Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

Govt accused of retrospectively penalising non-residents

CGT/government/CPA-Australia/Senate-Economics-Legislation-Committee/

8 March 2018
| By Mike |
image
image image
expand image

The Federal Government has been warned that impending legislative changes will unreasonably and unfairly penalise Australians working overseas by revoking the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption on their family home.

Major accounting group, CPA Australia told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that the unreasonable penalty is tied up in the Government’s legislation aimed at improving housing affordability – The Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measure (No.2) Bill 2018.

The CPA Australia submission said its members, particularly those living overseas, were very concerned that the legislation was seeking to retrospectively remove the main residence exemption (MRE) from CGT for non-residents from the time the property became the taxpayer’s main residence – instead of from the time they became a non-resident.

“It is unreasonable to effectively penalise Australians for departing Australia for work or personal reasons by revoking their right to a CGT exemption on their family home,” the submission said.

CPA Australia said the legislation had the effect of retrospectively changing the application of the MRE to as far back as 20 September, 1985, when the CT provision commenced.

“CPA Australia does not support the imposition of the proposed retrospective changes. The government has not put forward reasons as to why it is good public policy that the law be change retrospectively and to the detriment of taxpayers,” the submission said.

“It is draconian to change the tax treatment of the family home post the acquisition of that home – and for some citizens that are now non-residents, it may have been their family home for more than 30 years,” it said. “Further, it will be difficult for many to substantiate changes to the cost base of their home as they would not have maintained the necessary documentation due it not being necessary or required at the time.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

2 weeks 6 days ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

3 weeks 6 days ago

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

7 months ago

After last month’s surprise hold, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced its latest interest rate decision....

3 weeks 1 day ago

WT Financial’s Keith Cullen is eager for its Hubco initiative to see advice firms under its licence trade at multiples which are catching up to those UK and US financial ...

3 weeks 5 days ago

While the profession continues to see consolidation at the top, Adviser Ratings has compared the business models of Insignia and Entireti and how they are shaping the pro...

1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND