Forum Replies Created
Hi HousesOnly,
I understand exactly….I guess part of the problem for many PI’s (self included) is more often than not, their expectations do not rise and fall in line with the market trends….This is not a criticism of investors by any means, it is simply a pattern that we (as human beings) so often get caught up in.[blush2]
Cheers,
Jo
Hi GP,
Interesting question; not sure about that. I was always under the impression that a deduction for associated costs on IPs was applicable only when you actually owned them, I have never thought about the “looking for” part….hmmmmm….???? Even if they were possible claims, how would one prove the purpose of these expenses (that is, that one isn’t just having a day out with the family etc????) [blush2]
Maybe one of the tax gurus out there can clarify this further for both of us!! [blink]Cheers,
Jo
Hi Wayne,
Don’t know if you have tried it already, but another way to check out the going rental rates for properties on offer (through REAs) is to go to http://www.realestate.com.au or http://www.property.com.au and select RENT option, type in the state, and area you wish to look at.
Have fun,
Jo
Hi Wayne,
Your suggestions sound fairly reasonable to me, and I would imagine after 3 years (with the same tenant????) a $10 increase “should be” agreeable. Perhaps you could negotiate the alternative changes, and ask the tenant if he/she/they would prefer the dishwasher or air con whatever, but it would be a jump of $20 instead of $10.
No harm in asking I suppose!![blink]
Good luck, and keep us posted.
Cheers,
Jo
Congrats MM, [drummer] [thumbsupanim]
You are an extremely valued contributor and I am sure you will do a great moderating job to boot!!!
Cheers,
Jo
Hi JenD,
As far as I know, the CGT exemption is for PPORs that have been turned into revenue-generating IPs once the owner-occupier has moved out, and he/she has 6 years in which to sell the property without incurring a CGT bill, provided they don’t purchase another PPOR in the meantime, in which case, they have only a 6 month grace period.
Cheers,
Jo
Originally posted by kay henry:I thought my request for discolure wopuld have been fairly easily understood. Please Jo, don’t try to engage me in the kind of personalised arguments you have with others on here. I was asking george a question- my question to him was not hostile, so I’d ask you to take your derisive comments and argue with someone who cares.
Kay, forgive me if my plea for clarification appeared as a trying “to engage in a personalised” argument; I was merely asking for a straight answer. Point taken, the question was for George, and as such, I am more than happy to bow out; I just didn’t understand what you were asking!!! Okay, none of my business….Sorry….[glum2]
Arguments are the least of what I hope to achieve in posting in here, but obviously you seem to think otherwise of me. I am not out to change your opinion of me, what you think is your business. What I would like answered here, only because you didn’t have the decency to reply outside of the forum, was HAVE I UPSET YOU IN SOME WAY????? If you prefer please feel free to answer through a PM, as I had done weeks ago to which you so kindly ignormed.
Jo
P.S. I deleted the rhetorical question in my earlier post, which quite clearly, could be perceived as argumentative, my apologies for that!!Originally posted by kay henry:That area is not looking good, from a driveby point of view. Also, there are lots of social problems (hoons) in the southbank area. Slums of the future is my call on them.
Totally disagree, but hey you’re entitled to your opinion. I think if you had driven passed “Melby” during the week as opposed to the weekend you may have seen a different breed of people than the “hoon” types you obviously encountered.
James :o) Thanks for your reply. Just in terms of disclosure, or for the sake of objectivity, I know you said you currently rent one of the apartments, but do you also own an apartment in the area?
Kay, could you please explain – this makes no sense to me……
The remainder of my question has been deleted, as apparantly it was misinterpreted as “getting stuck into…” and that was not my intention. My apologies once again to Kay, and anyone who may have seen my asking for clarification as a form of personal attack.
Cheers,Jo
Ask our politicians, maybe they can answer….and then let me know!!!!
Misty1,
Rob is correct, the CGT would be apportioned.
