Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 685

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

In September I wrote that testamentary trusts, the trusts created under a will after death, had survived the Government's new 30% minimum tax on discretionary trusts, but that the drafting battle had just begun. The exposure draft pointed one way and its Explanatory Memorandum pointed another. The question was whether the exemption turned on who actually receives distributions from the trust, or on who the will allows to potentially receive it.

We now have the answer. It's the wrong one.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 was introduced on 14 October. The testamentary trust exemption is still there, with the same three conditions: the trust must arise from a will, court order or intestacy; its income must come from estate assets; and, for trusts established on or after 1 July 2028, the beneficiaries must be limited to individuals, tax-exempt entities such as charities, and special disability trusts.

The first two are sensible. On the third condition, the Bill has taken the broader reading. It looks at who the will allows to benefit from the trust, not who actually gets paid.

For decades, lawyers (me included) have drafted testamentary trusts with a wide class of potential beneficiaries. Children and grandchildren, yes, but also their family companies, family trusts and sometimes the estate of a beneficiary who has died. Nobody expected the trustee to use all of them. Indeed, some of them may never even exist. The point was flexibility. If your daughter later runs her business through a company, or sets up a family trust for her own children, the trustee can respond.

The Bill doesn't care whether any of those options are ever used. The Explanatory Memorandum is clear: one ineligible beneficiary in the class of potential beneficiaries costs the whole testamentary trust its exemption, even if it never receives a cent.

Timing makes it worse. A testamentary trust generally comes into existence when assets pass to the trustee after death, not when the will is signed. So a will signed in 2010 by someone who dies in 2030 is judged against a test written in 2026. And once the will-maker has died, the drafting is locked in.

The result is that if the Bill passes as drafted, anyone whose will gives a testamentary trust the power to benefit a family company, family trust or deceased beneficiary's estate will need to redraft it to keep the exemption. That is most testamentary trust wills in Australia. You could avoid the problem by dying before 1 July 2028, although most people would probably prefer a legislative solution.

Many testamentary trusts give the trustee a power to vary the trust's terms once it is up and running. It's tempting to think the trustee could simply use that power after death to remove the companies and family trusts from the class. That is unlikely to work. The test reads the will that established the trust, not a later amendment. A broad power to vary can itself be the problem, because if the trustee could add ineligible beneficiaries back in, they remain potential beneficiaries. And a variation made after death to qualify for the exemption sits uncomfortably close to the anti-avoidance rule. Don't count on it.

Who pays

Testamentary trusts exist to look after people. A child who has lost a parent. A surviving spouse. A family member who can't manage money alone.

Under current law, a child receiving income from a testamentary trust is taxed at adult rates with the tax-free threshold, rather than the penalty rates that normally apply to children's unearned income. That concession is much of the reason these trusts exist.

Take a child with $20,000 of trust income. At adult rates, they pay little or nothing. If the trust loses its exemption, the trustee pays 30% tax, or $6,000 on that income. The child gets a non-refundable offset for that tax, which is worth nothing when they have no tax to offset. That's $6,000 a year, every year, lost to a clause in a will that may never have been used.

We've solved this before

The Government's concern is legitimate. It doesn't want testamentary trusts used to channel income from unrelated assets to children at concessional rates, or to feed family companies.

Parliament dealt with almost exactly this problem in 2019. People were putting non-estate assets into testamentary trusts so income could flow to children at adult rates. The fix, section 102AG(2AA) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, limited the concession to income from assets that came from the estate. Not one will had to be rewritten.

The Bill keeps that rule as its second condition, then adds the beneficiary test on top. One test asks where the money came from. The other asks who could receive it, even if they never do.

Off to the Senate

On 15 October the Bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which is due to report on 13 November. Lawyers and advocates, me among them, will no doubt repeat what we said during consultation. It was ignored the first time. Let's hope the Senate listens more closely than Treasury did.

I should declare an interest. Those of us contributing to this debate, myself included, stand to benefit financially if the Bill proceeds as drafted. Forcing Wills to be redrafted is good for business, and professionals like us get paid to do it. Yet we are arguing for a better outcome, one that avoids unnecessary cost and inconvenience for families. When the people who would profit from a mess are asking the Government not to make one, they might be worth listening to.

There are two simple fixes.

  1. Apply the test to wills, not trusts. The beneficiary condition should apply only to wills signed on or after 1 July 2028, not to every testamentary trust that happens to come into existence after that date. People making a will from then on will know the rules. People who signed years ago couldn't have.
  2. Tax what happens, not what might. Apply the minimum tax to income actually distributed to ineligible beneficiaries, rather than disqualifying the whole trust because of a clause that may never be used.

