alternatives could have been offered (capping beneficiaries, limiting dividends etc). Now, rather than paying dividends, trusts will simply operate at the company level.

    Do you have any idea of the tax claims that'll generate? My accountant is laughing 🤣

  • Oh my god the crocodile tears in the last few days have been insufferable. You will be fine! If you have a family trust - I promise that you will survive this torment. God, the first bad thing happens to wealthy people in 50 years and they're acting like it's the end of days

    • By 'the first bad thing to happen to wealthy people in 50 years' I assume you mean other than
      changes to the superannuation rules for large super balances
      the GFC
      the GST
      loss of stage 3 tax cuts
      just to name a few recent ones…

      • Poor people notoriously unaffected by the global financial crisis

        • The statement was not 'exclusively impacted wealthy people'.
          It was 'the first bad thing to happen to wealthy people in 50 years'.
          If it impacted wealthy people, was bad, and occurred in the last 50 years - then it falls within the category.

          • @Almost Banned: Mate jokes aside how could you expect anyone to have any sympathy for wealthy people experiencing 'the loss of stage 3 tax cuts' and 'changes to the superannuation rules for large super balances'. Can you hear yourself? They don't make violin's small enough

            • @blldzd: I'm far from wealthy (more like comfortably well off) and I was affected by the stage 3 lie. I earn an above average income but it's hardly making me wealthy.

            • @blldzd: Violin's small enough what?
              You claim that nothing bad has ever happened to wealthy people until now. Obviously part of some fantasy envy-land dream.
              I point out you are wrong - and instead of saying 'of course you are right, bad things happen to wealthy people all the time - it was just hyperbole', you pretend that because bad things also happen to non-wealthy people, your original claim is somehow still correct.
              It is perfectly reasonable for people to structure their affairs to their own benefit - and that includes minimising the tax they pay. The government does such a poor job with the money they get, they certainly should not be entrusted with anything more than you absolutely have to give them.
              You live in a fantasy land if you think the government can tax the rich into a better life for the poor.

              • @Almost Banned: If you're still wealthy after the 'bad thing' has happened to you then how bad was the bad thing? Maybe it was mostly fine and these people are acting like babies. I also don't understand why you're defending them, they would happily lock you outside of the gated community when the class war begins mate

              • @Almost Banned: "It is perfectly reasonable for people to structure their affairs to their own benefit"
                And it is not perfectly reasonable for the benefits they receive from the arrangements they are using to be reassessed from time to time?

                • @Ponsonby: You sound like Vader = "Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly? … Perhaps you think you are being treated unfairly? … I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
                  Also, allowing someone to keep their own money is not a benefit, any more than only being beaten half to death is one.

            • @blldzd: Make sure you're never successful so you don't have to eat your words

    • tall poppy syndrome is rife here

    • God, the first bad thing happens to wealthy people in 50 years and they're acting like it's the end of days

      It’s this very statement that is causing the divide in this country.

      They have pitched it as affecting the wealthy. However it couldn’t be further from the truth.

      Unfortunately those without proper knowledge and education around trusts are intrinsically linking these structures and the rich.

      But don’t take my word for it. Walk in to your local cafe or family restaurant. Ask your local Jim’s mowing or barber. I can haphazard a guess they are all impacted by these changes. And if you’re bold enough to ask them how much they’re making, perhaps come back on here and share how ‘wealthy’ they actually are.

    • Who says I'm wealthy?

      I'll hopefully be fully self funded by retirement.

      Under the current rules or if owned the properties under our names, a retiree couple can earn investment income of $62,000 tax free.

      If the same assets were held under a trust, we'll pay $18,600 on the $62,000.

      Sound fair?

      • You’re not self-funded if you are paying less tax than most other retirees. You are supported by the taxpayers (both old and young) who fund your health care, subsidised pharmaceuticals, aged care, roads, public transportation, police, justice system, national parks, and education for the people who provide all these services.

        • Have you considered how much tax they're contributed vs your own contribution?

      • Yes because you can exit the trust and save $18,600+.

  • Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refused to rule out future changes to the tax treatment of the family home when he was directly challenged in Parliament on Thursday

    The PPR and Superannuation are next.
    Their appetite for people's money is just unbelievably insatiable.
    They are just a never ending bottomless pit. The more money they steal from people the more they waste.

    • Albanese, 2028:

      For the fiftieth time, changing the tax treatment of the family home is not on the table 🤞😉

      • Would that be finally enough for the populace to get their pitchforks out?

        • If they want to survive, the ALP has to hit eject on Albanese… and soon. The public won't trust anything he says in the lead up to the next election. And it needs to happen sooner rather than later so that his replacement has time to establish themselves as "PM" in the public eye.

