A divorce property settlement is usually judged on fairness today.
The family home, investment properties, superannuation, business interests, trusts and cash are put on the table. Lawyers negotiate. Accountants run numbers. One person may keep the home. The other may keep an investment property or receive a cash adjustment.
But the proposed tax overhaul has added a harder question.
What if two assets look equal on paper, but one carries a much larger future tax bill?
That is the issue now facing separating couples with investment properties, family trusts or complex ownership structures. The reform debate has mostly been framed around investors, landlords and housing affordability. The second-order effect is less obvious: it may also change the real value of assets being divided in family law settlements.
Australian Property Review has already covered how CGT changes could sting property investors and why negative gearing changes may create a $1.3 million investor trap. For separating couples, those same rules can become personal very quickly.
The asset split may no longer be as simple as 50-50
The family home remains the cleanest asset in many settlements because the main residence is generally exempt from capital gains tax, subject to the normal rules.
Investment properties are different.
If one partner keeps an investment property and the other receives cash, superannuation or a different asset, the headline value may not tell the full story. The person keeping the property may also be keeping the future tax bill attached to it.
That matters more if the tax treatment of future gains changes.
Under the proposed reforms reported in the budget debate, the 50 per cent CGT discount would be replaced by an inflation-linked calculation and a minimum 30 per cent tax rate. Negative gearing would also be restricted for future purchases of established homes, while discretionary trusts would face a minimum 30 per cent tax from July 2028.
The practical result is simple: two assets with the same market value may not have the same after-tax value.
In plain English
A $1 million investment property is not always worth the same as $1 million in cash.
The property may carry debt, selling costs, land tax, vacancy risk, maintenance risk and a future capital gains tax bill.
In a divorce property settlement, that future tax bill can change who is really getting the better deal.
Why timing now matters
Timing has always mattered in family law.
But the proposed tax timetable gives it a sharper edge. If tax rules change from July next year, couples who are already negotiating may need to model two versions of the same settlement: one under current tax rules and one under proposed future rules.
That does not mean every couple should rush.
A rushed settlement can be just as damaging as a delayed one. The real point is that settlements involving investment assets now need better modelling, not just faster signatures.
The ATO’s existing relationship breakdown rollover rules can allow capital gains tax to be deferred when assets are transferred under eligible court orders or formal agreements. But rollover does not usually make the tax disappear. It can shift the future tax consequences to the person receiving the asset.
That is the part many people miss.
A transfer during separation may feel like a clean break. From a tax perspective, it may simply move the problem to one side of the ledger.
Where the pressure will show up first
The biggest pressure is likely to fall on couples with more than the family home.
That includes:
- couples with one or more investment properties
- families using discretionary trusts
- business owners with retained profits or trust distributions
- high-income households using negative gearing
- couples where one party wants to keep the property portfolio
- settlements where cash is limited and assets must be divided unevenly
For example, one person may want to keep two investment properties because they see long-term upside. The other may prefer cash because they want certainty.
Before the proposed tax changes, the property values may have been adjusted for existing debt and estimated selling costs. Now, advisers may also need to pressure-test future after-tax proceeds under different tax settings.
That can change the negotiation.
The partner keeping the properties may argue for a discount because the assets carry a heavier future tax burden. The other partner may argue that future tax is uncertain and should not overly reduce today’s settlement value.
Both points can be reasonable. That is why the modelling matters.
The trust problem is harder
Family trusts add another layer.
Trusts are often used by business owners, professionals and investors for asset protection, income distribution and succession planning. They can be useful structures, but they are not magic.
Australian Property Review has previously warned that family trusts could face a much bigger tax hit under proposed changes. In a divorce property settlement, that could affect both capital value and future income.
If trust income is used to fund spousal maintenance or child support, a higher tax burden may reduce the cash available. If a trust holds investment assets, the value of a trust interest may also need to be assessed after tax, not just before tax.
Now, the part most people miss: trusts can make a settlement look wealthier than it feels.
A trust may hold valuable assets, but access to cash may be restricted by debt, tax, trustee decisions, business needs or legal disputes. That can make settlements more complicated when one partner expects a clean payout and the other says the money is not easily available.
What has changed and what has not
What has changed is the level of tax uncertainty around investment assets.
The proposed reforms could alter future capital gains tax, reduce the value of negative gearing for some purchases and change the way discretionary trust income is taxed.
What has not changed is the need for a fair and properly documented settlement.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court rules around timing still matter. Married couples generally need to apply for property orders within 12 months of a divorce becoming final. De facto couples generally have two years from separation.
The main residence rules also still matter. For many households, the family home remains the largest asset and may remain CGT-free if the normal eligibility rules are met.
The difference is that couples with investment assets can no longer afford to treat tax as a side issue.
What could derail a clean settlement
There are three big risks.
First, the final law may differ from the proposal. Investors and separating couples should not restructure everything based on headlines alone.
Second, valuations may become contested. One side may argue that an investment property deserves a larger discount because of future tax. The other side may argue the discount is speculative.
Third, time may work against both parties. Contested property settlements can drag on, especially where trusts, businesses or multiple properties are involved. If the law changes mid-process, earlier assumptions may need to be updated.
That does not mean people should panic. It means they should stop using rough asset values as if they are final answers.
A simple rule of thumb
If an asset cannot be sold without a tax consequence, do not treat its market value as its settlement value.
Start with the market value, then ask:
- What debt is attached to it?
- What tax may apply if it is sold?
- Who carries that tax risk after settlement?
- What happens if the law changes before sale?
- Is the asset liquid, or does one party need cash now?
- Has an accountant modelled the after-tax outcome?
This is not just a legal question. It is a cashflow question.
A person can “win” the property portfolio and still end up with the weaker position if the assets are hard to sell, expensive to hold and taxed more heavily later.
The practical take
Separating couples should not let tax drive the whole settlement. Family law is broader than that. Contributions, future needs, children, earning capacity, superannuation and housing stability all matter.
But tax can change the real value of what each person receives.
The next step is straightforward: before agreeing to a divorce property settlement involving investment properties, trusts or business assets, ask for after-tax modelling under both current rules and the proposed future rules.
That modelling should sit beside the legal advice, not behind it.
For more independent property analysis each week, subscribe to the free Australian Property Review newsletter
General info, not financial advice.