Either would protect the revenue without forcing a wave of redrafted wills.

What to do now

The Bill hasn't passed and the exemption could still change. If your will doesn't set up a testamentary trust, none of this affects you. If it does, what you should do depends on one question: does your will need updating for reasons that have nothing to do with this Bill?

If yes, redraft now. If no, review now and wait before redrafting.

Your will needs updating anyway: do it now

A new grandchild, a separation, a change in your business or assets, a change in who you want to provide for, or concerns about losing capacity are all reasons to act regardless of this Bill. An outdated will does not become less outdated because Parliament is considering tax legislation.

A new will can be drafted to meet the proposed exemption. Since the exposure draft came out on 3 September, I have been drafting testamentary trusts that limit the potential beneficiaries to individuals, tax-exempt entities such as charities, and special disability trusts. The will can also stop the trustee adding assets from outside the estate and require records that trace income back to estate assets, which covers the other two conditions.

The cost is flexibility. The trustee can no longer distribute to a family company or family trust, even if that might one day have been useful. For many families, that is a cost worth accepting, especially for a new will where everyone knows the rules. If the final law turns out more generous, you will have given up some flexibility, but not the tax exemption.

Your will is otherwise up to date: review now, redraft later

Ask your lawyer to check the class of potential beneficiaries in your testamentary trust. You will find out whether the proposed rules affect your will, and by how much. The issue may be less significant than you feared.

If your will is affected, wait before redrafting, but don't forget about it. The Senate committee reports on 13 November and the rules may still change. If they don't, your will needs to be redrafted to keep the exemption. The beneficiary test applies to trusts that come into existence from 1 July 2028, so aim to have the redraft signed before then, and certainly while you still have capacity. Wait for the law to settle, then redraft once rather than twice.

Either way

Find your will. Check who can benefit. Don’t count on a power to vary after you die to save it.

The Government got the policy right and the drafting wrong. Unless the Senate fixes it, families will pay tax on flexibility they never used, built into wills they signed in good faith.

 

Rachael Rofe is an estate planning lawyer and Principal Solicitor of Rofe + Counsel, a legal practice advising families nationally on testamentary trusts, intergenerational wealth transfer and structured giving. She made submissions on the testamentary trust exemption during Treasury’s consultation.

This article is general information only and is not legal advice.

 

  •   21 October 2026
  • 32
  •      
  •   
32 Comments
Rachael Rofe
October 22, 2026

Thanks for taking a moment for the feedback, William. i am pleased that you found it informative.

Lynette
October 22, 2026

"And once the will-maker has died, the drafting is locked in." The locking in can occur much earlier if the will maker has lost capacity and is not in a position to redraft the will. Dementia and other conditions among our elderly population mean that there will already be people who are unable to reassess their affairs in the light of this legislation and families that may suffer the consequences outlined in the article.

8
Rachael Rofe
October 27, 2026

Families can apply to the Supreme Court for a statutory will where someone has lost capacity. it’s expensive, slow and the court needs a lot of evidence before it will make one. It’s not a realistic option for most families, and it seems wrong that they would have to go to court just to keep a tax outcome the will-maker already planned for. It’s one of the strongest arguments for taxing actual distributions rather than what the will allows, or grandfathering to the date of the Will, not the date the trust comes into existence.

2
Nadal
October 22, 2026

"The Government got the policy right and the drafting wrong."

I would suggest the Govt got them both wrong.

7
Wayne
October 22, 2026

The more I look at this the more I think the best outcome, post legislation for the trust changes, is for non-super assets to be held inside a company structure. The company shares held personally initially and then later held inside a testamentary trust. The company can then choose to declare a dividend or not and then the trust can decide who to distribute the potential dividend to. So you get asset protection, flexibility and the ability to cap taxation at the company tax rate by retaining earnings inside the company. There is a disadvantage that the company does not get a dicount or indexation on capital gains but I feel the other advantage outweigh this.

5
Rachael Rofe
October 22, 2026

It’s an interesting approach, and companies can certainly play a useful role in family wealth structures. The distinction is that a company and a testamentary trust serve different purposes. A company can retain profits and generally pay tax at the applicable company rate, although that may not be the end of the tax story when profits are eventually distributed. A testamentary trust offers flexibility in how income and capital are distributed among beneficiaries, alongside opportunities for asset protection and managing wealth across generations.

The two can work together, but they aren’t interchangeable. As always, the best structure depends on the family’s circumstances and what they want their wealth to achieve over time.

