Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 NOVEMBER 2023

Paying Victorian duty twice for a property development – what are the implications for NSW?

This VCAT decision may have significance in NSW and other state jurisdictions that have landholder duty regimes.

AustraliaTax

A recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in Oliver Hume1 has called into question the 'conventional wisdom' that participating investors to a capital raise for property developments shouldn't cause landholder duty issues for those investors.

The case involved a special purpose investment company (Diamond Creek) developing the property at 272 Broad Gully Road, Diamond Creek in Victoria. To fund development costs, Diamond Creek offered 1,800,000 shares at $1 per share to 18 investors on terms pursuant to an Information Memorandum. Offers ranged from $50,000 to $200,000. Participating investors weren't related to each other and no investor held a significant interest (i.e. 50% or more) when the capital raising was completed.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from