Skip to main content

Valuation vs the Free Formula - The 1 July 2027 Choice

For property held on 30 June 2027, the market value at the end of 30 June 2027 becomes the new cost base for future gains. The legislation gives you a choice about how that value is established:

  1. A market valuation as at the end of 30 June 2027 — the market value just before 1 July 2027; or
  2. Treasury’s apportioning method — a formula set by the Treasurer (with ATO tools to come) that estimates the 1 July 2027 value by assuming the property grew at one steady rate between what you paid and what you eventually sell for.

Neither is compulsory. This page explains the trade-off in plain English so you can have an informed conversation with a registered tax professional.

How the apportioning method works (illustration only)
#

Treasury has released the method as a draft determination; the ATO’s tools to apply it have not been released yet — track them on the ATO guidance tracker. The idea is simple: assume the property grew at one steady rate for the whole time you owned it, and read the 1 July 2027 value off that curve.

Illustration. Say a property was bought in 2017 for $600,000 and sells in 2037 for $1,600,000 — a $1,000,000 gain over 20 years. The draft method does not split that gain down the middle. It applies the one steady growth rate that gets $600,000 to $1,600,000 over 20 years, then reads off the value at the halfway point: about $980,000, not $1,100,000. Steady-rate growth compounds, so the first half of the period accounts for less than half the gain.

Now suppose the property’s actual market value just before 1 July 2027 was higher — say $1,300,000 — because most of its growth happened early, or you renovated in 2024. Then:

  • Formula: the pre-2027 portion of the gain is estimated at about $380,000, leaving roughly $620,000 to be taxed under the new, generally less favourable regime (CPI indexation + the 30% minimum rate).
  • Valuation: dated evidence of $1,300,000 locks in $700,000 as pre-reset gain under the old rules, leaving $300,000 for the new regime — about $320,000 more gain kept under the old rules than the formula would give.

The reverse is also true: if your property underperformed before 2027 and grows strongly afterwards, the formula could work in your favour. The figures above are illustrative only — the method is still a draft, and it, the ATO’s tools and your personal tax position govern the real outcome.

When each approach tends to make sense
#

SituationLeaning
Steady, average growth; simple history; no renovationsThe free formula may do the job
Strong growth before 2027 (fast-rising suburb, early gains)A valuation protects the pre-reset gain
Renovations or improvements before 1 July 2027A valuation captures value the formula misses
Unusual property — few comparables, mixed use, large landA valuation documents what a formula can’t see
You want evidence that stands on its own if questioned laterA signed valuation is independently defensible
You’d rather decide laterPossible either way — a retrospective valuation stays available, but evidence gets harder to assemble with time

Two honest notes. First, the method is published only in draft and the ATO’s tools are still to come, so any figure worked out today — including the one above — can move before the instrument is final. Second, whichever path you choose, records matter either way: purchase costs, improvements and condition evidence — see CGT Cost Base for what to keep.

Common questions
#

Do I have to choose now?
No. The choice matters when a CGT event eventually happens — a sale, transfer or inheritance after 1 July 2027. But evidence is easiest to capture around the date itself: sales comparables and property condition are fresh. Waiting keeps options open at the cost of colder evidence.
Can I use the formula for one property and a valuation for another?
The legislation frames the choice per asset. How it applies across a portfolio is a question for your registered tax professional once the instrument is final and ATO guidance is complete.
What does a valuation cost against what the formula could save?
On-site inspections start from about $646 in this market — an inspected report is the one to budget for if the 1 July 2027 figure is ever tested. Signed desktop assessments start around $279, but without an inspection they carry less weight for that purpose. Whether that outlay is worth it depends on how far your property’s true 1 July 2027 value sits above the formula’s result — for many properties the answer is “not far”; for outperformers and renovated homes the gap can be a multiple of the fee. Compare pathways on the service comparison.
Is one approach "safer" with the ATO?
Both are legitimate — the formula is the alternative the legislation itself provides. The difference is evidentiary: a signed valuation is independent, dated and defensible on its own; the formula depends on your eventual sale price and holding dates. Neither is “ATO-approved” — no such status exists for valuations.
What records should I keep, whichever path I choose?
Purchase contracts and costs, capital improvement invoices and dates, rental-use history, and photos or reports evidencing the property’s condition around 1 July 2027. The formula leans on purchase/sale figures and dates; a valuation leans on condition and comparables — good records serve both. See what counts in your cost base.

▶ Watch: these questions explained
#

Do I have to choose now?
Can I use the formula for one property and a valuation for another?
What does a valuation cost against what the formula could save?
Is one approach safer with the ATO?
What records should I keep, whichever path I choose?

Important
#

This page is general education only — not tax, financial, legal or valuation advice. The apportioning method is published only as a draft determination and the ATO’s tools were not yet released at our last review; follow the ATO guidance tracker and confirm your position with a registered tax professional before acting.