CGT Reform and Divorce: What the Relationship Breakdown Rollover Means After 1 July 2027

General information only. This is not tax or financial advice, and this article does not constitute family law advice. Property settlements after a relationship breakdown are highly fact-specific — consult a registered tax agent and a family lawyer before signing consent orders or a binding financial agreement.

When a relationship breaks down and assets move between former spouses under a court order or approved agreement, Australia’s tax law has a long-standing answer to “does this transfer trigger CGT?”: generally, no. Subdivision 126-A of the ITAA 1997 provides an automatic CGT rollover for transfers between spouses (including de facto partners) as a result of a marriage or relationship breakdown that occurred on or after 20 September 1985. The transferring spouse disregards any gain or loss on the transfer.

What the rollover does NOT do is make the tax history of the asset disappear. It transfers that history — cost base and acquisition date alike — to the recipient spouse, who inherits it in full. For most of the rollover’s history that transfer was a relatively simple thing to model: the recipient just inherited a number and a date. The enacted CGT reform, effective 1 July 2027, adds a genuinely new layer, because the recipient may now also be inheriting a deferred legacy capital gain and a valuation obligation that didn’t exist when this rollover was designed. This article works through exactly what transfers, what is settled law, and what is not yet answered by any published guidance.

The short version. Under section 126-5(5), the recipient spouse’s cost base becomes the transferring spouse’s cost base as it stood at the time of the transfer. Separately, under section 115-30(1) (item 1 — “same-asset roll-overs”), the recipient is treated, for the purposes of the 12-month CGT discount rules specifically, as having acquired the asset when the transferring spouse originally acquired it. If the transfer happens before 30 June 2027, the recipient is the one who holds the asset on the CGT reform’s deemed-sale date, and does the legacy/reform split themselves using that combined ownership history. If the transfer happens on or after 1 July 2027 — after the transferring spouse has already gone through their own deemed sale under Subdivision 112-E — the Act’s own operative text points the other way from what a simple “rollover carries everything” analogy would suggest: reading sections 112-155 and 112-160 directly, the family-law transfer looks like the “realisation event” that ends the deferral, and the deferred gain it triggers is attributed back to the transferor, in the transferor’s income year of transfer — not rolled forward into the recipient’s eventual sale. Neither the Act nor the ATO addresses relationship-breakdown transfers by name, so this remains a reasoned reading of the operative provisions rather than settled, ATO-confirmed law — but it is now grounded in the actual text, not guessed by analogy. Because different assets carry very different legacy/reform splits depending on purchase date, two settlement assets of equal market value today can be worth very different amounts after tax, and — as this reading shows — the tax on a post-2027 transfer can land on the transferor’s own return years before the recipient ever sells. Model this before agreeing to an “even” split.

For the reform’s core mechanics, see 50% CGT Discount Reform: Cost Base Indexation Explained. This article assumes that background.

What Subdivision 126-A actually transfers

The rollover applies automatically — it is not an election either spouse makes — where all of the following hold, per section 126-5(1)–(3A) of the ITAA 1997:

• The relationship ended on or after 20 September 1985, and the transfer happens under: a court order under the Family Law Act 1975 or a corresponding state, territory or foreign law; a maintenance agreement approved under section 87 of the Family Law Act 1975 (or a corresponding foreign-law agreement); a Part VIIIAB financial agreement binding under section 90UJ of the Family Law Act 1975 (or a corresponding foreign agreement); an award made in arbitration under section 13H of the Family Law Act 1975 (or a corresponding state/territory/foreign arbitration); or a written agreement binding under a state, territory or foreign law relating to relationship breakdowns.
• The CGT event is one of the specific types the rollover covers: CGT events A1 or B1 (a “disposal case”), or CGT events D1, D2, D3 or F1 (a “creation case”).
• The asset is not trading stock of the transferor, and (for CGT event B1) title actually passes to the transferee at or before the end of the agreement.
• For roll-overs relying on the financial-agreement, arbitration or state/territory-law paragraphs above, the further conditions in section 126-25 must also be met.

