Yes.You just to a written loan agreement with mum and dad. Work out the terms of the agreement such as term, interest rate, security (if any) etcThey can charge you interest and you can claim the interest, subject to all the normal tax rules. They would pay tax on the interest you  pay them, but if they are borrowing from a LOC they could claim…[Read more]

Hi SandraI cannot see how this could be possible unless the loan agreement was structured so that it gave the lender some sort of charge on the property (which would give an equitable interest).The Real Property Act deals with caveats at s74F deals with who can lodge one.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rpa1900178/s74f.htmlI guess…[Read more]

The section in the tax act, s118-145 ITAA, allows you to be legitimately absent from your property and legitmately renting it out. No need to have the mail go there if you don't live there.

It is actually not that easy to lodge a caveat. Not anyone can do it, but only those with some sort of equitible interest in the property – in NSW anyway. It can't be lodged by a creditor just because the owner of a house owes them a debt for example (but I hear that this can happen in other states such as Tasmania).When lodging the Land Titles…[Read more]

found this one on googlehttp://www.investmentpropertycalculator.com.au/free-australia-personal-income-tax-calculator.htmlThis may help you work out the formula, or may be usable in itself.And I recall I have used these spreadsheets before. There are heaps of good ones on this website including many property related ones.

In this situation the CGT could be totally exempt. Under the main residence absence rule. s118-145 ITAA 1997.It would depend on your circumstances though.

I have often wondered how to do this formula myself. But I am not that good on excel so I would work it out in stages.there is a way to do it though. Can anyone else help?

Sorry, still confusing.A will is binding. The executor must carry out the testators intentions – unless a court declares otherwise.Wills can have trusts set up in them. The terms of the trust could be discretionary with the trustee deciding who to dstribute to and how much. So a will can be binding, but have a discretionary trust in it.

Mate, I don't know what you mean.Binding financial agreements are usually agreements between parties to a domestic relationship under the Family Law Act.With Super there are Binding Death Nominations (or Binding Death Benefit Nominations) which is where a superfund member directs the fund to pay their super in a certain way or to a certain person…[Read more]

wade anthony wrote:
thanks, that's what i meant. When claiming for depreciation; with the house being ex. ppor does this change things at all or once it is an ip?

I dont think so

The caveat is there to show there is a dispute. If they are behind in the loan repayments then maybe the bank will take possession of the property and you can enter into negotiations with them.If you are going to sue then bear in mind that the husband may not have any assets left to pay you even if you win.

Not sure I understand, butRent is income and interest is an expense.

The ATO would do it automatically.Also I should point out you don't actually get any of the $1,500 back into your hands. It is just a reduction in tax. Also there is a seniors tax rebate too.

Well, she didn't borrow the money so she couldn't be held responsible. But the bank holds a mortgage over the property which would give it first priority. Sounds like she wants more money than is left over. It could be a case of her being unreasonable or she may be thinking the husband sold the property too cheaply.You are in a very difficult…[Read more]

My understanding is that it applies as if the ATO is paying the first $1,500 of your tax bill – but only if you earn less than a certain amount which is about $30,000 from memory.If you income exceeds this based amount then the rebate gradually decreases until it cuts out completely.

There is always a problem with a caveat as caveats prevent dealings in the property – ie prevent sale.There is a caveat because the wife is trying to protect her interest. It is her property too even though she is not on title. She has an equitable interest and a right to lodge a caveat. This is under the Family Law Act as well as common law.I…[Read more]

By not settling on time the vendor has breached the contract. You may be able to terminate the contract on this basis and then sue for damages.Where there any special conditions in the contract?I am a soliictor btw.

You should never have exchanged knowing there was a caveat on title as this was bound to happen. Did your solicitor advise you about the caveat and the risks? 

No it wouldnt work like that because you only pay 30% tax on income over $37,000.Tax rates 2010-11[2] Taxable income Tax on this income Effective Tax Rate $0 – $6,000 Nil 0% $6,001 – $37,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000 0% – 12.6% $37,001 – $80,000 $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000 12.6% – 21.9% $80,001 – $180,000 $17,550 plu…[Read more]

This can drag on for a very long time. You are unlikely to be able to settle and should consider rescinding the contract.The problem is the husband cannot sell the property without the wife's permission as it is her property too.Was the caveat on the title at the date you signed the contract?And what state is the property in?