1
Stephen
October 25, 2026

"A company can retain profits and generally pay tax at the applicable company rate, although that may not be the end of the tax story when profits are eventually distributed."
Are you referring to a situation where the company distributes to a testamentary trust outside the family group at the time of distribution and incurs a liability for family trust distribution tax?

Wildcat
October 25, 2026

No asset protection Wayne. If you have a company and want to leave the shares to a TT YOU own the shares. So you to get the tax deferral/break but there is no asset protection.

The beauty of the discretionary family trust is that your right to benefit is not fixed, it's at the discretion of the trustee. Therefore provides immeasurably better asset protection than a company.

2
Dudley
October 25, 2026


"at the discretion of the trustee":

For each class of share, the distribution of dividend per share is at the discretion of company directors.

Dauf
October 23, 2026

Really good article and most of us already knew which direction (that you flagged in your original article) that these guys would take….the wrong one. It’s all about the money and the rest is spin. Intergenerational equity is rubbish…they just want money from the upcoming wealth transfer t9 buy more votes from the politics of (misinformed) envy

5
Rachael Rofe
October 22, 2026

Thanks for reading. A fair point, and plenty of people would agree with you about the broader minimum tax on discretionary trusts. That’s a bigger debate than this piece takes on.

The policy I meant is the exemption for testamentary trusts, and that part is right because of who these trusts protect. A child who has lost a parent. A surviving spouse. A family member who can’t manage money on their own. Children are taxed at adult rates on income from a testamentary trust, which can be the difference between a family coping and not. A 30% tax at trust level would take that away, and a tax offset is worth nothing to a child with no tax to pay. The Government recognised that, and was right to. The beneficiary test is where the Bill overreaches, and it’s the part the Senate can still fix.

2
Steve
October 24, 2026

Rachael,
This series of articles has become compulsive reading ever since the original landed back in May. The sequels keep getting better.
Grandfathering based on will execution date rather than date of death seems like a thoughtful and logical solution that any reasonable member of the Senate Committee should acquiesce to. Think of all those people who executed their Wills in good faith and are now lacking legal capacity to change their Will to accommodate such drafting. If the Senate committee cannot understand that logic then we the voting public are forced to question (once again) the underlying motives of our Parliamentarians as a cohort.

2
lyn
October 25, 2026

Steve, it is thoughtful to grandfather for those in situation denied opportunity to change affairs to encompass a serious prior unknown legislative change which in fact is discriminatory to such people, but how to administer when only the testator can change will but no Legal Capacity? Will execution date could be key, only thing can think of is opposite of medical Letter of Legal Capacity when helped sister do new will at death of husband, perhaps a P. of Attorney obtains medical Letter of Incapacity dated soon after date legislation but presume needs clause within Act to allow & is that all too late? What body to administer application to approve --- court/ special Board/what?, bearing in mind a P of A could also be Excutor of will & a benficiary. P. of A's jump hoops now re just bank a/c access to pay bills, what hoops to jump for whole estate change to adjust per new legislatiion?

lyn
October 26, 2026

Steve (and Rachael if reading), slept on above and wonder if it is ethical/legal/allowable for legislation to be drafted/passed when it is known in advance by any reasonable person that it will discriminate against aged people without Legal Capacity to make changes accordingly as rest of the population will be able to do?

Rachael Rofe
October 27, 2026

Thanks Lyn, I’m reading. Neither fix would need anyone to prove incapacity. Grandfathering would simply apply to every will signed before a cut-off date, whether or not the person can still change it.

Taxing actual distributions is the option I prefer, and the one I’ve argued for in my submission. The concern behind the new test is income going to people outside the family. Taxing those payments deals with that directly, and leaves alone the many trusts that only ever pay the family. Grandfathering has some real drawbacks. It would create two sets of rules for decades, because a will signed next year might not take effect until 2060. And anyone who updated their will after the cut-off, for a new grandchild or a death in the family, could lose the protection. That would discourage people from keeping their wills up to date, which is the last thing we want. Taxing distributions avoids all of that. No dates, no medical letters, no applications.

You’re right that an attorney can’t change a will. The only option for someone who has lost capacity is to ask the Supreme Court for a statutory will, which is costly and slow.

On your second question, Parliament can legally pass a law like this. Whether it should is exactly the question the Senate committee is there to ask, and the people who can no longer change their wills are the strongest part of the case.

1
lyn
October 27, 2026

Rachael,
Thank you for your interest readers' queries/suggestions on subject and also your active advocacy of the matter for protection of those who need it most and, not least, trying to stop a mess being created. It is heartening to know of your advocacy as I certainly wonder who listens when a high level of Govt re legislation which can affect many.
Does it help your advocacy if people contact ALL their State/Territory Senators' = 12/State and 2/Territory, offices before the Commitee's Report 13/11, to express if they have concern about the legislation creating a mess, in its' present form?