Two consequences flow from meeting those conditions, and both are load-bearing for what happens after 1 July 2027 — but they come from two different sections, which matters for how far each one reaches:

1. Cost base carryover — section 126-5(5). For a disposal case where the transferor acquired the asset on or after 20 September 1985, “the first element of the asset’s cost base (in the hands of the transferee) is the asset’s cost base (in the hands of the transferor) at the time the transferee acquired it.” In practice: the transferee’s opening cost base is a lump sum equal to whatever the transferor’s total cost base was at the moment of transfer (original purchase price plus any capital additions, incidental costs and so on the transferor had already added); the transferee then adds their own further cost base elements on top of that figure from the transfer date onward. (For a transferor who acquired the asset before 20 September 1985, s 126-5(6) instead deems the transferee to have acquired it before that day too — the pre-CGT exemption carries over rather than a cost base.)
2. Acquisition-date deeming for the 12-month discount rule — section 115-30(1), item 1. This is a separate provision, and it is narrower than a blanket “you acquired it on their date” rule: it applies “for the purposes of” specific sections — 115-25, 115-40, 115-45, 115-105, 115-110 and 115-115, the provisions that govern the CGT discount and the 12-month holding test. Subdivision 126-A’s spouse rollover is a “same-asset roll-over” for this purpose, so item 1 of the s 115-30(1) table treats the recipient as having acquired the asset “when the entity that owned the CGT asset before the roll-over acquired it” — i.e., the transferor’s original date. This is what stops the 12-month discount clock resetting on transfer, and it is the real-law provision the reform’s split-treatment mechanics (below) draw on by extension.

Neither of these two, correctly-scoped mechanics is new — they are how the rollover has worked for years. What is new is what they mean once a Subdivision 112-E deemed sale sits between the transferor’s original purchase and the eventual disposal.

Two very different pictures, depending on when the transfer happens

The enacted reform’s Subdivision 112-E deems every CGT asset a taxpayer holds at 30 June 2027 to be disposed of and immediately reacquired, splitting the gain into a deferred pre-reform (legacy-discount) portion and a post-reform (indexation + 30% minimum tax) portion. Because the rollover can happen at any point — years before the reform, years after, or right on top of the transition — the mechanics differ sharply depending on which side of 30 June 2027 the transfer falls.

Case 1 — Transfer happens before 30 June 2027 (the common case today)

If the consent orders or binding financial agreement transfer the asset to the recipient spouse before the deemed-sale date, the recipient is the one who legally holds the asset at 30 June 2027. They personally go through the Subdivision 112-E deemed sale, using the combined acquisition date established by section 115-30(1) item 1 (the transferor’s original date, deemed for discount-timing purposes) together with the section 126-5(5) cost base. This is mechanically similar to how a deceased estate’s beneficiary inherits the deceased’s acquisition date and later undergoes their own deemed sale (see the deceased estates deep dive for the same logic applied to inheritance, via the analogous s 115-30 item 3/4 deeming for deceased-estate assets) — the transfer simply changes who is doing the eventual selling, not how long the asset is treated as having been held for discount-timing purposes.

Practical consequence: the recipient spouse should personally obtain (or ensure the trustee/conveyancer arranges) market-value evidence at 1 July 2027 for any transferred property, because they — not their former spouse — will need it to support the split-treatment calculation whenever they eventually sell. Waiting until the eventual sale to reconstruct a 2027 valuation is exactly the trap the master reform article warns against for every asset owner.

Case 2 — Transfer happens on or after 1 July 2027, after the transferring spouse’s own deemed sale

Here the mechanics get genuinely harder, because the transferring spouse has already been through their own Subdivision 112-E deemed sale on 30 June 2027 (assuming they held the asset then). By the time of the family-law transfer, the transferring spouse’s position on that asset already consists of two separate pieces: a deferred, quantified legacy gain (calculated at the 30 June 2027 deemed sale, preserved at the 50% discount, but not yet taxed because no actual disposal has happened) and a post-1-July-2027 cost base for indexation purposes going forward.

