Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 7,681 through 7,700 (of 16,328 total)
  • Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Google shows it comes from a NZ site:
    http://www.familytrusts.co.nz/family-trusts/family-trust-gifting/

    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

    Hi Steve,

    What country is that from?

    I have never heard of gift duty before.

    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

    All of their loans are mortgage insured – which could create problems down the track.

    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

    Hi Steve

    You can't have your cake and eat it too I am afraid.

    In NSW the office of state revenue classes trusts into 7 different categories. If one of the trusts falls under the definition of a special trust then the threshold doesn't apply. They would be taxed on land values at $1 up.

    If your trust is classed as a fixed trust then the land tax threshold may apply. But to be a fixed trust the trustee must have no discretion at all in the variation of income or capital. It must be fixed. So if you have a unit trust each unit holder must be presently entitled to a share of the income and capital.

    I am not sure about the units being owned by a trustee of a discretionary trust. I think the unit trust could still qualify as a fixed trust if the deed was worded properly. If a discretionary trust were to own the units, then you could not personally claim the interest to buy the units – the DT would be the one claiming interest.

    If you set up the trust properly you may be able to do it by having income and capital units. Its still possible to claim the interest as this recent case shows, Forrest v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 6. You could have different classes holding the income units and the capital units. The deed could be worded in a way so as the trustee can determine whether any income of the trust falls in the class of income or capital and therefore the trustee could direct the income to each class at their discretion while each class has fixed entitlements. So you would have a fixed trust with a slight discretionary component.

    So it may be possible.

    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

    Also interesting that the financial planner's trust is buying it. Basman do you know of any relationships, friendship, business etc, between the fin planner and the husband?

    BTW, there is no requirement for a beneficiary to be named on the trust deed. You could get your hands on the deed and his name may not be listed anywhere yet he could still be a benenficiary by falling under one of the broad classes of beneficiaries.

    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

    hi Basman

    Interesting.

    I guess the wife is not on title? And you think he is trying to sell it before the family court can make an order.

    I would suggest you get your sister into a lawyer asap and slap a caveat on the property. She should be able to do this under the family law act. If the new buyer hasn't put a caveat on themselves, then she may be able to stop the sale.

    Family law court can also make orders against third parties and so you could possible try to get to the bottom of the new owner.

    The danger is if the sale goes through the husband will get the cash and then dispose of it, or hide it so later on if there is a property settlement and he is ordered to pay over proceeds he will say he spent all the money.

    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

    Another point – if you have $100,000 to lend to a trust then this is already available to potential creditors. But tying it up in a trust makes it more complicated and possibly less likely that someone will a) notice it and b) go after it.

    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, Dan it is hopefully only temporarly also.

    There may also be additional methods available to protect any personal equity.

    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
    Plummer wrote:

    Richard,

    I have had a read through the infamous "Page 174 of Steves Book 0-130 Properties etc" thread and am still a little confused about the whole thing and would really appreciate your opinion as I need to make a decision about this shortly.

    Scenario:

    I purchase IP1 in Trust A and personally guarantee the negatively geared loan.

    I approach a lender and apply for another loan for IP2 in Trust B.

    Question:

    Generally speaking, will the lender consider the negatively geared loan I guaranteed from IP1 as a personal liability?

    I am going to assume you will say yes to this.

    Say I proceed with IP1 in the trust structure and wait for it to become positively geared. I then apply for the loan for IP2. Then, when the lender says "What's this guarantee all about?" I will be able to say "It's positively geared!". Generally speaking, will the lender then consider this in my application or disregard it completely?

    Sorry to be so long winded!

    Plummer

    Personal guarantees will be considered the same as if you have the loan personally. It doesn't matter whether the property is positive or negative.

    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

    hi Steve

    Yes you could do the tax returns yourself if you understand it (and the deed allows it) but it is complex, especially if there are losses. You may need to consider things such as family trust elections.

    I think you may be able to use accumulated income losses to offset capital gains – but this may depend on the wording of the trust deed concerning the classification of income. This is another complex area with a recent high court case, FCT v Bamford.

    re Q6 – only individual beneficiaries would be entitled to the 50% CGT discount, not companies.

    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

    Hi Banker

    I think it is a bit of a myth myself.

    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
    b0son wrote:
    We bought our PPOR in 2004, lived in it for a year, then rented it out and moved interstate.

    In 2006, we bought a new PPOR interstate, and continued to rent out the IP til 2009 before selling it.

    So….   should we treat the new house as our PPOR from the day we bought it, or nominate the first house as PPOR until the day it was sold?

    The greatest capital gain over this period would easily be on the first house.

    Is this likely to be a red flag come tax return time when the ATO data match, see a sale but no CGT declared while owning another home?

    ?You should be able to nominate the first house as the main residence. But you will then be liable to pay CGT on the 2nd which was sold.  So you need to weigh up if it is better to pay now be be exempt later or vice versa. Factor in the opportunity cost of the money you will use to pay the CGT now. eg. if you claimed the second house as the main residence you can then invest the money which you would otherwise have used to pay the CGT. This may help you may more in the long run than the tax. Also need to consider your incomes now v future projected incomes and changes to the tax system in the future could mean even more tax may be payable.

    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, that is an option. But just don't mix any money with the borrowed money in the offset. Get your accountant's go ahead first.

    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

    They could just increase the 1st loan to pay out the second – if there is enough equity etc.

    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

    Best to use a company as trustee of a trust to reduce the risk. But this opens up other problems such as increased land tax, losses quarantined and personal guarantees – which will expose your personal assets.

    But I am not sure there is a better way – unless you can convince him to take all the risk and you guarantee nothing!

    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

    It is still possible to 'negative gear' with a hybrid trust – but you will lose all flexibility and the asset protection will be reduced.
    In the past the hybrids were set up in a way that may have been commercially unviable so the ATO disallowed teh deductions in some instances.

    You will need specialist advice on this. Also watch out for difficulties in getting finance if you need the loan in the name of a non trustee.

    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, that should be ok.

    Who knows how many people out there have gotten themselves into trouble (as yet probably undetected).

    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 think your example would probably pass with the ATO.

    But what if a person draws down money and temporarily parks it into an offset account and then gets their wages or rents or other money placed into the offset account and then later takes money out of that account don't you think there could be a problem with the deductibility of interest on the initial draw down?

    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

    in Domjan the person took money from a loan and parked it in a savings or cheque account. They then took the money from the account to invest it in property. The ATO denied the claiming of the interest because the money used to invest wasn't borrowed. It come from a savings account. They essentially borrowed money to invest in a savings account.

    However, Domjan already had money in the savings account, so she mixed the money borrowed with money not borrowed.

    It may be still deductible if you use a new offset account with absolutely no mixing of borrowed and non-borrowed money. But could be very risky. Why not be sure and just use a LOC. Once the LOC is fully drawn down it could be converted to an IO loan and an offset attached.

    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

    What about the implications of Domjan?

    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 - 7,681 through 7,700 (of 16,328 total)