Forum Replies Created

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Profile photo of lupus1704lupus1704
    Member
    @lupus1704
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 8
    September 14, 2005 - 9:17 am

    Redwing,
    PRetty much a stock standard off the shelf discretionary trusts. No special additions to deed.

    lupus

    Profile photo of lupus1704lupus1704
    Member
    @lupus1704
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 8
    September 9, 2005 - 3:21 am

    Hey one and all

    Many thanks for the response. What I wanted to know was the effect imputation credits within the trust structure, are they quarantined within the trust or able to be distributed.

    Thanks Cata and Terryw for the responses.

    Guess from my point of view, was wondering how to work around the stupid predicament Ihave gotten myself into.

    Have a -ve geared property within a trust. Trust set up for asset protection, but blasted thing keeps soaking up funds to stay on top of things. Meaning, if I continually keep paying in, am worried about litigation, etc

    Was wondering about putting shares in trust, and allowing dividends to cover short fall and yet claim the imputation credits :)

    just trying to think outside the square.

    thanks again

    Profile photo of lupus1704lupus1704
    Member
    @lupus1704
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 8
    September 2, 2005 - 6:57 am

    George,
    Can I enquire as to how the properties went from +CF to -CF?

    Apologies if this seems a naive question, but I always assumed that CF+ properties mean’t that the rent coming in covered pretty much all expenses and holding costs. If the properties already belonged to you and the income has in the past covered the expenses, how do they suddenly all become CF-.

    Overvaluation of property should not affect CF once purchased.

    Granted, selling in an over valued market is a great way to realise a capital gain for other projects, but I am still trying to come to grips with CF+ properties and am wondering how a property can become CF-.

    The only way I see it is if:
    1] interest payments have gone up (unlikely as the rates haven’t really been raised recently)
    2] rent has dropped.
    3] increase in costs due to tenant damage?
    4] a loss of depreciation allowances

    In all these cases, there is nothing to do with an overvalued market, but rather related to each individual property.

    So, if it’s not too much of a bother, could you explain your statement a little more?

    Thanks

    lupus

    Profile photo of lupus1704lupus1704
    Member
    @lupus1704
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 8
    September 2, 2005 - 4:29 am

    Hahaha,
    Why the heck not :) Might as well start somewhere, and if the deals are there, why not look into them :)

    Profile photo of lupus1704lupus1704
    Member
    @lupus1704
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 8
    September 2, 2005 - 4:06 am

    Congratulations Cpt Picard. Looks like you have been busy on your path to success.

    Am about to start the next leg of my journey as well and start looking again. If you don’t mind me asking, where abouts were you looking? Sounds like you have quite a few deals :)

    Lupus

    Profile photo of lupus1704lupus1704
    Member
    @lupus1704
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 8
    September 1, 2005 - 11:51 pm
    Originally posted by Cata:
    A “Deed of love gift” will allow you to gift the funds to the trust. Easy and cheap to do. If the funds are no longer yours they can not be clawed back, but if they are loaned to the trust then it would be seen as an asset for you.

    CATA
    Asset Protection Specialist
    [email protected]

    Cata,
    Thanks for the response. I was under the assumption that any gifts, specially to trusts could still be clawed back by litigation if the gifting occurred within 5 years of the litigation taking place, specially if the gift is deemed a manner by which the person being sued is trying to hide/protect assets. Is this the case?

    Thanks

    Lupus

    Profile photo of lupus1704lupus1704
    Member
    @lupus1704
    Join Date: 2002
    Post Count: 8
    September 1, 2005 - 1:26 am

    Hi Everyone,

    Was wondering the following point about trusts. I understand the entire point of running them is for asset protection. If the asset is not in your name, there is a barrier towards anyone getting their grubby little mits on it :)

    However, my question is, how does the law view the initial seed money contributed to the trust. While the trust is a legal entity onto itself, it cannot exist in isolation. For the investment to start within it, one must first contribute ‘seed money’ to allow investment. Usually in the case of the property investor, this would be the deposit lodged in the property.

    Now, if say I had a trust and had to contribute $ 20K as deposit for a property into the trust, when it comes down to litigation, how does the law view my initial contribution to said trust? Is it still my asset, even though I have contributed it to the trust? Or is it considered a contribution and no longer mine to be attacked?

    May not be the best place to ask, but was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the matter :)

    Thanks for any help provided.

    lupus

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)