Forum Replies Created
I think that these posts must be from a disgruntled ex customer. They can't be from someone related to the company.
Whoever is posting them is doing the company an awful lot of damage though.
Cheers
K
Hmmm. No. The answer is right here in this thread.
No I did not get an invitation. And, as this thread has shown that people affiliated with Premium Finance are complete fools and incapable of realising the damage they are doing to their company by continuing to reignite this incredibly damaging thread, I wound not "explore the operation" even if given an invitation.
Listen. Do you hear that?
Dum dum dum da da da da da da dum.
That sounds to me like the death march for Premium Finance. This is a public forum. Anyone who googles "Premium Finance" will come across this thread.
Triumph95
Please please please tell me that you are just a troublemaker trying to stir up the forum a bit. I would be horrified to think that someone who can't spell, uses incorrect punctuation and grammar, is rude and illogical, may be someone actually related to Premium Finance.
If you are related, all you have done is make yourself and the company look completely silly and bumped this thread to the top of the list again.
K
Triumph95
Please please please tell me that you are just a troublemaker trying to stir up the forum a bit. I would be horrified to think that someone who can't spell, uses incorrect punctuation and grammar, is rude and illogical, may be someone actually related to Premium Finance.
If you are related, all you have done is make yourself and the company look completely silly and bumped this thread to the top of the list again.
K
Yes that does sound excessive. The GST should be 10% of the management fees plus statement fees, that is, $2.96. You have been charged 10% of the management fees plus statement fees PLUS rent. Your PM is incorrect.
Cheers
K
Hey freelance
It's all quite complicated and being slugged out in the courts at the moment but what you have suggested is quite possible.
I suggest that you find a good property lawyer and get some solid legal advice. Then go see an accountant and get their advice. Then see if you can find a happy medium between the two! I know it sounds glib but often lawyers and accountants don't see eye to eye. The purpose of setting up trusts is to protect assets, minimise tax, provide for your family etc etc, without having the administration of those trust eating up all your profits.
I have found that two trusts does me just fine. Having said that, as I continue to expand my portfolio I will probably set up another DFT and possibly another corporate trustee. I think that would be ample for my purposes.
Cheers
K
Cheers
K
I have two trusts, a DFT that I use for long term investments, and a corporate trustee for all my developments.
I have held up to 10 properties in my DFT at a time and don't have a problem with having so many in the one trust. Using trusts to protect assets is no longer a fail safe solution these days. Courts are starting to strip back the legalities of trusts these days and can even find that property held in a DFT can be deemed to be the property of the trustee in their capacity as an individual.
There may be merit in having several trusts for tax purposes but for asset protection, I would not bother setting up lots of trusts.
Cheers
K
I have just used cheap roman blinds. They are very inexpensive, easy to put up, look quite modern and if worse, comes to worse, easy to replace.
Cheers
K
Hi Bomis
If the property is in joint names then you can only claim 50% of the deductions.
However, you may still be able to rectify the situation. In several states, providing you have put the purchaser as (your name) and/or nominee, then you can still elect to have the name of the owner changed to your name only.
If the purchase is subject to finance then you could always try the argument that finance is not secured because your wife is not earning any money/enough money and that you need to change the name of the purchaser to your name only.
Alternatively, you could just ask the vendor if you can change the contract to reflect your name only. As long as your bank is aware of this and doesn't have a problem with the change in ownership name then it should all be OK. It is no skin off the vendor's nose. If I was the vendor, as long as the new contract was in place before the old contract was torn up and as long as the new contract was unconditional I wouldn't have any problem at all.
Just some options for you
Cheers
K
Offer to pay her land tax if she pays the stamp duty. That should shut her up.
If you transfer your PPOR to DFT you would have to pay stamp duty on the transfer.
My policy is to never transfer property from one entity to another after I have bought it. The costs are just too great. I have a couple of properties that I wish I had purchased in another entity, but I won't be transferring them over.
Cheers
K
I'd be "sorting" it by telling her to go jump!
K
Aaron
If your share of 4 deals was$950,000, that means that the total profit was nearly 1 mill per deal. Where were these deals and what were they? They must have been absolute montys!
K
What stage of the transaction are you at? Can you walk away at this stage? If you have only just signed the contract then your conveyancer wouldn't know how much the land tax is yet.
Land tax until settlement is a debt incured by the vendor. The only way you can pay the land tax is if you agree to pay it, which of course you won't.
It will be sorted out at settlement and the appropriate adjustments will be made.
Given the use of the word "lawsuit" and the spelling of the word "flavors" I'm quite certain that it is that little lesser know state called United States!
K
Hi WJ
I think that you are correct. If it was an IP and you transfer into your joint names then you would have to pay CGT on the market value of the place at the time of the transfer. And it would have to become the PPOR for you and your spouse.
I don't know that there is any real benefit though. If you owned an IP in your own name and then made it your PPOR there is no CGT payable. Someone more financially astute may correct me here but if it was an IP in your own name then you would be better off keeping it in your own name and making it your PPOR because at least you wouldn't have to pay CGT.
Cheers
K
I think that PRD Nationwide have those figures on their site.
Cheers
K
Based on the legislation posted above, presumably NSW and QLD, it looks to me that these transfers are only exempt if the transfer is from one party to both. For example, if one person owns the property, they can then transfer the property into both their names. Based on the above, it doesn't seem to me that the transfer can be from one spouse to another, removing the original owner entirely.
The only way this could be done is as part of a property settlement (divorce).
K
I think that you have to pay stamp duty. I have read comments about transfers between spouses being stamp duty free but my understanding is that unless there is a property settlement as a result of a marriage breakup there must be stamp duty and potentially CGT paid on any name transfers.
Cheers
K
