Practice Update July 2025

Ian Campbell • 10 July 2025

Shila is taking the leap

Shila is 58. She has worked for an engineering firm for 13 years and earns decent wages. Shila would like to work for a few more years but has yet to achieve her full potential. She certainly adds value to her role.

Her employer, No-mans-project, has been experimenting with AI-driven process optimisations for a few years and is now ready to implement the new processes. Unfortunately, implementing the new process means some redundancies, and Shila is one of the staff members who has been proposed to review a redundancy proposal.

Shila is now at a crossroads with her thoughts of retirement, staying in the workforce for a few more years with a new employer or taking a pay cut with the current employer for a different role. Her superannuation preservation age is 60, which is not too far away.

Let’s guide Shila through a few options, with some analysis and pros and cons.

Shila takes the redundancy

Let’s first find out her assessable income at the end of the financial year when the redundancy benefits are considered.

Shila’s assessable income if she takes the redundancy

Shila’s assessable income for the financial year (based on the above facts) if she takes the redundancy is –

Wage = $220,000

Long service leave payout = $38,000

Annual leave benefit = $30,000

Investment income = $ 18,000

Total assessable income = $ 306,000

Shila’s options with the after-tax money

Assume Shila paid X amount of tax this year on her assessable income. So, she is left with $396,956- X amount to plan her next step. Note that Shila has not reached her superannuation preservation age, which is 60 for her.

Superannuation contribution

Shila may consider contributing a significant part of the benefits to her superannuation account as a non-concessional contribution and may utilise the non-concessional contribution bring-forward limits. The bring forward rule allows the equivalent of 1 or 2 years of annual cap from future years.

This means she can contribute up to 2 or 3 times the annual cap amount in the first year of the bring-forward period. For 2024-25, the non-concessional contribution cap is $120k. This means Shila can make a non-concessional contribution of up to $120k*3=$360k this financial year, assuming she has not utilised the bring forward cap before. Shila must also consider her Total Superannuation Balance (TSB) cap ($1.9 million from 2023/24) to determine how much non-concessional contributions can be made. Also, Shila is 58 (a long way from age 67), so she does not need to meet the work test to make her non-concessional contribution.

Shila can consider this avenue if she does not need to access much cash for other purposes immediately. Also, note that Shila is only two years away from age 60, when she can access her superannuation benefits without paying withdrawal tax if she stays retired.

Other choices

Of course, Shila can pursue other choices. These include investing outside the superannuation environment, paying off a mortgage or other debts, and planning to return to a part-time or full-time job immediately or in the near future.

What does Shila do?

Shila’s kids are grown up, and her mortgage is nearly done. She’s been thinking about consulting or part-time project work anyway.

“I’m not rushing back into a 9–5. I might take six months off, maybe do a few contracts or take on a board gig.”

This offers her a buffer to breathe and rethink life, time to upskill, pivot or semi-retire and some solid super balance to fall back on. Shila decides to get a part-time job from July 1 next year, so her redundancy payout doesn’t push her into a higher tax bracket this year when her part-time wages are included.


2 September 2025
Land tax in Australia: exemptions, tips and lessons Land tax is one of those quiet state-based taxes that does not grab headlines like income tax or GST, but impacts property owners once thresholds are crossed. It applies when the unimproved value of land exceeds a certain amount, which differs from state to state. Principal places of residence are usually exempt, but investment properties, commercial holdings, and certain rural blocks may be subject to taxation. For individuals and small businesses, land tax is worth paying attention to because exemptions can make the difference between a manageable annual bill and a nasty surprise. A recent case in New South Wales (Zonadi case ) has sharpened the focus on when land used for cultivation qualifies for the primary production exemption. The lessons are timely for farmers, winegrowers and anyone with mixed-use rural land. The basics of land tax Each state and territory (except the Northern Territory) imposes land tax. Key features include: Assessment date : Usually determined at midnight on 31 December of the preceding year (for example, the 2026 assessment is based on ownership and use as at 31 December 2025). Thresholds : Vary across jurisdictions. For example, in 2025, the NSW threshold is $1,075,000, while in Victoria it is $300,000. Exemptions : Principal place of residence, primary production land, land owned by charities and specific concessional categories. Rates : Progressive, with higher landholdings paying higher rates. Unlike council rates, which fund local services, land tax is a revenue measure for states. It is payable annually and calculated on the total taxable value of landholdings. Primary production exemption Most states exempt land used for primary production from land tax. The policy aim is precise: farmers should not be burdened with land tax when using their land to produce food, fibre or similar goods. However, the details of what constitutes primary production vary. Qualifying uses generally include: cultivation (growing crops or horticulture) maintaining animals (grazing, dairying, poultry, etc.) commercial fishing and aquaculture beekeeping Sounds straightforward, but the catch is in how the land is used and for what purpose. Lessons from the Zonadi case The Zonadi case involved an 11-hectare vineyard in the Hunter Valley. The land was used for: 4.2ha of vines producing wine grapes a cellar door and wine storage area a residence and tourist accommodation some trees, paddocks and access ways During five land tax years in dispute, the taxpayer sold some grapes directly but used most of the crop to make wine off-site, which was then sold through the cellar door. Income was derived from grape sales, wine sales and tourist accommodation. The NSW Tribunal had to decide whether the land’s dominant use was cultivation for the purpose of selling the produce of that cultivation (a requirement under section 10AA of the NSW Land Tax Management Act). The outcome was a blow for the taxpayer. The Tribunal said: Growing grapes was indeed a form of cultivation and amounted to primary production. But cultivation for the purpose of making wine did not qualify, because the exemption only applies where the produce is sold in its natural state. Wine is a converted product, not the product of cultivation. Although some grapes were sold directly, the bulk of the financial gain came from wine sales. Therefore, the dominant use of the land was cultivation to make and sell wine, which is not exempt. The exemption was denied, and the taxpayer was left with a land tax bill. Why this matters For small businesses, especially those that combine farming with value-adding activities such as processing or tourism, the case serves as a warning. The line between primary production and secondary production can determine whether a land tax exemption applies. If most income comes from a cellar door, farmstay, or product manufacturing, the exemption may be at risk, even though cultivation is occurring on the land. Different rules in Victoria Victoria takes a broader view. It defines primary production to include cultivation for the purpose of selling the produce in a natural, processed or converted state. In other words, grapes sold for wine production would still be considered primary production. The only further hurdle is the “use test”, which depends on location: outside Greater Melbourne: land must be used primarily for primary production within urban zones: land must be used solely or mainly for the business of primary production Had Zonadi been in Victoria, the outcome could have been very different. The vineyard would likely have been exempt from this requirement. State-based comparisons Here’s a snapshot of how land tax treatment differs across states when it comes to cultivation and primary production:
by Ian Campbell 10 July 2025
Key concerns when selling a business in: A strategic guide for business owners
by Ian Campbell 28 May 2025
Strategies for individuals before June 30, 2025