I have recently been recommended a QS in Frankston with the initials N.G.
He reassured me that even if a residential property was built before 1985, building depreciation can still be claimed. I told him i was concerned and will get back to him before he does a schedule but will take 3 weeks or so
Meanwhile, i have consulted with my accountant, Depreciator, other legit depreciator, ATO and its website who all say this is crap
The slab was put on and the house finished in 1984
2 months later a schedule came, i reconsulted and i disagreed and he agreed to disagree with me and went no where and i’m not paying the schedule as it has no disclaimer to verify its responsibility and didn’t reassure me of so but kept saying it was no problems in the past and that 40 years on any property can be claimed
If anyone else knows who im talking about and had similar experiences, reply here or PM me
Originally posted by fjficm:I have recently been recommended a QS in Frankston with the initials N.G.
He reassured me that even if a residential property was built before 1985, building depreciation can still be claimed.
The slab was put on and the house finished in 1984
… but kept saying it was no problems in the past and that 40 years on any property can be claimed
If anyone else knows who im talking about and had similar experiences, reply here or PM me
Monopoly, my understanding is that the point of fjficm’s post is that there is reason for concern about the credibility of this QS, and not so much about whether or not he can claim depreciation.
It is a good thing to warn others.
Many, including myself, would ‘blindly’ rely on any QS’s report; I find it hard to understand why this QS has never been ‘caught out’ before when the information he provides is incorrect.Another example of how cautious we have to be!
Celivia
Hi Celivia,
Oh, and BTW….[drummer]
HAPPY BIRTHDAY YOU OLD DUCK!!!!!
I understand the intend of fjficm’s original post, and I am sorry if it is somewhat detracting from his question, but I thought for those who were considering replying, they maybe able to shed some light on the issue for someone who is new to this “depreciation” game. [blink]
Sure, I agree, an ounce of prevention is far better than a cure, but can’t blame me for trying, hey???? [blush2] [lmao]
Cheers,
Jo
P.S. I realise I am doing fjficm an injustice by detracting from his post, and as such have posted a new thread with my question accordingly. Sorry fjficm [blush2]
fjficm,
I’m presuming his fee (which you quite rightly won’t pay) was at least pretty low.
And therein lies the dilemma for investors. Is it worth trying to save a couple of hundred tax free dollars on a Tax Depreciation Schedule and hoping that your accountant spots any errors (and doesn’t charge you fix them)? Don’t forget, if you pay for a Schedule and use it to complete your tax return, you accept liability for the accuracy of that Schedule – you are the client of the ATO, not your QS.
It’s this time of the year when most local QSs start doing tax work for a bit of pocket money. Tax work is a small part of the average QS job description.
Because it is so seasonal, many smaller guys don’t keep up with the ever changing rules. I bet lots aren’t aware of the last week’s changes. I’ve even seen some guys using rates that were changed in 1999.
Of course, there are also some local guys who do good Schedules.
I use local QSs. That’s how we cover so much of the country. But I use them for what they’re good at i.e. estimating construction costs and the value of assets. We then apply the most relevant ATO rates and rulings to their figures to generate the Schedule. Most of my guys love the fact that they don’t have to know the tax rules.
I’m happy to look at any Schedule and let people know whether it’s okay. If there are problems, you should be able to take it back to whoever prepared it and get them to fix it free of charge. Offering this service is good IR (Investor Relations – our term) for us.
Scott – 1300 660033
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
