Most explainers on put and call options are written for a vendor wondering why a developer wants to tie up their land without buying it, or for a general buyer trying to follow a conveyancer’s advice. Useful for them, less useful for a developer using options as a core tool of the trade: locking up a site through the planning runway, assembling several adjoining lots before committing capital, or controlling land with the intention of on-selling the right to buy it at a margin. The mechanics are the same across those readers. The strategy, the numbers, and the tax exposure are very different.
This guide is written for that developer. It covers what a put and call option actually is, the development scenarios where options earn their keep, how a typical option deed is structured, and, most importantly, how the duty and tax treatment has shifted. The single biggest change is the New South Wales reform that commenced on 19 May 2022, which made the grant of an option over land a dutiable transaction for the first time and quietly closed off a structure many developers had relied on for years. A large share of the option content still sitting online describes the pre-2022 position and is now wrong on the numbers. The state-by-state position is covered below, because where the land sits changes the answer materially.
What a put and call option actually is
An option over land is a contractual right relating to a future sale. It separates the decision to buy from the act of buying, which is exactly what a developer needs when the viability of a site depends on something that has not happened yet, such as a planning approval, a rezoning, or the assembly of a neighbouring parcel.
There are two building blocks. A call option gives the grantee (the developer) the right to require the landowner to sell the land at an agreed price within an agreed period. The developer is not obliged to proceed; it may exercise the call option or let it lapse. A put option runs the other way: it gives the landowner the right to require the developer to buy the land on the agreed terms. The landowner is not obliged to force a sale, but may do so if it chooses.
A put and call option (sometimes called a cross option) combines both into one deed. The developer holds a call option over the land, and in exchange grants the landowner a put option over the same land on broadly mirrored terms. The commercial effect is that, during the option period, the developer controls whether to buy, but the landowner has the comfort that if the developer sits on its hands near the end of the term, the landowner can compel the sale by exercising the put. This structure is described in practitioner overviews such as Brown Wright Stein’s explanation of put and call options over residential property and Clifford Gouldson’s commentary on put and call options in commercial transactions.
The key distinction for a developer is that an option is not a contract for sale. No one has agreed to complete a transfer yet. What exists is a right to bring a contract into being, usually by serving an exercise notice together with a signed copy of a sale contract that sits annexed to the option deed. That timing gap, between holding the right and triggering the obligation, is where the development value lives. It is also, increasingly, where the duty is charged.
Why developers reach for options
Securing the planning runway
The most common developer use of a call option is to control a site while a Development Application (DA) or rezoning is pursued. Buying outright before approval means carrying the full acquisition cost, stamp duty, and land tax on a site whose feasibility is unproven. An option lets the developer pay a modest option fee, lock the price, and spend the planning period de-risking the deal. If the Development Application (DA) approval lands and the numbers hold, the developer exercises. If the consent comes back unviable, the developer walks, losing the option fee and costs rather than a fully acquired site.
A typical Australian development call option might run for 12 to 24 months, conditioned on obtaining a satisfactory planning approval, finance, or both. The length tends to track the realistic planning timeline for the relevant consent authority, with extension mechanisms for slippage.
Assembling a site across multiple lots
Where a viable development footprint spans several titles in different ownership, options solve the holdout problem. A developer can take put and call options over each lot, conditional on securing all of them, so that no single parcel is acquired until the whole assembly is locked. Without that structure, a developer who buys lot one and lot two outright is exposed if the owner of lot three refuses to sell or holds out for a premium once they understand the assembly is underway.
Options also let the developer stage the commitment. Each option can be conditioned on the others, on a planning outcome over the combined site, or on a minimum total area being secured. The right to lodge a caveat protecting each option interest is usually part of the same architecture; the caveats on property title guide covers how option interests are protected on the register and the priority traps that catch out developers who lodge late.
Controlling land without full acquisition cost
Holding an option rather than the title can keep land tax and the bulk of the purchase price off the developer’s balance sheet during the control period. The developer is exposed to the option fee and its own costs, not to the holding cost of owning the land outright. For a capital-constrained developer running several deals, this is often the difference between controlling a pipeline and being able to afford only one site at a time. The trade-off is that the developer does not own the land, cannot deal with it as owner, and is exposed to the option deed’s drafting if a dispute arises.
