OpinionJuly 8, 2026 — 5:01amMy wife does not have to lodge a tax return because her annual income is less than $10,000, made up entirely of bank interest and share dividends. We are not eligible for the age pension because of my taxable defined benefit pension. Under the proposed capital gains tax changes, am I correct in thinking that if she sells shares after June 30, 2027, she could have to pay the new 30 per cent minimum tax on the capital gain, even though her income is so low? That hardly seems fair.You are correct. It is unfair, and another example of the unintended consequences flowing from the Budget. Because your defined benefit pension makes you ineligible for the age pension, your wife misses out on the proposed pensioner exemption even though she has almost no taxable income.Some retirees may get a surprise visit from the taxman once the new CGT laws pass.Simon LetchAs a result, she could still pay the new 30 per cent minimum tax on capital gains realised after June 30, 2027, effectively losing the benefit of both the tax-free threshold and the 16 per cent tax bracket.If she has owned the shares for many years, the gain will be apportioned between the pre- and post-June 30, 2027 periods, but the calculation will be much more complex. It would be sensible to seek advice on whether selling before then is worthwhile.If either of you is under 75, it may also be possible to contribute the proceeds to super as a non-concessional contribution, where future earnings and gains would generally be outside the proposed rules.I have an investment property that I purchased in 2004 for $250,000. If I have it valued on June 30, 2027, at $850,000 to establish the cost base, then sell it in 2028 for $850,000, or even $800,000, what would happen? This seems a realistic possibility, as real estate prices appear to be falling at the moment. The capital gain accrued to June 30, 2027, would be approximately $600,000, leaving a taxable gain of about $300,000 after applying the 50 per cent discount.From July 1, 2027, however, the taxable gain is based on index increases. But if the sale price is no higher than the June 30, 2027 valuation, there is no profit or capital gain after July 1, 2027, and there may even be a loss. In those circumstances, how would the property be taxed from July 1, 2027?Mark Molesworth of BDO says on sale you have two capital gains tax calculations. The first is the gain up to June 30, 2027. As you note this gives rise to a “deferred gain” at that date of $600,000 before application of the CGT discount.You then make a further calculation of the gain or loss from July 1, 2027 until the date of sale. In this case, taking the lower potential sale price of $800,000, there is a $50,000 capital loss for this time period.Both of these results are taken to be derived in the year in which you sign the contract to sell the property. So you will be taken to have a $600,000 gain and a $50,000 loss.Assuming that this is the only asset giving rise to CGT consequences sold in that year, the $50,000 post-June 30 loss will reduce the $600,000 pre-June 30 gain. This will result in a $550,000 discountable gain after the application of losses, and a taxable gain of $275,000 after the application of the CGT discount.You will pay tax at your marginal rate on that $275,000 gain. There is no post-June 30 gain component, so the minimum 30 per cent tax rate rule will not apply.I am a 75-year-old retiree living alone in my own home and receiving the full age pension. My home is worth about $1.2 million to $1.3 million, and I have $265,000 in superannuation. I have three children: a son aged 42 who is about to marry, a daughter aged 38 who has a partner and a three-year-old child, and a single daughter aged 36.My 38-year-old daughter has suggested knocking down my home and rebuilding it as a multi-generational house, so her family can live with me and help care for me as I get older. I like the idea, but I also want my estate divided equally among my three children and am concerned this arrangement could create problems or perceptions of unfairness. I have also considered building a duplex or transferring part of the land to my daughter so she could help fund the project. Before doing anything, what issues should I consider, particularly in relation to the age pension, taxation, ownership, estate planning and ensuring all three children are treated fairly?Knocking down the family home and rebuilding could pose a multitude of problems.Natalie BoogMy first reaction is: don’t do it. On the information you’ve provided, this proposal creates far more problems than it solves. It would entangle your finances, your home, your estate planning and your family relationships in ways that could be difficult and expensive to unravel.You are living independently, financially secure and receiving the full age pension. I would not even contemplate such an arrangement without detailed legal, taxation and financial advice.The first problem is affordability. Knocking down and rebuilding is expensive, while a duplex would involve substantial costs, council approval and inevitable delays.Transferring part of your property to your daughter could also affect your age pension under the deprivation rules. It would also complicate ownership, estate planning and the fair distribution of your assets between your three children.I have seen many cases where an adult child offers to build on the family property in return for caring for an ageing parent. Some succeed, but many do not. Circumstances change, expectations differ, and family disputes can easily arise.Unless your circumstances change, I would leave things as they are. Your children should make their own housing decisions, and if you need care later you can consider the available options without having already complicated your finances and estate planning.I recently read your comments on minimising capital gains tax when transferring shares to children. My wife and I are self-funded retirees with very little taxable income. I had wondered whether we could sell our shares while our taxable income is low, pay any resulting capital gains tax, and then immediately repurchase them. That would give the shares a much higher cost base, so when our children eventually inherit them after our deaths, any future capital gains tax should be much lower. Is there any flaw in this strategy?Your strategy can work, provided the sale is genuine. Selling shares, paying any capital gains tax at your current low tax rate, and then repurchasing them resets the cost base to the new purchase price. That can significantly reduce the capital gains tax your children may eventually pay if they inherit the shares.The key is that the sale must be undertaken for a genuine commercial reason, not simply as a tax avoidance arrangement. The ATO can challenge so-called wash sales, where an asset is sold and repurchased primarily to create a tax benefit. Before proceeding, obtain expert advice. It may be simpler just to buy similar assets, but not the same ones.Noel Whittaker is author of Retirement Made Simple and other books on personal finance. Questions to: noel@noelwhittaker.com.auAdvice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.Expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter.Noel Whittaker, AM, is the author of Making Money Made Simple and numerous other books on personal finance.Connect via X or email.From our partners