Director ID Changes from 1 July 2027
New director ID reporting requirements commence from 1 July 2027. Company directors can use the time now to check that ASIC and director information is accurate.
Read more
There is a conversation happening in financial offices across Australia that almost never gets resolved properly.
A high-earning medical contractor — a GP, psychiatrist, specialist, or dentist — sits down with their accountant.
The accountant does exactly what a good accountant should do.
They identify legitimate ways to reduce taxable income.
They structure entities appropriately.
They minimise unnecessary tax.
Later, that same contractor sits down with a mortgage broker.
The broker does exactly what a good broker should do.
They assess income.
They apply lender policy.
They calculate borrowing capacity.
And the number comes back lower than expected.
This is not a mistake.
It is a structural consequence.
And it occurs because tax strategy and lending strategy are often developed in isolation from each other, even when both advisers are highly competent.
Tax law and lending policy measure income differently.
What is efficient for the ATO is not always optimal for a bank’s serviceability model.
Strategies that legitimately reduce taxable income — superannuation contributions, discretionary trust distributions, business deductions through entity structures — can reduce the income figure lenders use to assess borrowing capacity.
From a tax perspective, the strategy is sound.
From a lending perspective, the visible income may appear lower.
Neither adviser is wrong.
They are simply optimising different outcomes.
The difficulty arises when those outcomes collide.
For medical contractors, three areas commonly create tension:
1. Superannuation Contributions
Maximising concessional contributions is often highly tax-effective at higher marginal rates.
But when income is reduced on paper, lending assessments may reflect that lower figure.
The issue is rarely whether super is appropriate.
It is whether the timing aligns with upcoming borrowing needs.
2. Trust Structures
Family trusts can be extremely effective for tax distribution and asset protection purposes.
However, lenders assess trust income differently depending on structure, consistency, and policy interpretation.
The way income is distributed for tax purposes may not translate seamlessly into how it is recognised for lending purposes.
3. Service Entities and Business Deductions
Entity structures can provide legitimate deductions and flexibility.
But lender assessment policies vary in how business income and expenses are treated.
The same structure that is entirely appropriate for tax planning may produce very different borrowing outcomes depending on how it is presented and assessed.
This conflict does not exist because advisers are careless.
It exists because the tax conversation typically happens at one point in time, and the lending conversation happens at another.
The structural decisions made for tax efficiency may not be revisited when borrowing capacity becomes important.
By the time the issue becomes visible — usually during a property purchase, investment decision, or practice acquisition — the structures are already in place.
Reversing or adjusting them may involve complexity, cost, or unintended tax consequences.
When tax and lending considerations are evaluated simultaneously rather than sequentially, the dynamic shifts.
Decisions can be sequenced deliberately.
Structural choices can be evaluated not only for tax efficiency, but also for how they affect borrowing flexibility.
Upcoming milestones — property purchases, practice buy-ins, partnership opportunities — can be anticipated rather than reacted to.
Importantly, this does not require abandoning tax efficiency.
It requires alignment.
Alignment between:
When those elements are considered together, trade-offs become visible before they become constraints.
Most high-earning medical contractors have structures that were implemented correctly and for sound reasons.
The more useful question is not whether the structure is “right.”
It is whether it remains aligned with what you intend to do next.
Before the next major financial decision — property, investment, partnership, or practice ownership — it is worth asking:
How will my current structure affect my borrowing flexibility when it matters?
The visibility problem is usually solvable.
But it is significantly easier to address before decisions are locked in than after.
Verity Advisory is Australia’s integrated financial clarity partner for doctors.
We consider tax, lending, and planning together rather than in separate conversations.
Our Doctor Financial Scorecard identifies structural clarity gaps across tax, lending, cashflow, and entity alignment — the areas most commonly responsible for the conflicts described above.
If you are a medical contractor approaching a significant financial decision and have not yet had a fully integrated conversation, it may be worth doing so before structures are finalised.
Tommy Li, CA
Director, Verity Advisory | Registered Tax Agent | Authorised Financial Adviser (ASIC Rep No. 1261831) | Member, Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand
Connect with Tommy on LinkedIn →
Tommy is a Chartered Accountant with 20+ years advising medical professionals on tax, financial structure and practice decisions. He founded Verity Advisory to provide integrated advice for doctors at career-defining financial inflection points — combining tax, lending and financial planning into a single structured approach.
New director ID reporting requirements commence from 1 July 2027. Company directors can use the time now to check that ASIC and director information is accurate.
Own a holiday home that you also rent out? From 1 July 2026, private use can have a greater impact on which property expenses are deductible.
Should surplus cash sit in your mortgage offset or be invested? The answer depends on tax, risk, liquidity, borrowing plans and what the money is ultimately for.