          • @tenpercent: Oh no. He is ok.
            He didn't lie… he only changed his position…
            Now he has australians in doggy style position.

          • @tenpercent: Nah mate. If they think it benefits them they do not give a shit about this juvenile “lies” attack. It sounds like a 5 year old stamping their feet.

            • @try2bhelpful: For the fiftieth time allegations of lies are not on the table.

              Was Sarah Ferguson stomping her feet?

              • @tenpercent: The press likes to push this barrow far more than the majority of the public. We saw it before the last election when they tried to push the “lies” button. Resulted in a stonking landslide for the ALP and Dutton losing his seat.

  • I understand there is no offset for the Trust tax once paid into the parent company. The company tax rate of 25% will be applied, meaning the effective tax rate will be 55%

    • You mean having a company as beneficiary where the trust is distributing its profit to? For a non-trading company, i.e. majority of income comes from passive investment, the tax rate is actually 30% rather than 25%.

      So $1,000 profit from the trust — $300 will be the tax and $700 distributed to the bucket company. Then the company has to pay 30% tax on the $700 profit ($210). So together $300 + $210 = $510 tax, although $210 can be franking credits later.

      • Effective tax rate for distributing to bucket companies will be 62.90%

        Trust income: $1,000
        Trust minimum tax (30%): $300
        Corporate beneficiary taxed on $700 at 30%: $210
        Cash in bucket company: $490
        Franking credits: $210 only

        Then you payout the dividend:

        Company pays fully franked dividend of $490:
        → Franking credits: $490 × 30/70 = $210
        → Grossed up dividend: $700
        → Individual tax at 47%: $329
        → Less franking credit: $210
        → Additional tax: $119

        Total Tax Payable is as follows:
        Trust: $300
        Company: $210
        Individual top-up: $119

        Total: $629 on $1,000 = 𝟲𝟮.𝟵% effective tax rate

      • Is this confirmed, or is the tax only on individual beneficiaries or are corporate trustees to be taxed at the same 30% tax rate?

        • From what I understood, Trustee has to pay 30% tax before distribution. Individual beneficiaries can then use that as non-refundable credit for their own tax returns, to avoid double taxing. However corporate beneficiaries don't get that non-refundable credit, meaning they have to pay tax on already taxed distribution.

    • There is always a loop hole. And it's not difficult if you think a little how.

      • What's the loophole?

  • Why would I be upset about closing a loophole for people that set up something up specifically to avoid tax?

    It's sad how many people focus purely on their own situation and how these changes negatively affect them instead of looking at the bigger picture.

    • You clearly not understand the full functions of a discretionary trust

    • How is it a loophole????

      People pay tax on the distributed profits…

      Now, the low income earners will pay more and the high income earners will pay the same

      This is an additional tax for the lower income earners in Australia…

      focus purely on their own situation

      I don't have any family trusts…

      looking at the bigger picture.

      To tax retirees and other low income earners ???

      • Entitlement grievance much

        • Entitlement of what?

          I don't have a family trust.

      • Here you go. I doubt you'll read it but it gives you some idea..
        https://www.acoss.org.au/ending-tax-avoidance-evasion-and-mo…

        Lol at trying to make this a spin about how it harms low income earners. What a joke. All those people on minimum wage setting up trusts to minimise their tax.

        • how it harms low income earners.

          low income earners will now pay a minimum of 30% tax. Previously, if they earned under the tax threshold, they would have paid nothing…

          • @jv: The tax free threshold still exists. These changes are negligable at most for the vast majority of people who are genuinely low income.

    • What's the bigger picture? Explain please? More money to NDIS? More to corrupt CFMEU?

      • They reduced the NDIS funding in the budget

        • Shhh. You will confuse him by giving him facts. He suffers from SAD syndrome. Sky After Dark.

    • What's sad is tall poppy syndrome. It doesn't benefit me, so slash, slash, slash.

  • The main purpose of setting up trusts is for asset protection followed by tax minimisation. By large most accountants have that mentality. Not all. But most.

    And the logic is simple. Who cares about saving tax if you’re putting assets on the line?

    The reason why it’s important these vehicles protect assets is business owners take in risks that employees wouldn’t be subject to otherwise. If an employee makes a mistake. They aren’t subject to the same ramifications as the owner of the business.

    Take your local cafe who has a family home in their name. When you are in business that asset is in the gun.

    If that cafe owners employee accidentally gives you food which has nuts in it (which can happen) and you have a reaction. Heaven forbid it’s catastrophic. Then you can bet that person will be out to pursue legal damages against the owner. Not the employee. But the owner.

