Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 3,801 through 3,820 (of 16,330 total)
  • Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    eclz4 wrote:

     

    I would have thought the balance of the loan would be $301K + the principal component of the Aug repayment + settlement fees as the $301K already have the Aug component.

     . 

    No, it wouldn't include principle as as this th $301,000 that you are paying back. But it would include interest.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    I am not sure how it works out without seeing statements, but I suggest you speak to the complaints section there. This sort of thing happens with every lender and they all have a special team to look into these things

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Beneficiaries get sued all the time. But if the trustee gets sued then it won't affect the beneficiaries.

    I think you need to seek some legal and tax advice about your particular set up as there are many other issues to address.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    before tax

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    $1500 pw = $78,000 pa

    To get $78,000 pa on a rental yield of 4%:

    = $78,000/0.04

    = $1,950,000

    So you would need about $2 million worth of unencumbered property to get $78,000 before tax if you were getting a yield of 4% after paying costs.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    I haven't heard of anything, but I am based in NSW so that doesn't mean much!

    In NSW stamp duty is due to be abolished on the transfer of units in unit trusts and shares in private companies from next july. Maybe it was this you thinking of?? Abolishing stamp duty will be a huge revenue loss for the govt so hard to see it happening.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Yes, don't have a trading company as trustee.

    You could have two trusts with separate trustees. One trust could own the assets and one trade. This is what they call a service trust and it is a way to divert profit from teh trading trust which is higher risk of being used. The trading trust would pay the service trust a fee for the use of the assets and this would be a deduction to the trading trust. This would divert income to the second trust, the service trust which would then use it to offset the deductions from depreciation.

    I

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Gee that is very high.

    I could put you onto someone who could more than halve your bill.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    Zabeel01 wrote:
    The position I would ultimately like to be in one where we can continue to offset our business income with our depreciating assets and also have the assets protected from being sued, we have not been sued or anything but the way some people have dealt with us we feel we need to protect ourselves.

    Re: the current claw back laws, would this be a vulnerability only if we were sued before we changed from Partnership to Company or Trust??

    Still not sure what you mean about offsetting business income. But a trust earning $100,000 in income with a $20,000 deduction for depreciation will result in an income of $80,000. So instead of getting $100,000 income to distribute you have $80,000 hence you have still reduced your income of the business.

    Zabeel01 wrote:
     

    Re: the current claw back laws, would this be a vulnerability only if we were sued before we changed from Partnership to Company or Trust??

    This would depend how you do it.

    If you transfer for under market value or reduced consideration then the claimback period is 4.5 years from memory. But if you do it with the intention to put the assets out of the reach of creditors – such as for asset protection reasons – then there is no limit on the clawback period.

    You also have to consider the practical side of things. Is a trustee in bankruptcy going to come after you for this at all in say 6 years for a transaction that was valued at say $50k?

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    Zabeel01 wrote:
    Plus I have recently taken over a new property with assets which I will declare this tax year as depreciating for the first time so if I were to add these for the first time to a trust or company I am assuming there would be no transfer / stamp duty??? Is this correct, 

    Incorrect

    You seem to be focused on depreciation. Depreciation has nothing directly to do with stamp duty it is merely writing down the value of an asset and getting a deduction for this loss.

    If you transfer land from yourself to a trust then this will be subject to stamp duty. Stamp duty is calculated for land on the value of the land and the house on it.

    Zabeel01 wrote:
    plus the assets we lost in the flood, and no longer have, is there a way of still claiming what was owed even though we will have closed the partnership and no longer have these assets to transfer to the new company / trust?

    If you have lost assets that are claimable then I think you can write these off immediately by claiming hte remaining decpreciation – check with your accountant

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    Zabeel01 wrote:
    Also in regards to transferring assets into a company  or trust from a partnership, which are already depreciating, would I still have to pay stamp duty for these?

    This wold depend on which state the assets are in and what assets they are.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    Zabeel01 wrote:
    Can anyone give me any advice…from what I understand…there would be no way to set up something that could offset taxable income with the depreciating assets while at the same time protect all the assets from anyone who decides to sue / seize assets.

    Not sure what you mean here.

    Any entity to claim depreciation and this will be used to reduce the taxable income of that entity. This in turn will reduce the taxable income of the person behind the entity as they will get less money. (but if there is negative income this cannot be used to offset another entity – usually).

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    ygue6072 wrote:
    From my understand about Of the Plan purchases… when you sign the contract you agree to that price (e.g. $360k) if in 12-18months time when it is time to settle the property value decreases (e.g. to $300k) you are still locked into the original price of $360k. This is why obtaining finance might be difficult as the bank wouldn't be willing to lend you that amount based on the new lower value. This would mean you would need to come up with the difference…

    Yes, price is locked in. And recently many off the plans have been coming in with valuations low. This may be due to a few reasons such as:

    1. Developers selling off remaining stock at a discount just to get rid of them.

    2. Developers and/or agents inflating prices initially to gain high commissions

    3. Market drop

    What could happen is something similar to this:

    buy for $500,000 with a 1 year settlement.

    come to settle at the value is now $450,000

    Bank is willing to lend you $450,000 x 90% = $405,000

    The purchaser must still pay $500,000 so will need to find $95,000 cash.

