Nope

Stamp duty is imposed by the State Government.
There is stamp duty on many things such as transfer of land, mortgages, insurance contracts, LMI.

Stamp duty on land transfer is the main one but there is also stamp duty on mortgages in some states such as NSW. However there is an exemption for a mortgage to purchase residential property, in NSW, where the purchaser is a natural person – ie not a company or trustee. A LOC set up on NSW would attact mortgage duty where the funds being borrowed were not immediately to be used for the purchase of property.

There is also another stamp duty on LMI premiums, up to 10% in some states.

Stamp duty on a mortgage would be a borrowing expense as would stamp duty on LMI.

Even though you cannot claim the property expenses during the vacant time you may be able to use these expenses to reduce the CGT in the future – so keep the receipts.

There is no FHOG in NSW I beleive.

I draw up these sorts of loan agreements all the time. Would it be commercial for your husband to lend you unsecured at the same rate that he is paying? probably not, so I advise clients the lender should take security and make a small profit.

Ben

If you have lived in A since acquistion it could be exempt from CGT. If you move into B it will always be subject to CGT but based on the period it was rented out as a % of the time held.

If at tax time you have incurred an expense you can claim it agains capital gains or income but nnot both,
If it was a business then there would be no CGT anyway.

No Australian institution would lend secured by overseas property because of the different jurisdictions – enforcement and taking possession of the property etc would all be under American law and therefore complex and costly.

Trusts and structures are legal matters so you need legal advice. Accountants can only give the tax advice part.

There is a well known structuring lawyer in Tas called Peter Worrall – not sure if spelling correct but a google should assist.

Yes it is possible.

Colin Rice wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CanberraClaire wrote:</div>
I guess at the end of the day, they’re passing their opinion off as fact. Dangerous, yes. Outside their scope, certainly.
Couldn’t agree with you more about who to listen to, but so many accountants are narrowly trained that unless they’re heavily investing themselves, I wouldn’t go near them for structuring advice either!

I work with accountants that are property investors and I know more about structuring finance than they do yet legally limited on how deep the advice gets never mind the average bean counter who often gives the exact opposite advice that is required.

And when I say “run this past your accountant before proceeding” I cringe with tongue in cheek.

At least they can blame the accountant when things go wrong. however I think with most things are going wrong, but they don’t realise it and won’t realise it until they change accountants or get audited.
And went I say blame the accountant I mean the person signing the tax return is still reponsible but they may be able to sue the accountant (like Aussie John – suing tax lawyers) if they give wrong advice which results is the tax payer losing money