Buying Multiple Properties in Victoria – The impact of the SRO’s New Aggregation Ruling

On 25 May 2026, the Victorian Commissioner of State Revenue issued Revenue Ruling DA-26v3, replacing the earlier DA-26v2, along with a companion ruling (DA-071) dealing specifically with registered domestic builders. Both rulings take effect from 1 June 2026.

Aggregation itself is not new; the SRO has long had the power to treat related transactions as a single transaction for duty purposes.

What is new is the updated guidance on how the Commissioner will exercise that power.

The ruling reflects developments in case law since the previous version (DA-26v2) was issued, most notably the 2024 Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Oliver Hume Property Funds v Commissioner of State Revenue, which confirmed that the focus of the aggregation analysis is on the relationship between the transactions themselves, not the relationship between the parties.

The ruling also introduces new worked examples, sets out a more detailed list of factors the Commissioner will consider, and separates the domestic builder exception into its own standalone ruling (DA-071) for the first time. If you are acquiring multiple properties in Victoria, or structuring acquisitions across related entities, these rulings are essential reading.

What is Aggregation and Why Does it Matter?

Stamp duty in Victoria is calculated at progressive (sliding scale) rates, meaning the total duty payable on two or more transactions can be significantly higher if those transactions are assessed together rather than separately.

Aggregation is the mechanism by which the SRO treats multiple separate purchases as if they were a single transaction, subjecting them to duty on their combined value. For investors assembling portfolios or acquiring multiple lots, this can mean a substantially larger duty bill than expected.

To illustrate why, consider the current rates of land transfer duty for non-principal place of residence properties (which applies to most investment acquisitions):

Dutiable value range	Rate
$0 – $25,000	1.4% of the dutiable value
>$25,000 – $130,000	$350 plus 2.4% of the dutiable value in excess of $25,000
>$130,000 – $960,000	$2,870 plus 6% of the dutiable value in excess of $130,000
>$960,000 – $2,000,000	5.5% of the dutiable value
More than $2,000,000	$110,000 plus 6.5% of the dutiable value in excess of $2,000,000

 

As a practical example, consider a developer who acquires 10 lots in a subdivision at $500,000 each. Assessed separately, the duty is $250,700 in total.

If those 10 transactions are aggregated and treated as a single $5,000,000 acquisition, the duty becomes $305,000.

That is an additional $54,300 in duty, simply as a result of the transactions being assessed together rather than individually.

The more properties involved and the higher the combined value, the greater the penalty for aggregation, particularly once the total crosses the $2,000,000 threshold where the top marginal rate of 6.5% applies.

The Two-Limb Test for Aggregation

Under section 24(1) of the Duties Act 2000, dutiable transactions will be aggregated where two criteria are both satisfied.

First, there is the 12-month requirement. If the transactions arise from contracts of sale, those contracts must be entered into within 12 months of each other. For other dutiable transactions, the transactions themselves must occur within 12 months. There is a notable exception for fixtures: transactions involving fixtures are aggregated if they form substantially one arrangement regardless of timing.

Second, the transactions must together form, evidence, give effect to, or arise from what is “substantially one arrangement” relating to all of the property involved.

Both limbs must be satisfied before aggregation applies.

What “Substantially One Arrangement” Means in Practice

Whether transactions form substantially one arrangement is a question of fact, assessed by reference to all relevant circumstances at the time the transactions are entered into. Subsequent events do not change the character of the transactions, though they may serve as evidence that an arrangement existed at the outset.

The Commissioner is looking for “essential unity” between transactions, meaning some relationship, connection, or interdependence beyond mere coincidence. Critically, the focus is on the relationship between the transactions, not the parties to them.

Simply being the same buyer and seller, or purchasing properties in close proximity, is not enough on its own. The relationship must be “integral and not a fortuitous one depending merely on such circumstances as contiguity in time or place.”

Factors the Commissioner Will Consider

The ruling sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors the Commissioner will examine. These include:

• Whether the transactions were negotiated together or separately, and whether they are documented in a single agreement or in multiple agreements that reference each other.
• Whether any transaction is conditional upon, or dependent on, the completion of another.
• Whether the buyer received a discount for acquiring multiple properties together, or whether the properties were priced as a package.
• Whether the properties were genuinely available for separate acquisition, including whether they were independently offered to the market.
• The timing of the transactions and whether their proximity was integral to the parties’ commercial purpose or merely coincidental.
• The physical proximity, interconnection, or functional relationship of the properties, such as shared access or services.
• Whether the properties were or will be used together or for an integrated purpose.
• Whether the parties are identical or associated persons, and where there are different vendors, whether those vendors are independent of each other.

