Jo,

Originally posted by Monopoly:
surely once contracts are signed by both parties, and money is paid over, the sale would have to go through as a legally binding deal????
Sorry, I mightn’t have explained that properly. I had signed my contract and given it and the deposit to my solicitor, but she hadn’t signed hers. I left his office having…[Read more]

Originally posted by calvin@thirty4:
but how will the Tax Dept. know your folks live there?
They may well not, but I think they might be suspicious of any possible holiday location if your trips were of any length or too frequent for the claimed purpose of travel.

Mind you, if I go to Tassie and need to travel from Devonport to Queenstown to…[Read more]

Jo,

although I am sure it does
It happened to me when I was looking for my PPoR. I had a place with an accepted offer, contract signed, deposit cheque written, valuation, building and pest reports done, finance arranged, and was just waiting at home for confirmation of the exchange from my solicitor. Days dragged into a couple of weeks with the…[Read more]

Jo,

Thanks for the response.

I was always under the impression that a deduction for associated costs on IPs was applicable only when you actually owned them
I thought I saw elsewhere recently that the costs of obtaining an IP (eg. lawyers fees for inspecting contracts, building and pest inspections, etc) were effectively part of the purchase…[Read more]

Misty1,

Take a look on the Somersoft forums, under Innovative Techniques. There’s an active thread on that over there now (or a reactivated one I should say).

http://www.somersoft.com/forums/index.php

GP

Originally posted by Mobile Mortgage:
Wasn’t trigger the name of Roy Rogers Horse?
Just noticed this from a few days ago.

Yes, Trigger was Roy Rogers’ horse. Tonto’s was called Scout (as in “Git-em up Scout”).

GP

Originally posted by MortgageHunter:
I am familiar with Old Kent Rd but King St in Monopoly?
I wondered the same thing. Unless talking about a different version, I think he meant Mayfair.

GP

Banderos,

As I say, I’ve only had the possibility suggested to me. I’d have to look into it further before proceeding that way.

Still, Australian trusts are used to help minimize tax, so I don’t see why using a NZ trust for the same purpose should be considered much different.

GP

Originally posted by Terryw:
So even tho there is no CGT in NZ, they will have to pay CGT in Australia on any gain
I believe this is the case. However, I’ve had suggested to me that to avoid that you can invest in NZ through a NZ-based trust and if necessary distribute capital gain to NZ beneficiaries (perhaps a company or LAQC owned by the trust…[Read more]

Originally posted by NZ Mortgage Broker:
and reasonable asset position.
Including Australian assets, or only NZ assets?

GP

Rob,

Thanks for the recommendation. I already have their number (it’s in the phone book).

GP

Thanks for the response Mel.

GP

Mike,

Thanks for the info.

Seems the ATO has covered all bases. For everything you can do, there’s always a “but”.

GP

Originally posted by The Mortgage Adviser:
The peson getting the wages owns the company as well so benefits from greater deductions in the company.
But if their marginal rate is higher than 30%, the net result is more tax.

Or am I missing something?

GP

Thanks crj and Jaffasoft for your replies.

Rob,

Originally posted by The Mortgage Adviser:
What is also forgotten is the tax deduction available for paying a higher wage to the directors or staff. The company gets a larger deduction for paying you more.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. The company claims wages as a deduction but they are taxed in the recipient’s hands at his or…[Read more]

Mike,

So how do you get the money out.
What do you think of the possibility of having a non-working or low-income partner as a share holder with a different class of share (say a preferential, redeemable, non-voting share), then only paying them dividends?

I looked at this but was told there are dividend streaming provisions to be wary of.

GP

Originally posted by The Mortgage Adviser:
Tax avoidance is fine
Actually I think tax avoidance is much the same as tax evasion. [ponder]

It’s tax “minimisation” that’s acceptible. [juggle]

GP

Originally posted by The Mortgage Adviser:
Many of them try to not pay themself much because they think they pay less tax through the company.
Okay, I see what you mean.

The 30% company rate compared to a 42% or 47% marginal rate is deceptive since company tax is 30% right from the first dollar.

GP

Originally posted by aussiemike:
This strategy will only work if you generate income through a company.
What do you mean by “this strategy”?

The example Rob gave with the $71k giving an average tax of 30% is true for all taxpayers no matter where their income comes from. I don’t see what companies have to do with it at all.

The only advantage is…[Read more]