<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>PropertyInvesting.com | grateful | Activity</title>
	<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/members/grateful/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/members/grateful/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for grateful.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:07:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
	
						<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">0bd78a9c784c0f6926ba06ef6a9c17a1</guid>
				<title>grateful replied to the topic Improve a property in an SMSF - Compliance Issue in the forum Legal &#38; Accounting</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634739</link>
				<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 03:44:23 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post on your blog, thanks Evolve.This issue is so contentious, I&#039;ve pretty much decided to buy off the plan instead, making sure the land and building are both in the one contract. Can&#039;t get into trouble that way.It&#039;s a shame really, however I can see the ATO&#039;s point, that adding value by using the fund&#039;s own money to improve the property&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-74984"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634739" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">9c9132442b0b7671700bef81d35e19a0</guid>
				<title>grateful replied to the topic Improve a property in an SMSF - Compliance Issue in the forum Legal &#38; Accounting</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634736</link>
				<pubDate>Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:28:43 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott No Mates &#8211; you are right, it makes no sense. I guess that renovations may be construed as property development, which can be risky. The new rule hasn&#039;t been thought through, I feel.Evolve, thanks, I have spoken to more SMSF people, including a couple of lawyers, everyone has a different opinion. Some say it&#039;s perfectly fine to use n&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-74981"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634736" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">ae646beaa19a3cc3db6a8f962bf43255</guid>
				<title>grateful replied to the topic Improve a property in an SMSF - Compliance Issue in the forum Legal &#38; Accounting</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634733</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:53:41 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, thanks LR, that gives me much more confidence about the improvement issues. There are replacement issues also, in Section 67a and b of the SIS act (and in the Explanatory Memorandum) that don&#039;t make sense commercially ie an asset cannot be replaced, nor can the fund receive cash instead. I&#039;ve been advised there are groups currently lobby&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-74977"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634733" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">93734c42bf99dfa289b9d46105870328</guid>
				<title>grateful replied to the topic Improve a property in an SMSF - Compliance Issue in the forum Legal &#38; Accounting</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634731</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:29:12 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for looking into this Mike, your answer makes sense. I&#039;ve since been looking into ATO rules on replacement assets, and also what constitutes substantial vs cosmetic renovations. Cosmetic renovations are allowed apparently.  Although lots of examples are given, the info seems contradictory or ambiguous. I am concerned that as work is done o&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-74975"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4401619-improve-a-property-in-an-smsf-compliance-issue/#post-4634731" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced (Page is feed) 
Minified using apc
Database Caching 84/349 queries in 0.118 seconds using apc

Served from: www.propertyinvesting.com @ 2026-04-11 23:46:41 by W3 Total Cache
-->