❓ Hon George Cash asks about stamp duty implications for de facto couples transferring property interests, particularly concerning family homes and court-ordered settlements. The Treasurer clarifies exemptions and nominal duty arrangements under the Stamp Act.
AnsweredQoN 813Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is stamp duty payable by one member of a de facto relationship when that person has purchased the interest of the other party in their family home? (2) If yes to part (1), what are the policy imperatives to support such an impost? (3) Does the position change if the interest purchased is held as - (a) tenants in common; or (b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(2) If yes to part (1), what are the policy imperatives to support such an impost? (3) Does the position change if the interest purchased is held as - (a) tenants in common; or (b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(3) Does the position change if the interest purchased is held as - (a) tenants in common; or (b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(a) tenants in common; or (b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(2) If yes to part (1), what are the policy imperatives to support such an impost? (3) Does the position change if the interest purchased is held as - (a) tenants in common; or (b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(3) Does the position change if the interest purchased is held as - (a) tenants in common; or (b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(a) tenants in common; or (b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(b) joint tenants? (4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(4) In regard to part (1), is stamp duty payable if the purchase is made at the direction of a court as part of a property settlement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
I thank the member for some notice of this question and I apologise that the answer is a little lengthy. (1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(1) Ad valorem stamp duty is payable where the requirements of the exemption in section 75C of the Stamp Act are not met or the matter does not fall within the nominal duty arrangements available under part IVD of the Stamp Act. The exemption in section 75C allows an interest in the family home to be transferred to a de facto partner where the home is originally owned solely by the other de facto partner and will be held as joint tenants by both partners after the transfer. The concession under part IVD of the Stamp Act allows property to be transferred, other than by way of sale, for nominal duty between de facto partners where the de facto relationship has ended, provided the matter is the subject of a maintenance agreement or Family Court order. The inclusion of de facto relationships in these arrangements commenced on 1 December 2002 when the Family Court Amendment Act 2001 commenced. As such, the concessional arrangements apply only to de facto relationships that have ended after that date. (2) Stamp duty is payable on transfers of property between de facto partners except in circumstances outlined in the response to part (1). This is on the basis that broadening the exemption or nominal concession beyond these circumstances would be inconsistent with the view that, whilst people should be free to transfer properties into any ownership structure that provides commercial or other benefits reflecting their individual circumstances - including those for asset protection reasons - state tax laws should not be structured so as to facilitate those transfers. There is also a risk that broadening the exemption or nominal concession may facilitate tax avoidance and evasion strategies and have an adverse impact on the conveyance duty base. In this regard, Western Australia’s stamp duty treatment of property transfers between spouses is consistent with that of most other jurisdictions. (3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(3) Section 75C(1)(e) limits the availability of the exemption to circumstances where the property transferred is held by the de facto couple as joint tenants. If the property is held as tenants in common, the exemption is not applicable. The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act do not differentiate between property interests held as tenants in common or joint tenants. (4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
(4) Refer to the response in (1). The nominal duty arrangements in part IVD of the Stamp Act relating to transfers at the direction of the Family Court do not apply if there is a sale of property as part of a property settlement - section 112UC. Paragraph (a) of the definition of conveyance on sale in section 63 of the Stamp Act also imposes duty on a court order where the property is transferred or vested by way of sale. I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
I thank the member for the opportunity to clear up that matter.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.