Noel Whittaker is the author of Wills, Death & Taxes Made Simple and numerous other books on personal finance. Email: [email protected]

Taxes are back in the spotlight, and the recent buzz around potential policy changes is creating ripples of concern among investors, business owners, and everyday Australians alike. We’ve all seen headlines hinting at changes to negative gearing and adjustments to capital gains tax (CGT) rules, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. While the Prime Minister may be quick to reassure us that there’s ‘nothing to see here’, we know that governments have a habit of making changes when we least expect them.

Last month, the Australian Tax Office (ATO) sent a clear message: they’re taking compliance seriously. They sent letters to major insurance brokers requesting details of customers with high-value assets—think fine art, marine vessels, thoroughbred horses, luxury vehicles, motorhomes, and even aircraft. If you own any of these, the ATO is keen to know.

The ATO is cracking down on high-value assets. Image Credit: Shutterstock

And it's not just happening down here — let’s take a global tour of the latest international tax developments and what they might mean for you.

Canada’s recent tax changes offer some clues about directions other countries may take.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque in diam id erat facilisis consectetur vitae vel urna.

Ut lacus libero, suscipit auctor ipsum sit amet, viverra pretium nisl. Nullam facilisis nec odio nec dapibus. Integer maximus risus et velit porttitor ullamcorper

Read more for FREE!

Become a member today and join over 200,000 Australians already taking advantage of daily news, weather, petrol costs, games, jokes, deals and more.

• 

  FREE 400-page Discount eBook upon joining

• 

  FREE Aussie-made eBook & many more

• 

  Multiple daily discounts for members

• 

  No payment required

Register Faster Using

• Continue with Facebook
• Continue with Google
• Continue with Apple

Or Register with email

Join the club

Already a member?

Log In

[mylittletibbies]

People calling for the CGT reduction of 50% on properties sold within the first twelve months should realise that people invest for a reason, to make money.
Take away this benefit and investors will look elsewhere to invest their money.
If investors remove their money from the property market where does that leave tenants.
There will be less and less rentals available in an already overstretched rental market.
Less houses leads to more rent increases.
Not a very good "thought bubble" IMO.
Every action leads to a reaction.

 

[Mr Chips]

So, my understanding of the Canadians' situation is that they made their Accountants work for their fees for a change and made the customers' assets move to a different and probably untraceable location to avoid the tax increase. I see this as making the accountants wealthier, the run-of-the-mill citizens the same as they were, the Government no better off, and the Accountants rolling in money. What good was that?

 

[Kman]

#$%@ the ATO. Dont tell them anything.

 

[magpie1]

It is certainly long overdue for big business to pay a fairer amount of tax and particularly overseas companies operating in Australia.

 

[cblayney]

Very interesting and clever man. I saw him live in Perth when he was talking about death, wills and taxes. Worth the time

 

[Phantom55]

People calling for the CGT reduction of 50% on properties sold within the first twelve months should realise that people invest for a reason, to make money.
Take away this benefit and investors will look elsewhere to invest their money.
If investors remove their money from the property market where does that leave tenants.
There will be less and less rentals available in an already overstretched rental market

 

[Phantom55]

this is not true When an investor builds/buys a new house YES its true, but when an investor buys an existing house he/she investor does not add to the supply of houses but adds to the competition for any existing properties which adds to the price,We need the negative gearing to apply ONLY to new homes being built, except our govt is too stupid to do this ,therefore eliminating high income earners to choose to pay tax or buy another house (negative gearing) like I do...its not fair

 

[mylittletibbies]

this is not true When an investor builds/buys a new house YES its true, but when an investor buys an existing house he/she investor does not add to the supply of houses but adds to the competition for any existing properties which adds to the price,We need the negative gearing to apply ONLY to new homes being built, except our govt is too stupid to do this ,therefore eliminating high income earners to choose to pay tax or buy another house (negative gearing) like I do...its not fair

And the statement that all investors are high income earners, is only something somebody who has no idea would say.
My husband and I flipped old houses for years. We were not high income earners, we just made a reasonable living.
We had to borrow and mortgage our home when we first started out.
We did not reduce the amount of houses available for genuine home buyers. We actually bought houses nobody wanted, renovated them and returned them to the market. This is what most flippers do
The shows you see on TV where flippers make multi thousands of dollars are just that, reality (so called) TV.
Your average flipper in Australia buys rundown average homes, renovates them and sells them to make a reasonable living.
If they intend to charge a further 50 % tax on these homes, then many people will not bother to take the risks, and believe me there are many risks in flipping houses
So those derelict houses will not be repaired and renovated and returned to the market, leaving less homes available to genuine buyers.
I don't know about other flippers but we always sold to WA residents and not to overseas or interstate investors.