QBCC, NTA Thresholds, and the Fixed Asset Register You Cannot Afford to Get Wrong
- Apr 11
- 3 min read
Updated: Apr 12

In Queensland, the building and construction industry operates under one of the most prescriptive financial licensing regimes in the country. The QBCC imposes Minimum Financial Requirements (MFR) on every licensed contractor. Those requirements are built on a single foundational metric: Net Tangible Assets.
What many builders, and some of their accountants, do not fully appreciate is how directly their depreciation policy affects their NTA, and therefore their licence category, their maximum revenue allowance, and their compliance status.
The MFR Framework: A Summary
The QBCC MFR Policy sets out financial requirements licensees must meet and maintain. Key concepts:
Net Tangible Assets (NTA): total tangible assets minus total liabilities. Excludes intangible assets, goodwill, and related party receivables not backed by enforceable security.
Maximum Revenue (MR): each licence category has a maximum annual revenue threshold.
Asset to Revenue Ratio: NTA must be a minimum percentage of maximum revenue, typically in the range of 4% to 6% depending on the Financial Category.
Falling below the NTA threshold is not merely administrative. It is a compliance breach that can result in licence suspension, mandatory financial reporting obligations, and in serious cases, cancellation.
Where Depreciation Enters the Picture
Fixed assets (plant, equipment, vehicles, tools etc.) are tangible assets for NTA purposes. When properly carried on the balance sheet at cost less accounting depreciation, they contribute positively to NTA.
When they have been written off for tax and the accounting records reflect near-zero values, they contribute little or nothing.
At a 4% asset-to-revenue ratio $200,000 of NTA supports $5 million of Maximum Revenue. A contractor operating near the threshold of their licence category who loses $200,000 of NTA from their balance sheet through depreciation policy (not from any business deterioration) may find themselves in breach of their licence conditions.
A Practical Example
A Queensland builder holds a Category 2 licence, permitting Maximum Revenue of $12 million.
A comparison of accounting depreciation applied correctly and tax depreciation applied to accounting records:
Asset/Liability | Accounting Depreciation | TaxDepreciation |
Cash and receivables | $180,000 | $180,000 |
Plant and equipment | $620,000 | $520,000 |
Other tangible assets | $95,000 | $95,000 |
Total tangible assets | $895,000 | $795,000 |
Total liabilities | $590,000 | $590,000 |
Net Tangible Assets | $305,000 | $205,000 |
Maximum Revenue | $7,625,000 | $5,125,00 |
The operational reality of the business has not changed. A reduction in Maximum Revenue of $2,500,000 arises entirely from how depreciation has been recorded.
Other NTA-Driven Licensing Regimes in Australia
Regime | Jurisdiction / context |
NSW Fair Trading — contractor licensing | NSW — home building, general construction |
VIC Building Regulations — domestic builder | Victoria — registration categories tied to financial capacity |
SA Consumer and Business Services | South Australia — builder registration |
ASIC — Australian Financial Services Licence | National — NTA and solvency requirements |
National Consumer Credit Protection Act | National — NTA provisions for ACL holders |
In each regime, the principle is the same: the regulatory body uses NTA as a proxy for financial capacity and stability. Depreciation policy that artificially suppresses NTA creates compliance risk that is entirely within the business's control to avoid.
What Good Advice Looks Like Here
For accountants advising construction businesses, trades contractors, or any business subject to NTA-based licensing requirements, the depreciation conversation is a compliance conversation, not just a technical one.
Questions to ask at every annual review:
What is the client's current NTA on an accounting basis?
What is the NTA requirement under their current licensing regime?
What is the headroom between actual NTA and the threshold?
Are there upcoming asset disposals that might reduce NTA further?
Is the depreciation policy currently applied consistent with maintaining NTA at the required level?
QBCC licence breaches carry real consequences. A well-maintained fixed asset register that supports accurate NTA reporting is not just good accounting. It is risk management.
A Note on QBCC Annual Reporting
QBCC licensees in Category SC1 and above must submit annual financial information confirming MFR compliance. The figures submitted are taken directly from the financial statements. A licensee submitting figures derived from tax depreciation records, rather than accounting records, may be relying on information that does not accurately represent their financial position. Using tax depreciation when preparing the accounts
may limit the Maximum Revenue of the business to an amount lower than they may be able to access.
The QBCC has the right to conduct financial investigations and require production of underlying records.
If you advise construction businesses in Queensland, or any business with NTA-based licensing, this is a conversation worth having before the next annual report.
Also relevant: The Zero-Asset Balance Sheet: A Potential Instant Asset Write-off Outcome | Borrowing Against Your Balance Sheet When Your Assets Have Disappeared | Why Accounting Depreciation Should Never Equal Tax Depreciation
This article is general in nature and does not constitute financial, tax, investment, or legal advice. Readers should consult a registered tax agent or accountant for advice specific to their circumstances.