    The above is only one situation of a myriad of situations that can happen. Is it fair that the persons house is up for grabs because of it? What about if they took every measure they could? Society isn’t perfect and these things happen. Even if an employee is at fault. The buck stops with the owner for all risk.

    You might say well that’s why you’ve got insurance. Name me an insurance product that covers 100% of everything and I’m all ears.

    So then begs the question. Why bother being in business at all if not for these structures to help protect those having a go?

    The irony of it is a lot of businesses are struggling in this current environment. On what planet is the solution to punish more?

    • The trusts can still be there and still provide the protection you talk about here can’t they? I haven’t seen anything about outlawing them.

      • Nothing changes there. But my point is around trusts and their primary purpose. They aren’t some mythical creature that’s setup to avoid tax.

        From a tax perspective. If the government is providing rollover relief to a company. Then nothing changes.

        Taxpayer will get a dividend in lieu of distribution. Receive a refundable franking credit.

        So if nothing changes. Why create extra compliance and admin?

        Full reform is needed of the system. Not extra layers. That’s the takeaway

      • Yeah weird take. OP is acting like it's being outlawed while in actuality, they just set up a floor tax.

  • I dont like the budget but Trusts have been used to avoid tax for a long time i think 30% is way to harsh same with the CTG floor of 30% it should be a base of 5-15% but im not against this change

    i do think this will be the change that kills the government as all the Teal Voters and rich ALP Voters would be getting burnt by this one

    This is once again not a bad policy but like most of the budget measures they just went too 'far' and too 'harsh'

    i got no dog in the Trust fight (i wish i did) this is just my opinion - this budget is getting a lot of backlash and rightly so but this is one of the measures that probably needed to happen but to a less punishing extent

    i think the general biggest issue i have with the budget it is 'all take' and no 'give' they should of indexed the brackers and shifted them up by about 10-20% if they were going to do what they have done

    • I wouldn't object to say 15% but 30% is too high a floor.

      • I wouldn't object to 15% PAYE tax either.

        • Nicely put. VERY relevant too.

        • Isn't there already a PAYE tax?

      • I am sure your average wage earner would be happier with say, 15% too…
        If one earns money, one pays taxes.
        Why should a wealthy person pay less (or no) tax than a person on the average wage?

      • Thankfully dole bludger and non-taxpayers unaffected. Love this land of milk and honey soo much.

        • Yeah, let’s only have wealthy people sucking on the tax payer teat. Those Instagram holidays and gold toilets don’t pay for themselves ya know. Damien has to go to China on his private school, school excursion ya know.

          Frankly I would rather the poor had enough for gruel than pay for yet another property for the rich.

          • @try2bhelpful: and don't forget the NDIS rort.

            • @RTX9090Ti: NDIS certainly needed to be cleaned up. I’m going to be slammed with “socialist” but the Government should be supplying the necessary services for NDIS. Stop the huge markup from private companies. Same with child care.

              • @try2bhelpful:

                but the Government should be supplying the necessary services for NDIS. Stop the huge markup from private companies. Same with child care.

                I agree. The corporatism in this country needs to stop. Howard was the first (that I'm aware of) to introduce such large and disgusting fascist-adjacent public-private partnerships by outsourcing government functions/services to private middlemen, many of whom made squillions at the taxpayers' and unemployed people's expense - Job Network. Then Gillard went and copy pasted the model for NDIS. And people play dumb about the existence of the uniparty and their real allegiances. Yet again private middle men making squillions at the taxpayers' and this time the disabled people's expense. By all means run these programs like private companies where the government is the only shareholder if that minimises bureaucratic waste and largesse, but nobody should be making millions of dollars of profit from their involvement somewhere in between the taxpayer and the person in need of assistance.

              • @try2bhelpful: Nothing wrong with be labelled as a Socialist. Capitalist or Conservative, nah yeah

          • @try2bhelpful: Yep! So many people jump on the dole-bludger bandwagon without actually doing their homework.

        • Thankfully dole bludger and non-taxpayers unaffected

          NEET4LYF

        • Love this land of milk and honey soo much.

          Vegan milk right?

    • We can't say we didn't warn the Teal and Labor voters… Voting has consequences, they've had it too easy for too long, maybe this will bring some back to earth and realise voting isn't just about trying to seek the most virtuous…

    • Not grandfathering ( I’m referring to the negative gearing changes) would have been too far and too harsh.

      Actually it would have been courageous.

    • Some incorrect assertions made here:

      1. Actually distributions from trusts are taxable in the recipents hands.
      2. Trusts have been used to protect assets and allow them to be handed down through generations.
      3. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal within the tax framework

      Like the other changes to taxation, this just Labor seeking to grab your wealth to fund thier massive and wasteful spending spree and nothing more.

