Packer wrote:
What is the 6 year CGT exempt rule??I thought you had to live in it for 12months beforeyou void CGT on sale!Or is that a W.A thing?

You do have to have lived in the property, but there is no set time. The '12 months' you are thinking of probably relates to the First Home Owners Grant.

Hi there, Welcome to the forum. To answer your questions; 1) From the information you have provided, yes, the sale of property A would be CGT free2) Not necessarily, you could still elect to call Property A your principal place of residence, even if you have moved into Property B. It just means Property B won't become your main residence for CGT…[Read more]

The 6 year rule doesn't apply, as you have bought another PPOR. You can, however, elect to call your first PPOR, your PPOR for the entire time you owned it. If you do this though, your current home will be subject to CGT when you sell, for the period from when you bought it, to when yousell the first PPOR. It's your choice as to whether you want…[Read more]

Your offer price should reflect your research, not a set percentage below the asking price. We have just bought a house at the asking price, after having our initial offer rejected, because our research showed it represented good value. The IP we bought in 2009 was bought 10% below the asking price, because it was what we were willing to pay, and…[Read more]

Assumption – you purchased the property before August 1996.At worst, only 1/4 of the gain would be assessable, and you would get a 50% discount for owning the asset for over 12 months. As Terry said, you could choose to claim a full exemption, but this would mean your new house would be assessable for the first 5 years, as you can only claim one…[Read more]

Hi there, To me, the decision comes down to non-financial factors, because there are pro's and con's for each scenario. With another IP, your interest is deductible, but you also pay CGT when you sell. With a PPOR, no interest deduction, but no CGT either. For me, I would choose the PPOR way, mainly because I am a home-body, and enjoy living in my…[Read more]

Hi Natalie,There is a 6 month overlap period, where you can have two PPOR's. This was introduced for the very reason you describe, for people who have bought a new PPOR before selling the old one.The only complication is the fact that your current PPOR is being rented. The 6 month rule does not apply if  :(b)  your existing main residence was used…[Read more]

Wow – $700 down to $18! That's some good negotiating by you. Lease renewal for the same tenant shouldn't cost a weeks rent, because there is hardly any work in it. For a new tenant, that's fair enough, but not to extend the lease of the same tenant.

If you purchase the PPOR in a trust, you lose the CGT main residence exemption. That's the main one.Depending on what state you are in, there may be land tax payable. In some states, trusts don't receive the same thresholds that individual owners do, and PPOR's are generally exempt from land tax (in individual names)

Even though it's hardly ground breaking reform, getting rid of exit fees is a good idea. There are plenty of posts on this forum of people stuck with loans from second tier lenders, because of the outrageous exit fees. If they can't survive without the ransom of large exit fees, then good riddance. You can't have a sytem where the big 4 are…[Read more]

markymarko wrote:
To get full tax advantages and have a good exit strategy in regards to CGT, what name should I have the property under and what name should I have the IP loan under? I am guessing the property can be under both and the IP loan under mine so I can claim max tax benefits. Is this correct?Thanks for your help

Unfortunately that…[Read more]

jcar11457 wrote:
The owner is a friend of mine, and I trust them, it appears they need this for their tax purposes.They going to issue me receipt for all payments and looks like they going to keep the bond themselves.All I want to know is if we all agree, this should not be an issue?Cheers all

Why would they need this for tax purposes? Your…[Read more]

25% seems a big jump in that area. I'd be doing some of my own research, not just relying on the vendors expectations. I'd also want to see what the rent is first. Personally, I'd be looking a bit closer to the city. Or on the south side. (St Marys, Darlington etc)

Did an accountant or tax expert give you this advice? Unless you are using the land for a PPOR, there is no difference with buying in your own name or the name of a trust. A trust would have many advantages, such as the ability to distribute income and asset protection. The '12 months' part is correct, because assets held for over 12 months are…[Read more]

Merca wrote:
If it is usual in Australia to settle the trust with only $10, using a Joe Blow, in order to reduce stamp duty, how are the remaining assets introduced into the trustee's control? A loan from the holder of the funds, or does he gift it to the trust?Merca

Yes, it is very common. Most trusts are now non-revocable trusts, and the s…[Read more]

I'm not going to labour the point, AGAIN, but it's $32,000 according to the hurried DCF, OVER 30 YEARS!!!!And that is only if the fees are put back into the loan. It is not YOU returning $32,000 to the client, the wonder of compound interest increases the savings. If the client took the cash instead of paying off the loan, the saving, assuming the…[Read more]

mortgagedetective wrote:
Gidday Alistair,So what you are saying is your client paid you a fee for service as a financial planner to get advice on income and loan structure as he could have done with any other suitably qualified and licensed planner.If your client were a prudent investor as you seem to suggest, why wouldn't he have simply taken…[Read more]

The trustee (company) is the legal entity, so this is the name that will appear on the title.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you'll get nothing back. The reason is that you won't have PAID any tax on your rental income. You can only get a refund of tax if you have paid some tax in the first place.

The settlor is usually a 'natural person', rather than a trust, and is independent to the trustee. The settlor can not be a beneficiary of the trust, they usually hand over an amount to set up, or settle the trust, then disappear. There are no tax implications for acting as the settlor.The settlor would need to sign the trust deed to set up the…[Read more]