Rachael Rofe
October 27, 2026

Thank you Steve, and thanks for coming along for the journey. It’s been quite a ride since May.

Grandfathering based on when the will was signed is one solution, and it would protect everyone who acted in good faith under the old rules. The better answer, and the case I’ve made in my submission, is to tax actual distributions to ineligible beneficiaries. That targets the integrity concern directly without penalising a will just for being flexible. It doesn’t create two classes of will for the next 40 years, and it doesn’t discourage people from updating their wills for fear of losing grandfathered status.

I advocated hard for my clients to have testamentary trusts carved out of the minimum tax, and the government listened. I’m hoping this next fix gets the same result. The people who’ve lost capacity are the clearest case. They did everything right, and the rules changed after they could no longer respond. I don’t think anyone set out to catch them, and that’s exactly why it’s worth putting in front of the committee.

I’m hoping the final article in the series brings good news for everyone who already has a testamentary trust in their will.

2
Roewen
October 27, 2026

It’s nice that Rachel added this wry comment “ You could avoid the problem by dying before 1 July 2028, although most people would probably prefer a legislative solution.”. A little dry humour to lighten and otherwise gloomy topic.

2
Rachael Rofe
October 27, 2026

As is my way, Roewen. Glad it was appreciated. Thanks for reading.

lyn
October 27, 2026

Roewen, Yes, geat a 'gal' has sense of humour despite being professional and serious topic.
Also liked statement under para. Off to the Senate: " When the people who would profit from a mess are asking the Govt not to make one, they might be worth listening to." Says it all.
Good Luck Rachael when you advocate again sometime after 13/11 for no mess.

ConcernedParent
October 22, 2026

Thank you for this information Rachel. I may have missed this, would you please clarify if the Testamentary trust situation which is part of our wills is potentially affected: the assets are to go into a trust to benefit and protect our two adult children who potentially will not be able to manage the estate by themselves as individuals.

Jack
October 22, 2026

The issue is; if your Will, which becomes the trust deed for any testamentary trust, lists a company or a family discretionary trust as a POSSIBLE beneficiary of that trust (and most Wills written before now do that as standard practice) then that testamentary trust will not be exempt from the new minimum 30% tax on trust distributions. The solution is to redraft your will, assuming you have the cognitive capacity to do so.

7
Rachael
October 22, 2026

Spot on, Jack. Thank you.

Rachael Rofe
October 22, 2026

The specific issue is whether your wills allow the trustee to distribute income or capital to beneficiaries other than individuals, tax-exempt entities such as charities, or special disability trusts.

For example, if the beneficiary clause includes a family company, a family trust or another trust, that may be enough to disqualify the exemption under the Bill as drafted, even if those entities never receive anything.

The concern is that many wills include these broader beneficiary classes to give trustees flexibility, including where an adult child needs ongoing protection and assistance managing their inheritance. I would have your wills reviewed, paying particular attention to the beneficiary definitions, rather than assuming the trusts are automatically protected.

Donal Griffin Legacy Law / Be A Better Ancestor
October 22, 2026

Great explanation Rachael. Funny (to lawyers) that we have been amending trusts to remove foreign beneficiaries without penalty before 31 December 2020 and removing unwanted beneficiaries like spouses since 2012 when the ATO agreed that would not be a resettlement and now we will likely be removing trusts and companies as beneficiaries. Death by a thousand cuts to tax advantages but at the expense of important asset protection for many vulnerable beneficiaries. We are going to have to hire lawyers to help us with all of this work!

Frustrated Testator
October 23, 2026

Great explanation, Rachel.

It has prompted me to review my will. No need for redrafting - yet. My circumstances haven't changed.

My will has a permissive clause: a) the issue of the primary beneficiary; b) a trust, company or other entity in which a person mentioned in the preceding paragraph and subclause of this clause has an interest, whether absolute, direct, indirect, present, contingent or expectant, or is a director or shareholder.

Great when drafted, not so good with the current legislation before the senate.

But it will require redrafting if the Senate Economics Legislation Committee doesn't see the light.

At least I have a good lawyer, who will be getting richer. I'll have to ask the person who I recently referred to him what her new will looks like...

lyn
October 24, 2026

Rachael & Simonelle,
This article takes thoughts how to approach will content for combined, legal consult again about another matter too, once the legislation is passed. Wonder if could do article of pros & cons apart from 2 tax rtn costs, of 2 separate TT's within Wills where 1 beneficiary is trustee of 1 trust for others' beneficial entitlement and vice versa for 2nd beneficiary, to protect assets if marriage breakdown, can see some 'grooming' going on by a family with few assets & adult dependant child. Opinion on Life Interest on a home, perhaps too? Presently researching CGT implication of various scenarios.

