This is the way you should structure the deal.

The property. 

I would buy the property outright and lease it to the business. No share splits,complicated ownership setups etc etc. Keep it real simple. If they want to own a 1/3 or whatever they have to divy up. None of this I'll pay my contribution in payments from the business rubbish.

Or alternative you buy into the business and then the business buys the property. The way they're trying to set up is more complicated than my mothers knitting.

The Business.

There's lots of way to contribute to a business other than money. Sweat equity, skill etc are appropriate components that can be valued. 

I have a friend who started the Loaded Hog in NZ many years ago along with 2 others. A friend and another person who was a master brewer. My friend put up 80% of the capital his friend 20% and the brewer put up his expertise. They had a an equitable percentage split which was close to equal 1/3's.

The first year they paid themselves $30k each. By the end of the first year they not only paid themselves but paid their start up costs as well. Friend is semi retired now and a multi millionaire from that one business that multiplied into several outlets around the country. 

In a business startup everyone puts something into the hat. That contribution is valued as a percentage of the business. If it's sweat equity you work at a specified valued rate and that goes into the business. So you might do 50 hrs per week at $80/hr. The contribution has to be valued at or near what it would cost you to hire a person for that position. Expertise is a little different. That's very hard to value but a brewer for example needs not only technical skill that could be hired but creative skill that may be hard to find. They're also a key strategic individual.

Usually partners will simply accept that one individuals skill is indispensable in a start up business so value that intangible component as an equal share and still pay a retainer out of earnings. That retainer might be discounted slightly during the start up phase and hit full payment once you reach certain milestones.

In deals like this everyone and especially key personnel have to make legally binding commitments to the business for minimum periods of time. So if the brewer decide to leave because of a dispute he would have to stay until a replacement was found and a handover completed or other wise be exposed to damages if the business suffered.

If someone wants to sell out you need a agreed to process to complete that. 

The problems I have with this deal is your mates, while experienced in running restaurants, don't seem to have a lot of knowledge or skill in setting up a multi owner business and know nothing about brewing. I also have problems with them in terms of they already have businesses that will take their time and attention. Startups require huge amounts of time and effort to get off the ground and build a customer base large enough to become self sustainable. Usually 3 – 5 years. Micro breweries were new 20 years ago and the market was open to innovative brewers. Not today. The market is more sophisticated and the competition is fairly robust.

My friend made a fortune because he was first cab off the rank, had unbelievable luck and produced a highly desirable product. I would not bet the house on this and I would want some pretty tangible guarantees, guidelines, legal agreements and personal commitments before I even considered signing on to this.

From your brief description above neither of your friends appears to bring much to the party at all. I'm left wondering what the attraction is if any.

I wouldn't get too excited by one little mine and what it may mean for coal resources on the east coast. To put things in perspective Aus is the 4th largest exporter but that only comes up to 6.7% of global production. Aus consumes 54% of its own production which is likely to diminish as gas replaces coal fired power generation.

China proposes to triple power generation over the next 2 decades and up its coal demand by something like a billion tonnes per annum over that time. But then we have Russia which is looking to increase its exports to China by 5X over the next decade. The US is also expected to see its coal exports rise as well as shale gas continues to expand. China and Mongolia combined have huge coal reserves but to complicate the picture even more China is making concerted efforts to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels like coal. It has its own shale gas strategy that it is developing.

India has lots of coal but no infrastructure to capitalise on it. It is easier to import and land it near where it is needed than mine its own and tranship it. It also has a cost barrier to energy production. While it would like and does need to increase its energy output ability unfortunately it doesn't have the local markets with the ability to pay the true cost of production. Their desire to industrialise is being hampered by this cost barrier and I don't expect to see India grow faster than a few %pa over the next decade at least.

The upshot so to speak is one of mixed messages from the market but I tend to see the next decade as difficult for the miners as demand falters and alternatives like gas and shale gas push into the market. Coal has to stay cheap to compete so I don't see another mining boom anytime soon. Not in my lifetime anyway.

Heritage Trusts combined with local authority oversight is probably the most painful experience you're ever likely to encounter. Feel free to slit your wrists now.

Personally wouldn't go near anything that is, or likely to be in the future, Heritage listed. But if your the masochistic type then a heritage consultant is an absolute must and one familiar with dealing with the personalities associated with your area. He/she'll be invaluable in guiding you through the tortuous labyrinth of heritage renovation. 

Literally everything associated with a Heritage building requires permission before you are let loose to do your thing. That includes, grounds, out buildings, plants trees etc and absolutely everything internal right down to light bulbs.

If the building has very specialised work like frescoes, carvings, tile mosaics, plaster moldings etc then be prepared for some quite traumatic damage to your wallet. Little of which you will ever recover should you sell at some future date.

Have fun.

Try Googling:  renovating heritage homes

You're taxed in your country of primary residence which I assume is Aus. You need a local accountant with NZ knowledge AND property expertise.

Note there is no CGT in NZ

READ THIS PAGE BELOW

Overseas tax residents with New Zealand interests

The idea that we are reducing debt and deleveraging is somewhat of a myth accept for businesses that have strengthened their balance sheets since the GFC.

Australia has two significant problems namely; the amount of debt owed to foreigners and that a significant portion of that debt is household debt. A substantial devaluing of our currency worsens that debt profile significantly. We are vulnerable to an external financial shock to a degree most are unaware of. Given that something like 60% of foreign debt is tied up in mortgages (housing) that suggests that the property market carries substantial risk until this mess is sorted out. 

Personally I think our chances of this being resolved without a collapse of some sort are slim to none.

According to the RBA’s most recent statistics, 84% of the “public” debts being accrued by Green-Labor are owed to “Non-residents”.

$187.6 billion, out of a total $223.3 billion, at end December 2011.

A new all-time record level of indebtedness to foreigners:

As has been noted previously, it is also important to realise that Australia’s NFD is predominantly owed by financial institutions (in excess of 70%). Other businesses account for over 20%, and the government debt represents less than 10% of the total. In fact, government debt as a percentage of NFD declined significantly between 1996 and 2007 (although it did increase as a result of the need to fund significant budget deficits between 2008 and 2011).

Agree but the US is beyond that. If they cut all discretionary spending they sill couldn't balance their budget.

This is what US total debt looks like. This does not include future liabilities like aged care, medicare/medicaide, pensions etc.

The US is trapped in a debt hole so big it can't climb out of it. Their solution is to dig the hole deeper until they disappear.

China is the one to watch.

China’s corporate debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 107 per cent in 2011, the highest in the world, said Li Yang, Vice-President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a top government think tank.

Look where Australia is (113%)

ROFL… mate that one had me in fits. Totally agree. I thought I left stars, stamps and that rubbish at primary school.Suits the narcissist I suppose.

All this rubbish down the sidelines absoluty $#@! me off. These pages are the slowest clunkiest pages on the entire net and I've got a fast connection. I can pull down media at between 600k – 1MB (and that's bytes not bits). Some days I wonder why I even bother here. The old site might have been an ugly old girl but it worked seamlessly.

Both Aus and NZ have been down this path several times (with LPG) and usually with subsidies to encourage conversion. Seems to be a fad thing depending on the price of fuel.

They already run trucks on a diesel gas mix that improves efficiency. They even installed their own gas filling points to facilitate it in the outback. Mitchell's have been doing it since 2009. Yanks are a bit behind the times.