CGT would be applicable as the property (albeit your home) was used as a means of making income, whether this is by rent or home office, making money is making money as far as the tax dept sees it!!! The fact that you lived there yourself, means that CGT would not be calculated at the FULL rate as it otherwise would have.
As for the 6 year CGT exemption, you have 6 years from the time this period starts (i.e. the time you actually move out) but that is not applicable in your case, as you did not move out. What you in effect did, was use part of your home to generate income, and as such you will be taxed for the period of time in which it generated same.
Furthermore, as I said in another post, when it comes to tax or legal matters, by all means ask people in here as they can be extremely helpful, but in the end, please seek proper professional advice!!
Cheers,
Jo
Excuse me, sorry to rain on your parade Misty1, but even if you could claim such expenses as a tax deduction (and I’m not saying you can or can’t) but justifying some of them may be a tad difficult, especially if you get audited.
I personally would exercise a great deal of caution in claiming some of these tax deductions, for if they are not considered legitimate they could land you in the soup!!! Seek professional tax advice on this matter before paying out good money or making gift offerings that could otherwise be deemed (by the tax dept) as nothing more than mere “niceties”.
Cheers,
Jo
Hi Misty1,
Two words: PUBLIC LIABILITY
If any accident occurs your insurance is designed to cover injuries sustained to people who set foot on the premises, be they visitors or residents of same. HOWEVER, this is not as “cut and dry” as all that, and my strong RECOMMENDATION to you is SEEK PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE please!!!
Ignorance is no excuse, and just doesn’t cut it with the law!!
Cheers,
Jo
P.S. I am sure you would never INTENTIONALLY dismiss such a serious fault!!
Originally posted by Matt P:Three men who were lost in the forest were captured by
cannibals. The cannibal king told the prisoners that they could
live if they pass a trial. The first step of the trial was to go
to the forest and get ten pieces of the same kind of fruit. So
all three men went separate ways to gather fruits.The first one came back and said to the king, “I brought ten
apples.” The king then explained the trial to him. “You have to
shove the fruits up your butt without any expression on your
face or you’ll be eaten.”The first apple went in… but on the second one he winced out
in pain, so he was killed.The second one arrived and showed the king ten berries. When the
king explained the trial to him he thought to himself that this
should be easy. 1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8… and on the
ninth berry he burst out in laughter and was killed.The first guy and the second guy met in heaven. The first one
asked, “Why did you laugh, you almost got away with it?” The
second one replied, “I couldn’t help it, I saw the third guy
coming with pineapples.”Cheers Matt
“If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always had.”
“Isn’t it time for a change?”
Too funny Matt!! [laugh4][laugh4][laugh4]
As for the moral behind your little ditty; here’s my (albeit twisted) ADDITION to that all too true philosophy…..
The King was smart, his meals (kinda like a self-saucing pudding) were self-stuffing; saving him the trouble/work!!!! Thus my moral take on that note is…..
If you continue to do the same things over and over, sooner or later someone else may come along and take advantage of your complacency for their own selfish gain!!!!
Cheers,
Jo
Interesting article! Definitely nothing new!!!
My favourite quote:
CLIVE HAMILTON, THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE: Consumption today consists of people spending money they don’t have to buy goods that they don’t want to impress people they don’t like.
Hmmmm……err…..just one correction if I may?? Would the word “want” be best replaced with the word “NEED”???……If consumers really didn’t “want” the products, surely they wouldn’t buy them???? [blink] It’s because they (supposedly) WANT to impress the other (liked or unliked) people that is pressumed to the reason behind buying the products in the first place????!!!!
Cheers,
Jo
P.S. Sorry to divert the attention away from the “sexist” debate, I only went through and read all that after I replied to the initial (thread) post!!! Okay, back to the beatings, I have a comfy ring-side seat; [smash] knock yourselves out boys and girls!!![laugh4][laugh4][laugh4]
Hi Jason,
As is often quoted in here:
If you are not embarrassed by your offer, you are offering too much [blush2]
Your observations are valid ones, and you have obviously done your homework…well done!!!! So IMO……Go for it!!!!!