Zohaib Noman
October 26, 2026

Thank you for this clear explanation, Rachael. The distinction between who a will allows to benefit and who actually receives income is the point that worries me most, because so many wills were drafted for flexibility rather than to pass a narrow test. Taxing what actually happens, rather than what might happen, seems fairer and would avoid forcing families into rushed redrafts. It also reinforces a broader estate-planning lesson: preserving wealth across generations depends on keeping structures simple, reviewable and able to adapt, and on having up-to-date information about the value of what is being passed on. 

Rachael Rofe
October 27, 2026

Thanks so much for reading and your thoughtful comment. Most of those wills were drafted with wide beneficiary classes on purpose, because that was good advice at the time. Nobody knew this test was coming. Taxing what’s actually distributed, or grandfathering based on when the Will was signed instead of when the trust comes into existence, would deal with the integrity concern without making thousands of families go back to their lawyer (and some can’t - i.e. If Mum has lost capacity).

I completely agree about keeping things reviewable. Although on leaving everything outright is about as simple as it gets, and it’s often the worst outcome if a child is going through a divorce or has creditors. A testamentary trust adds some sophistication, but that’s what gives the family protection and choice. The bigger risk is a structure nobody has looked at in 15 years.

Greg
November 02, 2026

I thought the 30% tax was on the trust's income, such as dividends received by the trust, not on the distributions to beneficiaries, in which case the 20k distribution example is assuming a 20k trust income which is not mentioned. If the TT is intended to provide for a child until adulthood, then it is probably distributing more than its income, and capital would be distributed in the same way as income.
However, if it is on the distributions, then the proposed changes are far worse than I thought since it amounts to a tax on the capital, not income.
Have I misunderstood this?

Rachael Rofe
November 03, 2026

Hi Greg,
You have read it correctly: the 30% is on the trust’s income, not on distributions of capital. The trustee pays it on the trust’s net income, such as dividends, interest and rent. The example assumes the trust earns $20,000 of income and distributes it to the child.

If the trust also pays out capital to support the child, that capital sits outside the minimum tax. A trust paying a child $30,000 a year, made up of $20,000 of income and $10,000 of capital, would face the 30% only on the $20,000.

The pain is in the offset. The child gets a credit for the tax the trustee paid, but it is non-refundable, so a child with little other income can’t claim back the difference between 30% and what they would have paid at adult rates.

When I suggest taxing what happens rather than what might, I mean income actually distributed to ineligible beneficiaries, such as a family company. It isn’t a tax on capital.

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

Superannuation’s structural failings

Politicians are fighting over access to super, but they may be arguing about the wrong thing. The system’s three fundamental flaws have been hiding in plain sight for decades, costing Australians far more than they realise.

Avoid unnecessary CGT with this estate planning clause

A simple estate plan can create a ticking time bomb. One overlooked clause can pit spouses against children, delay inheritances, and potentially leave a family facing an unexpected tax bill worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation’s structural failings

Politicians are fighting over access to super, but they may be arguing about the wrong thing. The system’s three fundamental flaws have been hiding in plain sight for decades, costing Australians far more than they realise.

Planning

The great wealth transfer myth

Why do some families preserve wealth for generations while others struggle to? As the great wealth transfer unfolds, the determining factor is often not the structure of the estate, but the preparation of those who will inherit it.

Investment strategies

What comes after bank hybrids?

For years, bank hybrids have been a cornerstone of portfolio income. With tens of billions of dollars now disappearing from the market, investors face a critical question: what comes next, and are the obvious replacements enough?

Investment insights from the US

What happens when knowledge becomes a commodity? The latest themes emerging from the US tech sector suggest AI could reshape company moats, disrupt incumbents and create winners and losers in unexpected places.

Investing

Can Berkshire thrive without Buffett?

Warren Buffett's departure marks the end of an era. But the more important question for investors is whether Berkshire's culture, discipline and capital allocation framework can survive without the man who built them.

Retirement

The Bengen 4% Rule: Lost in translation

For years, retirees have been told to focus on withdrawal rates. But the real question is far simpler: how many dollars can you safely spend? The answer may be very different from what conventional retirement wisdom suggests.

Interest rates

Super low interest rates came with side effects

For more than a decade, investors lived through an era of near-zero interest rates. With bond yields now surging, it's worth asking whether cheap money solved economic problems, or introduced a much larger set of risks.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.