The on-sell, or nomination, play
The structure that drew the most developer interest historically, and the one most affected by recent reform, is the on-sell. A put and call option will often give the grantee a right to nominate a third party to exercise the call option or take the transfer of the land. A developer who has secured a site at an attractive price, obtained a planning uplift, or simply identified an end buyer can nominate that buyer to complete the purchase, collecting a nomination fee that represents the developer’s margin without the developer ever taking title.
Done in the right jurisdiction at the right time, this allowed a developer to profit from controlling and improving a site while only one transfer of land was stamped, that being the transfer to the ultimate buyer. The developer’s margin sat in the nomination fee, which historically attracted limited or no duty. That is the structure the 2022 New South Wales reform was designed to address, and it now carries materially more duty than it once did. The detail follows below.
How an option deed is typically structured
The terms that matter most to a developer in an option deed tend to be the following.
The option fee is the consideration paid for the grant of the call option. It can be nominal or substantial. A call option fee is generally not refundable if the option lapses, although it is commonly credited against the purchase price on exercise where the deed so provides. The put option fee (often nominal, sometimes $1) is paid by the developer to the landowner for the grant of the put. The two fees are treated differently for duty, which matters and is covered below.
The exercise period sets how long the call option remains open. The conditions to exercise, where any are included, typically cover planning approval, finance, satisfactory due diligence, or the assembly of related sites. The draft contract for sale is usually annexed to the deed, so that exercise simply brings the pre-agreed contract into force. The nomination or assignment right, where the developer wants on-sell flexibility, sets out whether and how the developer can substitute another party as purchaser. And the caveat consent allows the developer to protect its option interest on title for the option’s duration.
For developers, the drafting is not a formality. Whether the deed creates a caveatable interest, whether the nomination right triggers extra duty, and whether the option survives a change in the land’s value or the developer’s circumstances all turn on how these clauses are written. Engaging a property development lawyer who structures option deeds regularly, rather than adapting a generic precedent, is generally money well spent on anything beyond a single straightforward site.
The 2022 New South Wales change: what actually shifted
For years, the New South Wales position was straightforward and developer-friendly: the grant of a put or call option over land was not itself dutiable, and there was no need to lodge the option for assessment. Duty was a concern at exercise, when the contract for sale of the land came into existence, and on certain assignments. That position changed on 19 May 2022.
On that date, section 8(1)(b)(ix) of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) introduced duty on a new category of dutiable transaction: a transaction that results in a change in beneficial ownership of dutiable property. The drafting is deliberately broad. As Clayton Utz noted in its analysis of the reform, the wording captures an extremely wide range of transactions, and tried and tested structures that worked before 19 May 2022 now need to be reviewed before they are used.
The change in beneficial ownership head of duty operates alongside, not instead of, the pre-existing option provisions. The result is a duty waterfall that can apply at several points across the life of an option. Each step is set out below, drawing on the current Revenue NSW guidance on land acquisitions involving options.
Duty on the grant of the option
Because the grant of a call option over New South Wales land creates an equitable interest in the land for the grantee, it is now treated as a change in beneficial ownership. Ad valorem duty is payable on the call option fee paid for the grant, calculated at the general transfer duty rates (with a top marginal rate of 5.5 per cent). Where the option fee includes Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Goods and Services Tax (GST) inclusive amount is used. Notably, the put option fee does not form part of the consideration, so it is the call leg that drives the duty.
Three features of this charge tend to surprise developers who learned the old rules:
- From 19 May 2022, the grant of every option over New South Wales land must be lodged for stamping, even where the call option fee is nominal. As Clayton Utz observed, the compliance cost can exceed the duty itself, which on nominal consideration may be as little as $10.
- Duty paid on the grant is not credited against the duty payable when the option is later exercised. This is a real cost, not a timing difference, and it distinguishes New South Wales from Queensland, which has long provided such a credit.
- If the call option is never exercised, no refund of the grant duty is issued. The developer pays duty on the option fee whether or not the deal ever completes.
Surcharge purchaser duty (the foreign person surcharge) does not apply to a transaction that is dutiable only under the change in beneficial ownership head, which is a narrow point of relief for foreign-controlled grantees on the grant step. The grant is processed through Electronic Duties Returns, supported by the relevant declaration form and evidentiary records that must be retained, per the Revenue NSW options guidance.