Reading the actual operative sections — 112-155 and 112-160 — rather than reasoning purely by analogy from the ordinary rollover principle, the answer to “who ends up bearing that deferred gain” looks different from a simple “the recipient inherits everything” assumption:

• The deferred gain is disregarded “until the income year in which the realisation event happens” (s 112-160(1)–(2)). “Realisation event” is not left to ordinary meaning here — it carries an asterisk in the Act, which marks it as a defined term, and the definition is express. Section 977-5 of the ITAA 1997 provides: “For a *CGT asset, a realisation event is a *CGT event (except CGT event E4, CGT event E10 and CGT event G1).” That is a closed list of three exclusions, and a family-law transfer — CGT event A1 — is not one of them. Subdivision 112-E adds no narrower meaning of its own: s 112-155(1)(c) simply requires that “you continue to hold the asset until a *realisation event happens in relation to the asset on or after 1 July 2027.” So a transfer under the relationship-breakdown rollover, which is still a CGT event A1 even though its own gain is disregarded, meets the statutory definition of a realisation event.
• When that realisation event happens, section 112-160(3) is explicit about whose gain it is and when: “in the income year in which the realisation event happens… you are treated as having made a capital gain (your deferred gain)… for the *CGT event that happens under paragraph 112-155(2)(a) (the deemed CGT event).” “You,” throughout section 112-155 and 112-160, is the person who held the asset through 30 June 2027 — the transferor, not whoever they later transfer it to. The deferred gain is attributed to “the deemed CGT event” (the artificial 30 June 2027 sale) — a legally distinct event from the family-law CGT event that triggers the rollover.
• Section 126-5(4) only disregards “a capital gain or capital loss the transferor makes from the CGT event” — meaning the gain or loss from the family-law CGT event itself. It says nothing about, and on its face does not reach, the section 112-160(3) deferred gain, because that gain is attributed to the earlier, separate “deemed CGT event,” not to the family-law CGT event that section 126-5 is disregarding.

Put together, the more textually-supported reading is that the transferring spouse (not the recipient) is the one who recognises and pays tax on the deferred legacy gain, in the income year the family-law transfer happens — even though the transferor’s own current-year gain on that same transfer is separately, and validly, rolled over to the recipient under section 126-5(4). The recipient’s own cost base, inherited under section 126-5(5), is the transferor’s cost base as it then stood — which, because of the transferor’s own 1 July 2027 deemed reacquisition, is already the post-2027 reset value (the 1 July 2027 market value, not the transferor’s original historical cost), not something the recipient additionally has to unpick.

What is genuinely still unsettled, even on this closer reading: neither the Act nor any ATO guidance says, in terms, that a rollover-relieved CGT event counts as a “realisation event” for Subdivision 112-E purposes — that conclusion follows from applying the s 977-5 definition across two separately-drafted provisions, not from an express cross-reference between Subdivision 112-E and Subdivision 126-A (there is none; a full-text search of the Act for “126-A”, “126-5”, “roll-over,” “spouse,” “marriage” and “relationship breakdown” returns nothing). A court or the ATO could in principle read “realisation event” more narrowly to exclude rollover-relieved transfers, on the basis that Parliament would not obviously have intended a relationship-breakdown transfer to trigger an unrelated tax bill for the transferor — but that would be a purposive argument running against both the plain words and an express definition whose only carve-outs are CGT events E4, E10 and G1. Treat the “transferor bears it” reading as the better-supported position given what the Act actually says, not as ATO-confirmed law.

