Offset account would have no tax consequences as interest is not paid. But if you have a choice you should move the offset to the owner occupied loan. You should save non-deductible interest if you can. If you are thinking of having one biog loan, then this is no good at all for tax reasons and you should seek tax advice.

The trouble with these mortgage managed type products is accessing equity in the future.  Sometimes it is not easy. Often the loans are mortgage insured no matter what the LVR is so you must overcome the LMI criteria too. Also the exit fees can be high.

Sounds like it could be a good idea if the small extra payment could lead to a change to strata title. Even you you all chip in for the other ones that won't pay. but check this thoroughly. Maybe speak to each owner. Don't believe the agent.

if this can't be achieved, then it probably is not worth buying as it will be impossible to sell and hard to mortgage.

You should also see advice on how to buy it. If paying cash, then maybe a discretionary trust is a good idea. you could then think about lending money to the trust and later refinancing the loan with a normal lender, if strata goes thru, and that way freeing up your cash again. Otherwise if you pay cash now you will be stuck with all your cash locked away – which may not be a problem if you have plenty.

Same.

I generally make a quick calculation of estimating borrowing capacity by multiplying annual incomes (of both borrowers) by 5 or 6.
very rough tho.

Hi

I believe that trust is a unit and discretionary trust combination.

If you have the unit trust own the asset and the units owned by a discretionary trust, then this is very safe. It may even be possible to transfer the units of the unit trust to a SMSF without stamp duty down the track just before you want to retire.

The used to advertise the benefits of reduced land tax under these sorts of trusts, but I think the rules changed and this no longer applies.

Not sure if the PIT provides anything more than a standard UT and DT. Oh, they claim they can get around the rule of perpetuities with their trusts too. Normal trusts must vest within 80 years, but not the PITs apparently. This is done by setting it up in South Australia which is the only state which does not have legislation against perpetuities. Not sure if this would work if you were not a resident of SA and the property of the trust was not in SA.

And here is the Abstract

Abstract
This thesis began as an investigation of the effect of adverse possession upon the
land market where the adverse possession extends only to a small portion of the
abutting parcel and the subject land is under a title registration scheme. The
consequence of such adverse possession on part only of a parcel is that the location
of the boundary demarcating the limits of the respective domains of two adjoining
land parcels may be displaced.
If part parcel adverse possession effectively transfers ownership of a small portion of
an abutting parcel, the boundaries are shifted consequent to long term occupation,
and will prevail over the strict technical legal boundary. In a registered title land
system the occupational boundary then prevails over the legal boundary as certified
in the register notwithstanding that registered title schemes purport to confer
conclusiveness upon register entries. Alternatively, the registered proprietor’s estate
is not paramount where any part of the proprietor's parcel has been adversely
occupied. Consequently the occupier has an interest in the proprietor's land that is not
disclosed in the register. Inspection of the register and reliance upon the inspection is
insufficient to ascertain the complete legal status of the particular land holding.
Inspection with consequent reliance upon the register is the major function of a
registered title scheme. Alternatively, if part parcel adverse possession is ineffective
to transfer ownership of registered land, the technical legal boundary prevails over
the occupational boundary despite the fact that it is not the boundary accepted by the
parties involved as governing.
Both alternatives present a problem to the orderly conduct of the land market. Where
occupations prevail, the prudent market participant takes precautions besides relying
on inspection of the register. Where the legal boundary prevails, the participant seeks
confirmation that the occupational and legal boundaries coincide.

I heard of a case in the news, i think, where residents of a suburb in North Sydney had 'claimed' the old lane way behind their houses. They have fenced it in and council did nothing about it so they made a claim for title based on adverse possession – after holding it for the required time.

And, I have a copy of a Ph.D. thesis by someone on this topic. I could post the details if anyone is interested.

what a good idea. good luck with it.

Yep, that looks correct.

Just don't forget the other expenses such as travel, and loan fees (over 5 years)

There is no magical answer. You just have to do some research and make a decision.

Some questions to ponder
– do you see the values increasing in the short term? Long term?
– Adding up selling costs and buying costs how much of a loss?
– Do you have any other capital gains which you could use to offset the loss? (maybe save some tax)
– If you invested the $250 pw elsewhere what sort of return could you expect
etc

And, btw, are the repayments on the land interest only? If not it probably should be as you still have a loan on your home.

and, did you know you may be able to claim all expenses associated with the land (rates, interest etc) if it was your intention to build a rental property?