Duty on nomination or novation
Where the developer exercises a right to nominate another person to take the option or the land, or novates the call option, for valuable consideration, section 9B of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) treats that as a deemed transfer of the option. That deemed transfer is a dutiable transaction. The nominee or transferee is liable, and duty is calculated on the dutiable value of the option, being the greater of the consideration provided and the unencumbered value of the option.
In plain terms, the nomination fee that represents the developer’s on-sell margin is now squarely within the duty net. The party stepping into the deal pays ad valorem duty on that margin.
Call option assignment duty: the double duty trap
The provision that most sharply affects the classic developer on-sell is call option assignment duty under Chapter 3 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW). This charge is longstanding rather than new, but it interacts with the 2022 grant duty to produce a heavier overall outcome, and it is widely misunderstood.
Where a person holds a call option requiring the landowner to sell, and the landowner holds a put option requiring that person to buy (in other words, a put and call structure), an assignment or nomination of the call option for valuable consideration triggers call option assignment duty on the assignor. Critically, this duty is charged not on the value of the option, but on the dutiable value of the land itself, as if the assignor had bought and sold the land. The assignor, typically the developer, is the party liable.
So on a put and call option where the developer nominates an end buyer for a fee, the duty picture can include all of the following at once, as the Revenue NSW worked examples set out: duty paid by the developer on the original grant (on the option fee), duty paid by the nominee on the transfer of the option (on the nomination fee), call option assignment duty paid by the developer (on the full land value), and duty paid by the nominee on exercise (on the land, with a credit for the option transfer duty already paid). The presence of the put option is what converts a relatively contained duty position into the full land-value charge. This is why some developer structures deliberately avoid a put, or rely on an exemption, where the commercial position allows.
Duty on exercise, and the limited credit
When the option is exercised, a contract for the sale of the land comes into existence, which is a dutiable transaction under the long-standing transfer duty provisions. Duty is charged on the greater of the consideration and the unencumbered value of the land. Under section 22(4) of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW), the consideration for the land is taken to include the consideration provided for the option, whether for its grant, transfer, or exercise. Where a nominee exercises after paying duty on the transfer of the option to it, section 64D reduces the exercise duty by the amount of duty already paid on that option transfer, provided the exercising party is the same party that paid it.
Where the option is exercised more than 12 months after the grant, Revenue NSW requires a valuation of the land at exercise, capturing any uplift from approvals, improvements, or rezoning since the grant. For a land-banking or planning-led play, where the whole point is that the land is worth more at exercise than at grant, this can pull a higher value into the duty base.
A worked example of the full waterfall
The figures below are reproduced from the Revenue NSW options examples and reflect rates in force at the dates the office used. They are illustrative only; rates and thresholds change, so any live deal should be modelled on current rates. Assume a developer (the grantee) enters a put and call option over commercial land, paying a $50,000 call option fee for the right to buy at $5,000,000, then nominates an end buyer for a $900,000 nomination fee before the buyer exercises.
| Step | Who pays | Charged on | Indicative duty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant of option | Developer (grantee) | $50,000 option fee | Duty on $50,000 |
| Transfer of option (nomination) | Nominee (end buyer) | $900,000 nomination fee | $35,835 |
| Call option assignment duty | Developer (assignor) | $5,900,000 land value | $309,375 |
| Exercise / land transfer | Nominee (end buyer) | $5,900,000 (price plus nomination fee) | $309,505 less $35,835 credit = $273,670 |
The headline point for a developer is that the put and call on-sell, once a relatively duty-light way to monetise a planning uplift, can now attract call option assignment duty on the entire land value in the developer’s hands, on top of grant duty and the nominee’s duties. The structure can still make sense, but only when the margin is modelled net of the full duty exposure rather than on the old assumption that nomination was broadly duty-free.
Builder’s and corporate group exemptions
Two exemptions from call option assignment duty, found in section 111 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW), are particularly relevant to developers.
The builder’s exemption under section 111(1)(c) may apply where the call option is assigned by a party authorised to carry out residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) who has built, is building, or has agreed to build residential premises on the land for sale. A developer that holds a building licence and is genuinely undertaking the construction may, in the right circumstances, assign the call option without attracting call option assignment duty. The detail matters and the exemption is fact-specific, so it should be confirmed with advice rather than assumed.
The corporate group exemption under section 111(1)(d) may apply where the call option is assigned between corporations in the same group, subject to the group tests in the Act. The Chapter 3 group definition differs from the corporate reconstruction group definition elsewhere in the Act, which catches out advisers who assume one test covers both.