    The purchaser only budgetting for 10% of $500,000 = $50,000 so they are short by $45,000.

    If the purchaser cannot settle they they will lose their $50,000 deposit and could be sued for the any loss the vendor may have suffered.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    mu5hu wrote:
    Terryw wrote:
    Jacki wrote:

    I can't help with any of the preceeding questions as am new to the game myself. However I have a question regarding unit trusts and potential dangers when splitting units.

    I have just a read a book that recommends (when negative gearing) issuing income units to the main income earner to gain maximum tax benefits from the loss and the capital units to the non (or low)-income earner so if you sell, minimum CGT applies. If this is a husband and wife, in the event of divorce (hopefully never happens), would setting up a trust this way leave the person with the capital units with the ownership of the property – or would the property still get split equally?

    Thanks a lot for your help.

    Jacki

    Hi Jacki

    That book must be out of date now. It would not be possible for a set up like this to pass muster with the ATO as there would be no commercial reason for the unit hold to buy the units if they would not be entitled to the capital gain.

    see http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.ht…/NAT/ATO/00001

    If it was set up like this, then the family law court could still look at the set up and divide the asset in a manner they think fair. They have the power to look behind companys and trusts.

    I too read a book that was published in 2005 that said you can issue the income units to the higher income earner while the lower income earner with the capital units using the UT.

    Terryw, the address you attached to that post isnt complete and includes the … in the address so could you please copy the full link because i am interested in that link. Thanks!

    That post was 4 years ago, so I cannot remember what I was referring to.

    If you want to read about hybrid trusts then try:

    TD 2009/17

    http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=%22TXD%2FTD200917%2FNAT%2FATO%2F00001%22

    Forrest v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 6

    PBR 1011723097188

    http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.aspx?doc=/rba/content/1011723097188.htm

    PBR 28993

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    dymockc wrote:
    I would also think, that if the property would to decrease closer to settlement, that my LVR would be higher as I would in theory be borrowing less?

    But you would still be paying the same amount even if the property decreased. The loan will decease in size with the LVR based on the value, but the purchase price the same. So if the value decreased then you may have to chip in a bit of cash.

    Consider a drop of 10% – could you come up with the cash to settle if this happened?

    Plan for the worst (and 10% may not be the worst) and then hope it doesn't happen.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    From smsftr 2012/1

    Money other than borrowings used to improve an asset

    30. Subparagraph 67A(1)(a)(i) provides that borrowings under an LRBA cannot be used to fund improvements. However, money from other sources can be used to improve (or repair or maintain) a single acquirable asset. For example, accumulated funds held by the SMSF may be used to fund the improvements.23 However, any improvements must not result in the acquirable asset becoming a different asset.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Re borrowing for property in a SMSF, this is the ruling to read:

    SMSFR 2012/1

    Self Managed Superannuation Funds: limited recourse borrowing arrangements – application of key concepts

    http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=SFR/SMSFR20121/NAT/ATO/00001

    (if itnerested)

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    JacM wrote:
    Terryw wrote:
    Yes, it may be a good idea to do in your SMSF. Seek professional advice as things are tricky.

    e.g. The SMSF must pay for all expenses. If you pay yourself then it could be deemed a contribution to the fund and this could result in you contributing too much for the year and the fund attacting penalty tax – excess contributions can be taxed at 46.5%.

    SMSF may be able to borrow from members too, without mortgaging the property – eg you have a LOC and on lend to SMSF.

    Yep I'm all over that issue.  Just went through my first ever SMSF tax return and was very on the ball with the contribution caps.

    Hi  JacM

    Can I ask what you pay for the SMSF tax return and auditing?

    (I am just about to set up a tax agent business).

    Thanks

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    stu_macca wrote:
    Hi,

    I'm also looking at setting up a trust. Primary reasons are allow us to divert income to the lower income earner in the future (perhaps when we have more passive income and one can invest full time), asset protection and to be able to pass money in to the kids efficiently.

    I have recently been advised by my buyers agent that I will not be able to leverage my full borrowing capacity if bought through the trust. Further, my bank has said i will likely not be offered the same discounts I am getting. Has anyone else come across this? Did anyone decide not to use a trust as a result?

    Best to take your finance advice from a finance broker and the legal advice from a lawyer.

    There is no reason why using a trust would mean you cannot leverage your borrowing capacity. Trusts can still get high lvr loans and equity accessed.

    Discounts may be affected as the borrower will be different to your personally.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    No.

    This is because the partners of a partnership are jointly and severally liable for debts. Could be very dangerous.

    Also if you have a charge over personal property then this itself is property. So if you were to get sued the creditor would stand in your shoes and have the benefit of the charge or mortgage over the asset.

    There is also provision in the bankruptcy act to make any transaction designed to defeat creditors void. Also provisions regarding the transfer of assets to avoid creditors and/or undervalue. You would have CGT and stamp duty issues on the transfer and possibly more land tax if that person owns other assets. If that person is acting as trustee for you then you still own the assets and they would be available to creditors too.

    Also consider what happens if that person:

    divorces

    dies

    goes bankrupt

    does a runner

    or

    misappropriates your funds.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

Viewing 20 posts - 3,801 through 3,820 (of 16,330 total)