I’d offer $270K to start with, and see where it goes from there!!! You never know….the longer the property sits there, the better bargaining power you have, and if the sale is due to separation/divorce reason, they will no doubt need to settle quickly!!! Which BTW, if you negotiate a shorter settlement, may help to persuade them.
Sounds like an awesome deal!!!
Good luck, and keep us posted, especially if you score a “win”!!![medieval]
Cheers,
Jo
Hi startxing,
Interest only loans are just that; all you are paying off on your loan is the interest; you never actually pay off any of the principal (i.e. the amount you actually borrowed, including fees etc). Yes they are still available, and there are many investors who prefer to use IO loans over P&I (principal and interest) loans.
Many financial experts here can help you further, explaining who offers IO loans, and who has the best deals (rates etc).
Cheers,
JO
Originally posted by aussiemike:Krazy is talking about the Australian version of Monopoly which came out 1985. Prior to that Australians had the London version of the game. I think there are over 50 different countries for Monopoly now. Great game.
Thanks for clearing that up Aussiemike; I have all three versions (Oz, UK, USA) and I still get my streets mixed up!!! Okay, go on, say it, “typical female”!!!! [blush2][laugh4][laugh4][laugh4]
Cheers,
Jo
Originally posted by redwing:Quote:Guess that’s why ‘buyers advocates’ are becoming more commonplace, the average person, or a first-timer wouldn’t be aware of thier right’s. I believe DOCEP is a pretty ‘busy’ place..Ain’t it the truth Redwing!!!
Then again maybe we have the ‘she’ll be right’ attitude here. have i used a Solicitor ( No) but after some horror stories on the forum i’m thinking about covering my Rs
Me thinks, as long as you do your homework, dot all your “i”s and cross all your “t’s TWICE not just once….your R’s should be spared!!! [laugh4][laugh4]
Cheers,[winking]
Jo
Hi Derek,
Look, I am by no means trying to prove you wrong, or myself as right. Because in all honesty, IMO this situation is a grey area.
Correct, cleaning is a deductible expense in the event of change in tenants, and that is exactly what I was planning to do, REPLACE the tenants….I was told that had I been planning to MOVE INTO the property myself, the expense would have THEN been viewed as a CAPITAL one.
The tax department’s definition of “remedying, damage etc etc” (and I am not 100% clear here, so please forgive any inaccuracy) relates to things such as having to repaint or recarpet (due to damage or wearing). Cleaning up rubbish is not classed as remedying or repairing damage, it is simply, cleaning up!
But I guess, the real problem here is the issue of “interpretation”; how it is viewed at the time, and whom is doing the interpretting!!! [smash][blink]
BTW….I don’t have an accounting degree either!!! [blush2] The human psyche is more my cuppa tea!!! All jokes aside, your views are still valid to me, and I enjoy reading your views (reasoning or otherwise); many thanks!!!
Still think you tops Derek!! [winking]
Cheers,
Jo
Originally posted by Derek:As an aside – under these circumstances I believe that making the premises habitable will be considered a capital cost as the buildings were acquired in that state and such will not be deductible in the normal scheme of things.
Sorry Derek, but I beg-to-differ on that note.
I was once in a similar situation as “Y” with rubbish left by previous tenants, to such an extent that I required not one, but 2 skips to clear out all the crap, and yes, it was CRAP….no point trying to notify anyone that they left their family heirlooms behind or some such notion….it was nothing short of human waste!!!
It cost me a heap to clear that stuff away, and as for furniture, even the Salvos turned their noses up at it; and you know when the Salvos get fussy, the items in questions can’t be too s***hot!!!!
I was told quite clearly (however, if the laws have changed since, I will gladly eat humble pie) that any “clean up” expenses could be claimed as part of the costs often associated with trying to re-let the premises (likened to advertising etc).
If I was advised incorrectly, please please feel free to let me know, as I (but especially my accountant at the time) is in breech of the law.
Cheers,
Jo