Foreign purchaser surcharge
The foreign purchaser surcharge (surcharge purchaser duty), currently 8 per cent on residential-related land acquired by a foreign person, generally mirrors the pre-existing option provisions, including surcharge call option assignment duty. The newer change in beneficial ownership head was enacted without an equivalent surcharge, which as Clayton Utz notes produces some technical gaps, but a foreign-controlled developer should treat surcharge exposure on options as live and obtain advice rather than relying on the gap. Separate but related Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) approval requirements may also apply to option arrangements involving foreign persons, and should be checked alongside the surcharge position.
State-by-state treatment
Options are one of the areas where the duty answer genuinely turns on the state. The summary below highlights the developer-relevant position in each jurisdiction. It is general and current rates and rulings should always be confirmed with the relevant revenue office before a deal is structured.
New South Wales
Covered in detail above. The defining features are duty on the grant of the option (from 19 May 2022), no credit of grant duty against exercise duty, deemed transfer duty on nomination or novation for consideration, and call option assignment duty on the full land value where a put and call structure is assigned. New South Wales is now one of the more duty-heavy jurisdictions for option structures, and the Revenue NSW options guidance together with Commissioner’s Practice Note CPN 037 on the grant of options and CPN 025 on change in beneficial ownership are the authoritative references.
Victoria
Victoria does not, as a general rule, charge duty on the mere grant of an option in the way New South Wales now does. The developer-critical regime in Victoria is the sub-sale provisions in Part 4A of Chapter 2 of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic), which can charge two or more lots of duty on what looks like a single transaction.
Broadly, as the State Revenue Office Victoria explains in its sub-sales guidance, the sub-sale rules bite where a first purchaser obtains a transfer right (including under an option), a subsequent purchaser then obtains the right to take the transfer (for example by nomination), and either additional consideration is given for that transfer right or land development occurs between the contract or option date and the transfer date. Where the rules apply, duty is charged separately on the option or sale contract and on each subsequent nomination.
The trap for developers is the breadth of “land development”. As Clayton Utz noted in its analysis of the Victorian guidance, it extends well beyond what is ordinarily understood as development and can include lodging a planning application, seeking a rezoning, or carrying out works, any of which between option and transfer can trigger double duty on a nomination. A Victorian developer who takes an option, advances the planning, and nominates an end buyer is squarely in the zone the sub-sale provisions target.
Queensland
Queensland has long treated the grant of an option as a dutiable transaction. Under the Duties Act 2001 (Qld), and as set out in the Queensland Revenue Office option agreements toolkit, the grant of a call option is an acquisition of a new right, with transfer duty calculated on the entire consideration to acquire the option, even where part of that consideration is conditional. A put option, by contrast, is not the acquisition of a new right and the grant of a put is not dutiable.
Two features favour developers relative to New South Wales. First, under section 23 of the Act, a credit for the duty paid on the option is allowed against the duty on the eventual transfer, if the option agreement states that the option fee forms part of the consideration, so the grant duty is generally not lost. Second, a nomination is treated as an additional dutiable transaction, with duty on the higher of the nomination fee and the market value of the right, but Queensland does not impose a separate land-value call option assignment duty of the New South Wales kind. Queensland developers should still draft the option fee credit clause deliberately, because the credit depends on it.
Western Australia
Western Australia treats an option to acquire land as dutiable property, so a standalone option can be dutiable, but with an important carve-out: where the option is part of a simultaneous put and call arrangement over the land, the option is generally not treated as dutiable property in its own right. The practical effect is that the structure of the deed (call only, or put and call) changes whether the grant is dutiable. Nomination and transfer rules then apply to bring the developer’s margin into account. The position is technical and the Western Australia transfer duty guidance and the Duties Act 2008 (WA) should be checked for any live structure, ideally with West Australian advice.
South Australia
South Australia abolished duty on transfers of commercial and industrial land (described as qualifying land) for transactions on or after 1 July 2018, leaving duty applying mainly to residential and primary production land. As the RevenueSA stamp duty on land guidance and Revenue Ruling SDA009 on nominees explain, this means an option-based structure over commercial land may face a very different, and often lighter, duty position than the equivalent structure in New South Wales or Victoria, while residential and primary production sites remain dutiable. A developer weighing where a project entity sits should factor the South Australian commercial land position into the analysis.
Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory
In the smaller jurisdictions, options to purchase dutiable property are generally treated as dutiable property in their own right. Tasmania’s Duties Act 2001 (Tas) includes options to purchase dutiable property within the dutiable transaction net. The Australian Capital Territory, under the Duties Act 1999 (ACT), likewise treats options to purchase land as dutiable property, with the added wrinkle that most Australian Capital Territory land is held under Crown leasehold rather than freehold, which affects how interests are described. The Northern Territory, under the Stamp Duty Act 1978 (NT), brings option and conveyance arrangements into duty through its dutiable property and conveyance provisions. In each of these jurisdictions the market is smaller and revenue office practice can be more conservative, so first-time entrants tend to benefit from local advice rather than relying on a New South Wales or Victorian precedent.
Income tax: option fees and on-sell margins
Duty is only half the tax story. For a developer, the income tax treatment of option fees and nomination margins is often the larger number, and it is frequently misunderstood as a capital gains question when it is not.
For a passive investor, an option fee and any gain on selling an option may sit on capital account, within the capital gains tax provisions. For a developer carrying on a business of property development, or undertaking an isolated profit-making venture, the option fee received, the nomination margin, and the eventual development profit are more likely to be on revenue account, taxed as ordinary income rather than as a capital gain. The land may be trading stock rather than a capital asset. As general commentary on the revenue versus capital distinction for property explains, the Australian Taxation Office weighs a range of factors, including the taxpayer’s intention at acquisition, the scale and repetition of activity, the degree of development undertaken, and the way the venture is financed and organised, with no single factor decisive.
The practical consequences for a developer are several. The 50 per cent capital gains tax discount generally does not apply to profits on revenue account, so a developer should not assume a discounted rate on a nomination margin. The timing of when an option fee or margin is assessable can differ between revenue and capital treatment. And the Goods and Services Tax (GST) treatment of option fees and the eventual sale interacts with the income tax position, with the margin scheme potentially relevant on the ultimate sale of new residential or potential residential land. Because the classification drives the rate, the timing, and the available concessions, option-based development structures are an area where early advice from an accountant who works with developers tends to pay for itself. This guide is general information, not tax advice, and the treatment depends heavily on the specific facts of the venture.
What this means for your feasibility
The throughline of the duty and tax analysis above is that options are no longer a free or near-free way to control and on-sell land in the heavier jurisdictions. The option fee carries duty on grant in New South Wales and Queensland. The nomination margin carries duty, and in a New South Wales put and call structure can attract call option assignment duty on the entire land value. The margin itself is likely taxed as ordinary income. Each of these is a real line item that erodes the spread between the price locked at grant and the value realised at exercise or nomination.
That makes the option structure a modelling question, not just a legal one. The developer-relevant exercise is to run the deal with the full duty and tax stack loaded in: grant duty, nomination and assignment duties, exercise duty net of any credit, and the income tax on the margin, and then test whether the on-sell still clears a worthwhile return once everything is paid. With Feasly’s feasibility modelling, a developer can model an option-based acquisition with stamp duty calculated across all eight states and territories, run sensitivity analysis on the planning timeline and land value at exercise (which matters because exercise more than 12 months after grant can pull a higher value into the duty base in New South Wales), and compare an option-and-nominate structure against a straight buy-and-develop on a like-for-like, after-duty basis. Where the difference between the two routes is a few duty line items, modelling them explicitly is generally what turns a plausible structure into a decision you can stand behind.
For the underlying number that the option is ultimately protecting, the residual land value guide covers how the price a developer can justify paying flows back from the end value and costs, which is the figure an option fixes at grant.
Practical structuring takeaways
A handful of principles tend to recur for developers working with options.
Match the structure to the jurisdiction. A put and call option that is efficient in Queensland or over South Australian commercial land may carry call option assignment duty on the full land value in New South Wales. Where the on-sell is central to the deal, the choice between a call-only and a put and call structure, and the choice of where the project entity contracts, should be made with the duty position in view.
Draft the option fee credit deliberately. In Queensland the credit of grant duty against transfer duty depends on the option deed stating that the option fee forms part of the consideration. Leaving that clause out forfeits the credit.
Lodge and stamp on time. In New South Wales every option grant must now be lodged, even on a nominal fee, and the grant duty must be paid even if the option later lapses. Build the compliance step and its cost into the deal timetable rather than discovering it at settlement.