Practical consequence regardless of which reading eventually prevails: if you are the transferring spouse in a post-1-July-2027 transfer of an asset that already went through its 1 July 2027 deemed sale, budget for the possibility that you — not your former spouse — owe real tax in the year of the transfer on the deferred legacy gain, separate from and in addition to whatever the recipient will owe on their own eventual sale. If you are the recipient, insist on receiving copies of the transferor’s 1 July 2027 valuation and cost base workpapers as part of the settlement documentation regardless of which spouse ends up taxed on the legacy piece — you will need that evidence for your own eventual disposal either way.

Worked example 1 — Investment property transferred before the reform date

Scenario. Priya and Daniel separate in 2025. They bought an investment unit together on 1 July 2015 for $420,000 (joint names, equal interests). Under consent orders made in March 2027, Daniel transfers his 50% interest to Priya, effective 1 May 2027 — before the 30 June 2027 deemed-sale date. Priya now owns the unit outright. She keeps renting it out and sells it on 1 May 2035 for $980,000.

Priya’s cost base and acquisition date.

• Her own original half-share cost base: $210,000 (half of $420,000).
• Daniel’s half-share cost base, inherited under s126-5 as it stood on transfer (no additional improvements assumed): $210,000.
• Total inherited cost base: $420,000.
• Acquisition date for the whole interest, for discount-timing purposes (s 115-30(1) item 1): 1 July 2015 (Daniel’s half is deemed acquired at the ORIGINAL date, not the 2027 transfer date).

Nominal gain on eventual sale: $980,000 − $420,000 = $560,000.

Split treatment (Bucket B) — Priya holds the whole property at 30 June 2027, so she does her own deemed sale using the 2015 acquisition date:

• Days from 2015-07-01 to 2027-07-01 ≈ 4,384 days (pre-reform).
• Days from 2015-07-01 to 2035-05-01 ≈ 7,245 days (total).
• Legacy share ≈ 60.5% → legacy gain: $560,000 × 0.605 ≈ $338,800.
• Reform share ≈ 39.5% → reform gain (nominal): $560,000 × 0.395 ≈ $221,200.

Reform-portion indexation (approx. 7.83 years from 1 July 2027 to 1 May 2035, at an assumed 2.5%/yr CPI): factor ≈ 1.025^7.83 ≈ 1.213. Indexation adjustment ≈ $221,200 × (1 − 1/1.213) ≈ $39,050. Real reform gain ≈ $182,150.

Tax at Priya’s 37% marginal rate:

• Legacy portion: $338,800 × 50% × 37% ≈ $62,678.
• Reform portion: $182,150 × 37% ≈ $67,396 (above the 30% minimum, so MTR controls).
• Total CGT ≈ $130,074.

Compare to a scenario where the transfer had instead happened on 1 May 2028 (a year later, after Priya’s own deemed sale on 30 June 2027 as sole owner of her original half only): the math would be more complex still, because Daniel’s half would separately have gone through its OWN deemed sale in Daniel’s hands before transferring to Priya — this is exactly the Case 2 scenario below.

Worked example 2 — Shares transferred after the reform date (who actually pays the legacy tax)

Scenario. Marcus and Ken (de facto partners) separate in 2028. Marcus owned 5,000 CBA shares bought on 1 July 2010 for $52 each ($260,000 cost base). Under a binding financial agreement executed in October 2029, Marcus transfers the full parcel to Ken. Ken sells the parcel on 1 October 2035 for $145 per share ($725,000).

What has already happened to Marcus’s shares before the transfer. Marcus held the shares at 30 June 2027, so they already went through his personal Subdivision 112-E deemed sale (s 112-155): deemed sold for their market value just before 1 July 2027, and reacquired for the same amount just after. Assume the shares were valued at $98 each ($490,000) at that point. Marcus’s initial notional gain: $490,000 − $260,000 = $230,000 (a discount capital gain, since he’d held since 2010) — disregarded for now, per s 112-160(2), but not gone.