Practical Examples from the Ruling

The ruling includes worked examples. Two adjacent properties purchased from unrelated vendors under interdependent contracts will be aggregated, because the interdependency demonstrates essential unity. Three adjoining commercial properties bought from the same vendor and operated as an integrated retail complex will also be aggregated due to their functional relationship.

Conversely, lots acquired at auction through separate independent bidding processes are not aggregated, as the relationship is considered “fortuitous.” Similarly, an investor who buys a unit and then separately decides a month later to buy another unit in the same building, with no discount and no plan to use them together, will not be aggregated. However, pre-arranged acquisitions or bundle discounts may change the outcome in either scenario.

When Aggregation Will and Will Not Apply

The Commissioner identifies indicative scenarios where aggregation would generally apply:

• Transfers arising from a single contract or option
• Acquisitions of fractional interests in the same property
• Purchases of all lots in a subdivision indicating a single course of dealing
• All or substantially all units in the same building sold to the same person or associated persons

Conversely, aggregation would generally not apply to:

• Exchanges where neither party acquires more than one property
• Distributions to different persons under a deed of family arrangement or court order
• Partitions of co-owned property

Duty Calculation and Disclosure

Where transactions are aggregated, duty is payable on the total of the dutiable values of all the properties, with any duty already paid credited against the recalculated amount. A transferee aware that transactions form substantially one arrangement must disclose all items of dutiable property and their consideration to the Commissioner at or before lodgement, via the Digital Duties Form. Failure to disclose carries penalties of up to 600 penalty units for a body corporate and 120 penalty units otherwise.

The Domestic Builder Exception

The companion ruling DA-071 provides guidance on the exception from aggregation for registered domestic builders. Under section 24(2), transactions are not aggregated if the property is vacant land, the transferee is registered as a domestic builder under the Building Act 1993 and is a “builder” under the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, and the transferee intends to construct residential premises for sale to the public.

Critically, the transferee itself must hold the registration. A company cannot rely on its directors’ or shareholders’ registrations, and an individual cannot rely on a company’s registration. The intention to construct and sell must exist at the time of the transaction and apply to each parcel acquired. Land intended for private use or rental will not qualify.

Reassessment Risk for Domestic Builders

The SRO can reassess duty if residential premises are not ultimately constructed. Triggering circumstances include:

• Selling the land without having constructed residential premises
• Constructing non-residential premises on the land
• Failing to build residential premises within five years of acquisition In the ruling’s worked example, a developer who acquired 10 lots at $300,000 each and sold 2 without building faced additional duty of $4,430 per lot ($8,860 total). The transferee must notify the Commissioner within 30 days of becoming aware of a triggering circumstance.

Other Exceptions and the CIPT Connection

Other exceptions include primary production land that continues to be used for primary production following acquisition (though not fractional interests in the same land), and independent sales of land and business goods to different unrelated purchasers.

Commercial property investors should also note that aggregation of fractional interests may be relevant under the Commercial and Industrial Property Tax Reform Act 2024, where such interests must be combined to determine whether a transaction is an “entry transaction” into the new tax reform scheme.

Practical Takeaways for Investors

The updated ruling reinforces that the SRO takes a substance-over-form approach. Spacing out purchases or using different entities does not prevent aggregation where transactions were planned as part of a single strategy. What matters is the genuinely separate and independent character of each purchase decision at the time of acquisition. Investors who make genuinely unconnected purchase decisions without any pre-arranged plan or bundle discount should take comfort that such transactions will generally not be aggregated.

Given the ruling takes effect from 1 June 2026, investors with current or planned acquisition strategies in Victoria should review their approach now and factor any additional duty into their feasibility modelling.

Disclaimer

This article is intended as general information only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. The application of the aggregation provisions will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each transaction. Investors should seek tailored professional advice from a qualified tax or property lawyer before making acquisition decisions or relying on any exception discussed above. Revenue rulings do not have the force of law, and the SRO assesses each matter on its individual merits.