The proposed $100,000 FIF threshold: NOT LAW, status at 12 November 2026

NOT LAW. As at 12 November 2026 the FIF de minimis is $50,000, as it has been since 2000. The $100,000 figure comes from a government bill introduced on 10 September 2026. That bill lapsed at the dissolution of Parliament before the 7 November election. Below we set out, neutrally, what the bill says, what it would change, and what has to happen before any of it becomes law.

Status at 12 November 2026

Bills that have not passed lapse when Parliament dissolves. Simpson Grierson's note on the 2026 election explains that they can be reinstated only by a motion of the new House, usually in its first sitting week, and then typically resume at the stage they had reached. KPMG says this bill "will lapse and need to be reinstated by the next Government".

One source may confuse you: IRD's own bill page, "as at 12 October 2026", still says submissions are being accepted by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. On our reading that page has not been updated since the dissolution.

Bottom line: file 2025/26 and 2026/27 on the $50,000 rules. Our dated status page will be updated within a day of any reinstatement or Royal assent.

The bill and the threshold change

The bill is the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2026-27, FBT Simplification, Foreign Investment Funds, and Remedial Measures) Bill. On the threshold, IRD's commentary (p48) says:

• the de minimis would rise from $50,000 to $100,000 for the 2026/27 and later income years, that is, from 1 April 2026;
• the threshold "was last set in 2000", and $100,000 would "fully account for consumers price index inflation since the year 2000";
• investors under the threshold could still choose to apply the FIF rules.

Everything else about the test would stay the same as drafted: it is still measured on cost, on any day of the year, for each natural person and type A trust. See our $50,000 threshold guide for those rules, which are the law now.

What it would mean for you (if passed as drafted)

Our engine compares the two thresholds. These outcomes are NOT LAW:

Worked example. Your US shares cost $75,000 and are worth $80,000 on 1 April 2026. Under current law, 2026/27 FDR income is 5% of $80,000: $4,000, which is $1,320.00 of extra tax with $85,000 of other income. If the bill were reinstated and passed with the same start date, you would instead be under the threshold and pay tax only on dividends received (see dividends under $50,000). Our dividends calculator works out that figure.

Each person would still have their own threshold, so a couple holding jointly would count half each (see couples and joint accounts).

It would still be a cliff

The bill changes the number, not the shape of the test. Under current law, IR461 p9 says that if your cost goes over the threshold on any day, "all your attributing interests are subject to the FIF rules", and the first $50,000 is not exempt. Nothing in the commentary's description of the change suggests a different design at $100,000, so on our reading the same cliff would sit at the higher number: one day over $100,000 of cost and every attributing interest would be in for the whole year.

Three groups would be most affected if it passed as drafted:

• People with cost between $50,000 and $100,000. They would move from the FIF rules to tax on dividends only, unless they chose to stay in.
• People who opted in below $50,000. The look-back would be tested against the threshold for each year (next section).
• Couples. Each person has their own threshold, so a couple could hold up to $200,000 of cost jointly, split evenly, before either is in.

People already well over $100,000 would see no change from the threshold itself, though other items in the bill (below) could affect them.

If the new House does reinstate the bill, the Simpson Grierson note says it would typically resume at the stage it had reached. IRD's bill page shows it had gone to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for submissions, so a reinstated bill would still have the select committee and later stages ahead of it, and the committee could recommend changes, including to the start date.

The 4-year look-back under the bill

Under current law, choosing to apply the FIF rules while under $50,000 can keep you in for the following 4 years (Income Tax Act s CQ 5(1)(d)(iii)). The bill would test each earlier year against the threshold in force for that year: $50,000 for 2025/26 and earlier, $100,000 after (commentary p49).

IRD's example, Keesha, had $75,000 of cost in 2023/24, so she had to apply the FIF rules that year; she has been below the threshold since and has not opted in. Because she was required (not choosing) to apply the rules in 2023/24, the look-back does not catch her, and she could choose whether to apply the rules for 2027/28 (commentary p49).

The other FIF changes in the bill

The threshold gets the attention, but the bill has eight other FIF items (commentary pp43 to 68). All are NOT LAW:

• RAM for everyone with unlisted foreign shares, from 1 April 2026, with a 5-year consistency rule (pp44 to 46). See our RAM guide for current law.
• RAM time apportionment leaving out transitional resident and treaty non-resident days. IRD's Ibrahim example: ($100,000 / 5,250 days x 789 days) x 0.7 = $10,520 (p47).
• Attributable FIF income for diluted founders below 10% (p50).
• The 10-year exemption kept through SPAC listings (p55).
• Exit tax extended to people who become treaty non-resident, from 1 April 2027 (p58).
• Indirect interests through a CFC able to use the holder's methods. IRD's Mere example: $150,000 gain x 0.7 x 80% = $84,000 (pp62 to 64; IRD's text says "sale proceeds" but its arithmetic uses the gain).
• Cost method alongside FDR or CV: unlisted shares on the cost method, listed shares on FDR or CV (p67). Under current law they cannot be combined; see other FIF methods.

Deloitte (22 September 2026) welcomed the package but called it "not yet the finished article", mainly about the AFI change.

What to do now

• Plan and file on $50,000. That is the law for 2025/26 and 2026/27 today.
• Keep your 1 April 2026 values and cost records anyway. If a reinstated bill passed with the 1 April 2026 start date, you would need them to show whether you were under $100,000; if not, you need them for FDR.
• Be wary of headlines. Some platform and media pages presented the $100,000 figure as already done. It is not.
• Try both on your figures. Our proposal tool shows current law and the bill side by side, with the bill side labelled NOT LAW, and our threshold checker runs the current $50,000 test.

How earlier filings would be handled if a law passed later, with a backdated start, would depend on the final wording. We will not guess. This is general information, not tax advice; check with your accountant. Rules checked 12 November 2026.

Questions

Is the FIF threshold $100,000 now?

No. As at 12 November 2026 it is $50,000. The $100,000 threshold was in a bill that lapsed at the dissolution of Parliament.

Would $100,000 apply to the 2026/27 year?

Only if the new Parliament reinstates the bill and it passes with the same start date of 1 April 2026.

Would $100,000 be measured on market value?

No. As drafted, the test stays on cost, on any day of the year, per person (commentary p48).

Should I sell shares to get under $100,000?

We do not give investment advice. Under the law today the line is $50,000, and a sale does not undo a day already spent over it, because the test is cost on any day of the year (IR461 p9).

Where can I check the status?

Our dated status page, IRD tax policy bill pages, and the Parliament website. IRD’s bill page still showed "as at 12 October 2026" when we checked.