Another point.If the trust was established 35 years ago you should have your grandfather check the vesting or winding up date. Trusts can last 80 years max, but many of the older trusts were set up with much shorter lives for some reason.When the trust ends all the property must be transferred and CGT may be payable – hopefully he has some pre…[Read more]

Ishtvan051 wrote:
Also I dont know if they have had the deed updated. I would have thought the accountant should keep on top with managing such important changes such as GST!

Depends how involved the accountant is.Deeds will need to be updated this year to meet the changing definition of 'income' and other complicated issues following the…[Read more]

The appointorship could be passed to anyone, it depends on your deed. But it is probably to the surviving spouse.It is probably unlikely, but it could be that your Grandfather is a director of one trustee which is a company and your grandmother is trustee in her own right. unlikely.BTW, if you are not a beneficiary then you cannot receive any…[Read more]

A company could be a trustee in addition to them both, though unlikely.I wonder if they have had the deed updated? There have been huge changes over the last few years – eg the introduction of GST!The appointor is likely to be one or both of them I think. Unlikely to be the accountant, you hope anyway.Also, if you are a beneficiary of the trust…[Read more]

Its very common to have 2 trustees

Rams would probably have huge exit fees too.Don't know there is much for her to do. She will be making a loss and have no other income so probably a negative taxable income. This is a bit of a waste as she could be earning up to $16,000 pa and pay no tax. If only you could pay her $16,000 pa for something and claim a deduction for it.Best to talk…[Read more]

Generally the tenant pays for all fitouts and is not compensated on exit for this either.It is up to your negotiating skills on how you can factor this in to the rent, if at all.

ok, fair enough. Sorry to have made it seem so bad!

Ferdinand.So you are going to ditch your broker, who has already started working on your case, just to save $249 on the conveyancing from a lawyer (who will be receiving a kickback). Is the broker any good? Is the lawyer any good?Isn't this being a bit short sighted?

Yeah, it would be great to use our super to pay for our homes now.The trouble is some, or many, people would blow it, mortgage their houses and gamble the money away etc,

No.Your super payments must go into a superannuation fund to be held on trust until you reach a retirement age or meet other requirements.Is your home owned by a superfund?

It depends. There are bad service lawyers and good service conveyancers. There are also many lawyers that do not know the law and many conveyancers that know more about property law than do lawyers.I don't think you can expect much service from a cheap conveyancer, or lawyer, as they must do so many deals just to make a profit.I am a solicitor,…[Read more]

$990 is cheap.With a conveyancer all they basically do is transfer the title from the seller into your name. No legal advice and no advise on structure such as ownership JT/TIC etc. no advice on contract or special clauses etc. If things go wrong expect to get a lawyer involved too.

ferdinandch wrote:
Can anyone recommend me a cheap/standard conveyancer in Sydney ? Thx

Why not use a good one? A lawyer even. There are a lot of cheap conveyancers out around the Cabramatta area, you could probably find for about $800 or even $600.

If you are planning to build and sell there may be no CGT, but just income tax instead. This may or may not work out better for you, depending on your situation.

Do your research.See comments about trusts in general and this trust in particular at http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71494

Good question actually.She probably can delay or prevent settlement. My guess is that the bank may step in before she steps out.A relative of mine actually had this happen to him. He sold the property and the woman he was involved with put a caveat, after the sale too I think, and they couldn't settle. He still owns that property today, 5 years…[Read more]

I am not sure what it means exactly, but it seems to be on the certificate of title. there is nothing under notations so this is not relevant.
Do you have a copy of the caveat?

You should see your accountant as it is possible you may pay no tax.

But assuming the absence rule doesn’t apply, then it is worked out roughly like this:

Sale price – Purchase price less costs of buying/selling (stamp duty, agents fees, legals etc) plus any depreciation claimed.

$320,000 – 267,000 = $53,000 less costs, say $15,000 plus…[Read more]

omegapartners wrote:
Agreed Scott. Probably even better if he can find some bum to do the documents for free.

What about your mate Lenny? The one that gives tax advice!