The 50 percent CGT discount is gone. That's the headline. It's also the wrong place to stop reading.
The Budget 2026 CGT reform isn't one change. It's three. And whether you end up paying more or less under the new rules depends on something most coverage hasn't bothered to model: your real rate of return.
This edition resolves what the reform actually is, how the transitional split at 1 July 2027 works in practice, and why two investors holding identical properties can land on opposite sides of the new math. It matters because the decision to hold, sell, or restructure ahead of 2027 hinges on numbers the headlines have skipped over.
The acquisition date matters in two different ways.
Key insight: The negative gearing change has a 12 May 2026 cut-off. The CGT change has a 1 July 2027 cut-off. They aren't the same date and they aren't the same scope. Most people are conflating the two.
Every CGT asset gets a valuation point on 1 July 2027. At sale, the taxpayer determines the asset's value at that date in one of two ways:
The 50 percent CGT discount applies to all gains accrued before this date. That portion of the gain is locked in under the old rules. It does not change, regardless of what happens after.
Key insight: Existing investors keep the 50 percent discount on everything earned to 1 July 2027. The longer the hold from purchase to that date, the more of the lifetime gain stays grandfathered.
From 1 July 2027 onwards, two things change for individuals, trusts, and partnerships. Super funds (including SMSFs) and widely held trusts are excluded.
Indexation is friendly to slow-growing or inflation-tracking assets. The 30 percent minimum is targeted at investors who time disposals to low-income years (think retirees realising in a year with no salary). Together they replace the simpler 50 percent discount with something more conditional.
Key insight: Indexation rewards low real returns and punishes high ones. The math depends on the specific asset, not the headline.
At disposal post-2027, the gain is split into two portions and taxed differently.
The punchline most coverage skips: whether you pay more or less under the new regime depends almost entirely on your real (after-inflation) rate of return on the post-2027 portion.
Key insight: The reform isn't a flat tax hike on property. It's a redistribution. It taxes inflation-tracking assets less and strong-growth assets more.
Three things change about how a serious investor thinks under the new regime.
Key insight: KPMG calls this "a paradigm shift in our capital gains tax rules." That's not political colour. It's a senior tax partner's plain reading. The investors who get this right will be the ones who model the decision properly. The ones who don't will find out at disposal.
Sam is 41. He owns one investment property, a 3-bedroom western corridor house bought 18 months ago for $710,000. The property is grandfathered for negative gearing under the 12 May 2026 announcement.
He runs the math on a 10-year hold from policy commencement to understand his exposure under the new CGT regime.
At 1 July 2027, the property has been held for around two and a half years. Under a 5.5 percent pa nominal growth assumption, its value at that date would be around $822,000. He models three scenarios from there.
| 10-yr growth | Sale value (~2037) | Tax under new regime | Tax under old regime | Net change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 percent pa | $1,043,000 | $32,000 | $62,000 | $30,000 better |
| 5.5 percent pa | $1,404,000 | $151,000 | $128,000 | $23,000 worse |
| 7 percent pa | $1,711,000 | $254,000 | $185,000 | $69,000 worse |
Figures assume 2.5 percent inflation, 37 percent marginal tax rate, full 50 percent discount under the old regime, indexation plus 30 percent minimum tax check under the new.
The numbers tell Sam three things.
His property doesn't have one tax outcome under the new regime. It has a range, indexed to growth. The crossover where he becomes worse off is around 4 to 5 percent pa nominal growth, close to the long-run residential average. A high-growth scenario costs him close to 40 percent more tax than the old regime. A low-growth scenario saves him about half.
Sam decides to model the same property at shorter hold horizons (5 and 7 years) and revisit annually. He doesn't sell pre-2027. He treats the 1 July 2027 valuation as a critical data point to lock in, not avoid.
The Budget 2026 CGT reform has been read as a tax hike on property investors. It's something narrower and stranger than that. It's a structural change that hits some assets and rewards others, decided by a math problem the headlines aren't running. The investors who get this right will be the ones who model the decision properly. The ones who keep running rules of thumb will be wrong-footed at disposal, and won't realise it until the tax bill arrives. As Sun Tzu put it, "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." Same logic applies to selling. The new regime makes that decision harder. It also makes getting it right more valuable.
See you next week. — Alex
If this was useful, share it with someone trying to figure out the same thing. And if you're not subscribed yet, you can join the list at pbco.com.au.
Next week: The Sequence Problem.
This article is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Everyone's circumstances are different. Please seek professional advice before acting on any of the strategies outlined above.