The realisation event: the October 2029 transfer to Ken. On the reading worked through above, Marcus’s transfer of the shares to Ken is the “realisation event” that ends the deferral (s 112-155(1)(c)). Consequence, per s 112-160(3):

• In Marcus’s 2029-30 income year, Marcus — not Ken — is treated as having made a capital gain (his “deferred gain”) of $230,000, characterised as a discount capital gain, for “the deemed CGT event” of 30 June 2027. After the 50% discount: $115,000 taxable, in Marcus’s hands, for that year.
• Separately, Marcus’s actual 2029 disposal of the shares to Ken is an ordinary CGT event A1 on a cost base of $490,000 (the post-2027 reset amount) — and this gain (or loss) IS disregarded, under section 126-5(4), because it is a genuine relationship-breakdown rollover.
• Ken’s inherited cost base, under section 126-5(5), is Marcus’s cost base “at the time [Ken] acquired it” — i.e., the $490,000 post-2027 reset figure, not Marcus’s original $260,000. The $230,000 of pre-2027 growth has already been carved out and taxed in Marcus’s hands; it does not travel with the shares to Ken.

Marcus’s tax (2029-30 income year), at an assumed 45% marginal rate:

• $115,000 × 45% = $51,750 — payable years before Ken ever sells, and unrelated to Ken’s own tax position.

Ken’s position when he sells on 1 October 2035.

• Inherited cost base: $490,000 (nominal, incurred 1 July 2027 in Marcus’s hands — this is the figure indexation runs from, not the 2029 transfer date).
• Sale price: $725,000.
• Nominal gain: $725,000 − $490,000 = $235,000 — this whole amount is “reform-regime” growth (it all accrued after 1 July 2027); there is no separate legacy-discount slice left for Ken, because Marcus already accounted for that piece in 2029-30.
• Indexation from 1 July 2027 (when the $490,000 was incurred) to 1 October 2035 (≈ 8.25 years), at an assumed 2.5%/yr CPI: factor ≈ 1.223. Indexation adjustment ≈ $235,000 × (1 − 1/1.223) ≈ $42,850. Real gain ≈ $192,150.

Ken’s tax at his 45% marginal rate:

• $192,150 × 45% ≈ $86,468 (above the 30% minimum, MTR controls).

Combined family tax on this parcel: $51,750 (Marcus, 2029-30) + $86,468 (Ken, 2035-36) = $138,218 — coincidentally the same total this article’s earlier draft attributed entirely to Ken in 2035. The dollar total doesn’t change; who owes it, and when, does — and that is the practically important correction for a settlement: Marcus faces a real, near-term tax liability in the year of the transfer that has nothing to do with what Ken will eventually owe, and a settlement that doesn’t account for it is mis-costed for the transferor.

Why the transferor’s exposure is flagged, not asserted as certain. The reading above follows the plain words of ss 112-155 and 112-160 read together with s 126-5(4), but neither the Act nor the ATO expressly addresses a rollover-relieved transfer counting as a “realisation event.” A narrower, purposive reading that treated the transfer as continuing the deferral into Ken’s hands instead cannot be ruled out — it just is not what the operative text, read plainly, appears to say. Get advice before finalising a settlement that assumes either party bears this liability.

Worked example 3 — The family home, and where the reform doesn’t matter

Scenario. Alicia and Ben separate in 2027. Their jointly-owned home (their only property, genuinely lived in throughout) is transferred entirely to Alicia under consent orders, so she can keep raising their children there. Alicia sells it in 2033.

If Alicia has continuously lived in the home as her main residence (or the absence rule at s118-145 covers any period she was not, per the 6-year absence rule explainer), the sale is fully exempt under the main residence exemption — which the enacted reform leaves untouched. The reform simply never enters the calculation.

