no, i don't think so. All have to be first home owners to qualify.

look up the tax act, s 118-145 Income Tax Assessments Act 1997 for the absence rule.

You may qualify, but you cannot generally claim another property as the main residence at the same time.

Banks used to do this. not sure on more recent changes, but there would be some lender out there willing.

I think it is much easier to get these through on commercial. one of my friend did it about 2 years ago.

resi or commercial?

I think that it pretty much it. But even without the mortgage you can still demonstrate that your parents have lent you money and you would still owe them. But having a mortgage means their loan is secured by your property and it will give them priority if something goes wrong and creditors come after you.

I think stamp duty on mortgages have been abolished and I don't know of any tax implications. I still suggest you see a lawyer though. spend $300 on some advice as if you get it wrong it will cost much more to fix.

ie your parents go bankrupt and their creditors get the money owed to the parents by yourself. that is a possible downside. But not registering it will probably not make much difference.

I am still amazed you have risked all this money without proper advice.

$250 ain't much. think of all the future tax savings you will get and what else you can do with the extra cashflow. Better still see if they can add the fee to the loan.

You wouldn't get the full exemption because you only moved in a later.

I am not sure which way, but it would be assessed on either the

a) 10/13 x CG

or

b) CG during the first 10 years.

Unless it refers to property purchased before the introduction of CGT – which was around 1985, 25 years ago. If you heard this 10 years ago it may have been correct?