      If trusts were such a problem, past governments would have made changes to rectify the situation

      • Tax avoidance is perfectly legal within the tax framework

        Tax avoidance is illegal and has been since 1936.

        We need to stop conflating minimisation and avoidance. They are two separate definitions.

        if people want to go down the rabbit hole of what tax avoidance is and how it's punished - check out here:

        https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speec…

      • The best part is you are hoisted on your own petard.

  • A couple of points here,
    1. Trusts, CGT, Neg Gearing have been on the tax reform hit list for many years
    2. The above have been heavily spruiked for years by vested interests (accountants, lawyers, property marketers, etc)

    As for retirement, we have a hugely tax advantageous superannuation system. When you’re retired, over 60, still dealing with the hassles of rental/tenants & paying tax on the income, while others live off their tax-free super pension, how will you feel?

    • feeling pretty silly right now lol

      • Can you transfer into a SMSF without triggering a CGT event? They're less likely to screw with super.

        (They can make anyone successful share thier wealth, but they'll draw the line at stopping them from funding thier own retirement.)

    • I would have agreed with you if the job market was not so sh*t, and there is no hope for it to improve. The retirement you talk of, may not be the retirement due to age, but would be forced for many in the current climate. I would love to work till I am 60, or even older, but I don't see any possibility of a future where that would happen. In all likelihood, many would lose jobs over the coming decade, partly to AI, but primarily due to corporate greed. For almost all of those, super won't be accessible soon enough, and tax cuts would have eaten away their ability to sustain living without salary. A perfect storm is brewing and we are the broth

  • Go talk to an accountant and find out the best way to handle funds for retirement. However, it sounds a tad like you put it into a trust to minimise taxes to be paid.

    • "Go talk to an accountant and find out the best way to handle funds for retirement'

      lol Guess who suggested to put it in a trust?

      "it sounds a tad like you put it into a trust to minimise taxes to be paid."

      Future tax planning and asset protection.

      It was the correct strategy based on the tax rules at the time (and before I was born).

      I just object to the chopping and changing of tax laws which affects previous assets. I have no issue with the new CGT laws which will grandfather assets on 01/07/2027.

      • It was the correct strategy based on the tax rules at the time (and before I was born).

        I just object to the chopping and changing of tax laws

        I don't think you know what "chopping and changing" means if your trust structure has been in place since before you were born and it's only just now changing.

        You had a well-used loophole and they closed it. It sucks, restructure your assets and move on.

        • I was referring to chopping and changing tax laws (not specific to Trusts).

          • @JimB: If nobody changed tax laws capital would be untaxed and the top marginal rate would be 70%

          • @JimB: Which other tax laws have changed that impact previously held assets?

      • Things change mate. You really expect the laws to never change? Accountants find loop holes and governments plug them up. No problems with that.

        • I’m ok with things changing for new assets/new trusts but they should make changes to existing assets/structures.

          They grandfathered negative gearing for existing assets.

          • @JimB: Nah mate. As I said you plug loopholes when you find them.You had a good run with the old system now you deal with the new.

            I suspect you have no trouble with people being made redundant when businesses change. Maybe all those old jobs should be grandfathered.

      • They are proposing a 3 year transition period to allow you to change the trust type or move assets out of trust with no CGT.

        • Awesome, that details was left out.

          Had a quick read.

          No CGT but no details on stamp duty.

          Hopefully no stamp duty.

      • Exactly this! I talked to 3 different tax accountant, including one inter-state a month before the budget was announced. Guess what all 3 suggested I do, for retirement planning?
        That's right. They all suggested the same thing - family trust. Even though, I have no real estate investment, and I am a salaried permanent employee with almost zero personal liability risk. Tax accountants have a high margin for trust setup and ongoing operational cost. And they have done it for businesses, so they don't really care about individual circumstances. They try to fit the same template on all. Claude saved me from pulling the trigger, and I am so glad it did. Majority of "sell" of the trust for individual salaried people is gone with this budget. I wouldn't be surprised if the accountants still continue to try to sell it to individuals

  • Also bucket company as beneficiary cannot use 30% tax already paid by the trustee as non-refundable credits, so the distribution will get taxed again at the company level.

    As for me, I've only recently dipped into setting up a family trust to distribute share investment dividends to my two adult children who are still studying. It requires quite a bit of maintenance despite holding very little asset. If 30% tax is inevitable then I might as well hold the assets in a company that provides more flexibility.

    Gotta talk to the accountant but I can imagine how busy they are for the next couple of weeks.

    • "family trust to distribute share investment dividends to my two adult children "
      Precisely the rationale for this change - income splitting is a long standing provision under current trust taxation rules that has never had any reasonable justification.

Login or Join to leave a comment