The rollover’s continuity rule for main residence status. Section 118-178 of the ITAA 1997 specifically addresses this scenario: where a Subdivision 126-A rollover applied to an earlier transfer between spouses, the later CGT event on that dwelling is treated as if the transferee’s ownership interest had commenced when the transferor’s did, and as if the transferee had used the dwelling — including as a main residence — the same way the transferor did in the meantime. The Act’s own examples show both directions: a transferee who rents out a dwelling their former spouse used only as a main residence gets a partial exemption reflecting both periods of use (not a full exemption just because they only ever rented it), and a transferee who moves into a dwelling their former spouse used only as a rental gets a partial exemption too — full exemption isn’t available just because the current owner’s own use was always as their home. Applied to Alicia and Ben: because the home was a main residence for both of them throughout, this continuity provision doesn’t cost her anything — but it is the reason a settlement involving mixed rental/main-residence history needs care, not an assumption that “my own use” is all that counts.

Where the reform CAN re-enter the picture: if Alicia moves out at some point and rents the home out, the absence rule caps the exemption at 6 years of rental use (indefinite if left vacant). If she holds past that limit and the eventual sale is only partially exempt, the taxable (investment) portion is then subject to the ordinary Bucket A/B/C split treatment on whatever slice of the gain falls outside the exemption — see the holiday homes and non-income-producing property deep dive for how that split-plus-exemption interaction actually works.

Superannuation splitting sits outside this framework entirely

A common misconception is that superannuation is dealt with the same way as other property in a settlement. It is not, and the CGT reform does not change this: superannuation interests are split under the Family Law Act’s own superannuation-splitting regime (splitting orders or superannuation agreements), which operates through the fund and the relevant superannuation law rather than through a CGT rollover. A superannuation split is not itself a CGT event and does not interact with Subdivision 126-A, the Subdivision 112-E deemed sale, or the reform’s indexation/minimum-tax rules. If your settlement includes a superannuation component, treat it as a separate workstream from the CGT-affected property discussed in this article, and get advice from a superannuation specialist alongside your family lawyer.

What this means for negotiating a settlement

The single most important practical consequence of everything above: two settlement assets of equal market value today are very unlikely to be worth the same amount after tax to whichever spouse ends up holding them, once the CGT reform’s split treatment is in play. An asset purchased decades ago and eventually sold has a large legacy-discount share; an asset purchased recently (or one that will be held mostly after 1 July 2027) sits mostly or wholly in the new-rules bucket. If a settlement offsets “Property A, worth $700,000” against “Share portfolio B, worth $700,000” as if they were equivalent, and Property A was bought in 1998 while Portfolio B was assembled in 2028, the eventual after-tax proceeds from each can differ by tens of thousands of dollars for an identical eventual sale price — as the worked examples above show.

Before agreeing to an even-value split:

1. Identify the acquisition date of every asset in the pool, including any half-share history that will roll over under section 126-5 — not just its current value.
2. Work out whether each asset has already been through its Subdivision 112-E deemed sale (i.e., was it held by either spouse at 30 June 2027?) — this determines which of the two transfer-timing scenarios above applies, and therefore how much certainty exists about its future tax treatment.
3. Model the likely after-tax value of each asset at a realistic future disposal date, not just its gross market value today, using the CGT calculator and the scenario compare tool.
4. Get the 1 July 2027 valuation evidence transferred with the asset, in writing, as part of the settlement paperwork — whichever spouse ends up holding a given asset will need it, and it cannot be recreated later.
5. Treat superannuation as a separate negotiation track, not fungible with CGT-affected property.
6. If an asset has already been through its 30 June 2027 deemed sale before the transfer under discussion, check who is likely to owe the legacy-gain tax and when. On the reading of the Act worked through in Case 2, that liability most likely lands on the transferor, in the transferor’s income year of transfer — a real, near-term cost to budget into the settlement, not something that can be assumed away as “the recipient’s problem later.” Get advice on this specifically; don’t let either side’s assumptions silently drive the numbers.

FAQs

Does transferring an asset to my ex-spouse under a court order trigger CGT?

No, generally. Subdivision 126-A provides an automatic rollover for transfers between spouses (including de facto partners) as a result of a relationship breakdown on or after 20 September 1985, made under a court order, an approved maintenance agreement, or a binding financial agreement. No CGT event is recognised on the transfer itself.