Protect the interest promptly. An option creates a caveatable interest, and a developer that delays lodging a caveat risks losing priority through its own conduct, so the caveat is best lodged when the option deed is signed rather than later.
Get the tax classification right early. Whether the option fee and nomination margin are on revenue or capital account, and how the Goods and Services Tax (GST) applies, should be settled with an accountant before the deal is signed, not reconstructed at tax time.
Watch the value at exercise. In a planning-led or land-banking play, the land is meant to be worth more at exercise than at grant. In New South Wales, exercise more than 12 months after grant triggers a valuation requirement, and the uplift you created can increase the duty base. Model the deal on the value you expect at exercise, not the price you locked at grant.
Frequently asked questions
Is the grant of a put and call option dutiable in Australia?
It depends on the state. In New South Wales, from 19 May 2022, the grant of a call option over land is dutiable as a change in beneficial ownership, with ad valorem duty on the call option fee. In Queensland, the grant of a call option has long been dutiable as an acquisition of a new right. In Victoria, the mere grant is generally not dutiable, but the sub-sale provisions can charge multiple lots of duty on later nominations. A put option fee is generally not dutiable in its own right. The position varies enough that the relevant revenue office should be checked for any specific deal.
What changed for developers in New South Wales in 2022?
The headline change is that the grant of an option over New South Wales land became a dutiable transaction from 19 May 2022, under the new change in beneficial ownership head of duty. Before that date, granting an option was not dutiable and did not need to be lodged. The grant duty is now payable on the option fee, is not credited against the duty on exercise, and is not refunded if the option lapses. Combined with the long-standing call option assignment duty on put and call structures, the reform made the classic option-and-nominate on-sell materially more expensive in New South Wales.
What is call option assignment duty?
Call option assignment duty is a New South Wales charge under Chapter 3 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW) that applies where a call option forming part of a put and call arrangement is assigned or nominated for valuable consideration. Unlike duty on the transfer of an option, which is charged on the value of the option, call option assignment duty is charged on the dutiable value of the underlying land, as if the assignor had transferred the land itself. The developer assigning the option is liable. It is one of the main reasons a put and call on-sell can be much more duty-heavy than developers expect.
Can a developer still on-sell a site by nomination without taking title?
Yes, the structure still exists and can still be used. What has changed is the cost. The nomination margin attracts duty, and in a New South Wales put and call structure the assignment can attract call option assignment duty on the full land value, while the margin is generally taxed as ordinary income. The structure can remain worthwhile where the margin is large enough to absorb the duty and tax, but it should be modelled net of the full stack rather than assumed to be duty-light.
Do the duty changes apply to options granted before 19 May 2022?
The New South Wales change in beneficial ownership duty on the grant of an option applies to options granted on or after 19 May 2022. Options granted before that date were not dutiable on grant under the new head. However, dealings with a pre-2022 option after that date, and the broader anti-avoidance reach of the provisions, can raise their own questions, and any attempt to restructure an old arrangement to avoid the new duty could itself be scrutinised. Specific advice on a legacy structure is warranted.
How is duty calculated when the option is finally exercised?
On exercise, a contract for sale of the land arises and duty is charged on the greater of the consideration and the unencumbered value of the land. The consideration is taken to include amounts paid for the option. Where a nominee exercises after paying duty on the transfer of the option to it, that duty is credited against the exercise duty under section 64D of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW), provided the same party paid it. The duty paid on the original grant of the option is not credited in New South Wales, which is a key difference from Queensland.
Should the project entity sit in a particular state for option deals?
Where a developer has genuine flexibility about which entity contracts and where, the duty treatment of options is one factor among many to weigh, alongside land tax, the location of the land (which usually drives the duty), and the income tax structure. The land’s location generally determines the duty regime, so the entity’s home state is rarely a simple lever. This is a question for combined legal and accounting advice rather than a structure to assume.
Options remain one of the most useful tools a developer has for controlling land through uncertainty, assembling sites, and timing capital commitment to planning outcomes. What has changed is that the duty and tax treatment now needs to be in the model from the start, not bolted on at the end. A developer who understands that the grant, the nomination, the assignment, and the exercise can each carry their own charge, and who models the structure accordingly, is in a far stronger position than one still working from the pre-2022 assumption that options were a cheap way to move land. The property due diligence guide covers the broader pre-acquisition workflow that option structuring fits within, and the off-the-plan presales guide covers the related question of contracting end buyers ahead of completion.