What exactly does my ex-spouse’s cost base “roll over” to me mean?

Under section 126-5(5), your cost base becomes their cost base as it stood at the time of transfer (their original purchase price plus any additions they made) — you then add your own subsequent costs on top. Separately, under section 115-30(1) item 1, you are treated — specifically for the 12-month CGT discount rules — as having acquired the asset on their original acquisition date, not the transfer date.

Does the 2027 CGT reform change the rollover itself?

No — nothing in the enacted Acts amends Subdivision 126-A. What changes is what happens to the asset’s eventual sale once the reform’s split-treatment and deemed-sale rules are layered on top of the ordinary rollover mechanics, as this article works through.

If my ex-spouse transfers an asset to me after their own 30 June 2027 deemed sale, do I inherit their deferred legacy gain?

Reading the Act’s own text (sections 112-155 and 112-160), the more likely answer is no — the transfer itself looks like the “realisation event” that ends your ex-spouse’s deferral, and section 112-160(3) attributes the resulting gain to them, in their income year of transfer, not to you. Your own inherited cost base (under section 126-5(5)) is their post-1-July-2027 reset cost base going forward. Neither the Act nor the ATO addresses relationship-breakdown transfers by name, so this is a reasoned reading of the operative provisions, not confirmed ATO guidance — get advice before relying on a specific answer in a settlement.

Does the main residence exemption still apply to a home transferred in a divorce settlement?

Yes, unchanged by the reform. Section 118-178 also preserves continuity: the recipient’s main residence exemption calculation takes into account the transferring spouse’s use of the dwelling before the transfer, not just the recipient’s own occupation afterward.

Is superannuation split the same way as other property?

No. Superannuation is split under the Family Law Act’s own superannuation-splitting framework, separate from CGT rollover and unaffected by the reform. Treat it as a distinct negotiation track.

Sources

• Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026 (No. 49 of 2026) — full text read directly from the Federal Register of Legislation entry and the ATO-hosted Act PDF. Assent, Act number and Senate amendment count independently verified against the APH bill homepage (Status: Act; Assent 26 Jun 2026; 30 Government + 3 Australian Greens amendments agreed to 25 Jun 2026). Sections 112-155, 112-160 and 126-5(4) (read together) are the basis for the Case 2 / Worked Example 2 analysis of who bears the deferred legacy gain on a post-2027 rollover transfer — this is the article’s own reading of the operative text, not an ATO ruling.
• Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 126-5 — CGT event involving spouses — the automatic roll-over, its conditions (subsections (1)–(3A)), and the cost base carryover mechanic (subsection (5))
• Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 115-30 — Special rules about time of acquisition — item 1 of the table, the “same-asset roll-over” deeming of acquisition time for discount-timing purposes
• Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 118-178 — Previous roll-over under Subdivision 126-A — main residence use/status continuity on a spouse rollover, including the Act’s own worked examples
• Bristax: CGT Rollover Relief — Relationship Breakdown — plain-English mechanics, cross-checked against the statute above
• Grant Thornton Australia: Tax issues on relationship breakdowns — superannuation-splitting separateness

Related reading

• 50% CGT Discount Reform: Cost Base Indexation Explained — the core reform mechanics this article builds on
• CGT Reform: What Passed — Final Law From 1 July 2027 — the canonical statement of the enacted Acts
• CGT Reform for Deceased Estates and Heirs — the closest analogue: another rollover that carries over cost base and acquisition date across the reform line
• CGT Reform for Property Investors — for the investment-property mechanics behind Worked Example 1
• CGT Reform for ASX Share Investors — for the share-parcel mechanics behind Worked Example 2
• The 6-Year Main Residence Rule (and When It Resets) — the absence rule referenced in Worked Example 3
• CGT Reform for Non-Income-Producing Holiday Homes — for what happens when a settled property is only partly exempt