Hi Spunky

Firstly welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy your time with us.

Regretfully if your name was on the Title and your mother used the property as her Principal Place of residence then you will have disqualified yourself against buying your own PPOR and qualifying for the FHOG. 

If however the property was an investment property for your mother and she did not reside in the property then there is no reason why you would not qualify.

Unfortunately buying in your husbands sole name will not aide you as the question "Have you or your Spouse ever owned a residential property prior to July 1 2000" will again disqualify you. 

I think whoever told you to pretend you were Separated has not read about the numerous cases where the OSR have through their random checks and audits successfully prosecuted persons who have falsy claimed the Grant and are being asked not only to repay it but also to cover the heavy fine that accompanies such action.

Such action could also have a bearing on  any Family Assistance you may receive or may likely to receive in the future.

Regretfully honesty in the best policy in these circumstances.

Kyla

One option would be to consider selling the PPOR into Trust with her as the sole Unit holder.

She would then borrow 100% of the PPOR value and use the funds to purchase her new property.

The entire amount of the interest would then be Tax deductible.

Depending on where the property is located would determine the cost of doing so but we do this for clients on fairly regular basis.

If she doesnt take this course of action then Terry is totally correct with his comments.

Sienna,

Trust me i do and would recommend non paying commission lenders to my clients if I honestly believe they offer the best product for the client both now and into the future and can meet the clients requirements. 

To date i havent found too many clients want to go that route given the uncertainity in some of these lenders security and the issues they have had with their funding requirements.

I havent ever dealt with SCHL but as i say from looking at their web site it appears your typical standard range of non bank products.

Wow a follower or maybe a plant.

Before you start on your high horse I have been asked to finance many of the deals that were being promoted by DB & WWW.

Unfortunately as is often the case when selling overpriced properties these clients were told to pay cash for the property as it they were great value deals and then try and refinance later to release equity. Unfortunately the clients involved didnt undertake an independant valuation on these properties and when the US lender i dealt with did found in most cases they were so overpriced it wasnt funny and often were in areas that the locals treated as slums.

Many of us have decent sized property portfolios and didnt require the overpriced Accountancy or Property Marketing services of AFA to do so.

Maybe you would like to do a ASIC search on the Company and see what the powers that be have to say.

Here is a extract:

On 26 September 2005 the ACCC instituted legal proceedings in the Federal Court, Sydney, against Seven Network Limited, a number of related companies and the principals of the Wildly Wealthy Women Millionaire Mentoring Program.

The ACCC alleges that the respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in items aired on the Channel Seven television program Today Tonight on 31 October 2003 and 30 January 2004. It further alleges that the non-Seven Network respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct on a website associated with the principals of the WWW mentoring program.

The WWW mentoring program is run from the Sunshine Coast by its founders Ms Dymphna Boholt and Ms Sandy Forster.

The ACCC alleges that both the principals of the mentoring program and Seven Network Limited (or wholly owned subsidiaries thereof) made misleading representations as to the results that could be expected by participants in the WWW mentoring program; and that one of the principals of the WWW mentoring program was a millionaire and the other principal owned in excess of 60 properties.

The ACCC further alleges that the company Universal Prosperity Pty Ltd made representations on the website http://www.wildlywealthywomen.com as to the results that could be expected by participants of the WWW mentoring program. The ACCC alleges that these representations were false and misleading in contravention of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act. The ACCC is seeking:

• declarations that the respondents have breached the Act
• injunctions restraining the respondents from making the representations or any representations to substantially the same effect as any of them
• corrective notices and costs.

The matter is listed for a directions hearing on 8 November 2005. Needless to say the Court upheld the matter and the 2 individuals were prosecuted accordingly.

There are many other links but havent got the time to attach them all.

All i would say is if there services are so valuatble why do they need to charge so much for them.

A local Financial Planner, Accountant, Mortgage Broker, Solicitor or Real Estate agent would provide the same advice at half the price and without all of the sales hype.

Christopher Skase and Robert Maxwell were two recent examples of tall popies – dont tell me they were honest as the day is long also.

Wow sounds like a marathon meeting.

Firstly she is wrong about only 1 lender accepting applicationsfrom a HDT I can think of 4 off the top of my head who will go to 90% + if the application is full doc.

Secondly if the costs of running a DFT is equivalent to you have bought 6 IP's then i think i would be immediately looking for a new Accountant.

Totally disagree about not using a DFT as you intend to cut back your working hours and therefore the income distribution is irrelevant. I also disagree with the fact that not many landlords get sued. May she would like to check out the current cases in front of the bench and then advise again.

Funny in my Profession usually the only people who tell you not to bother about something are those who dont understand it.
Hate to say this also goes for a lot of Accountants.

Jacqui

Havent got any properties of my own in Beenleigh / Eagleby but am certainly financing some good deals for investors down their at the moment.

Have a good agent contact who works at a small boutique agency in Beenleigh and he comes up with some good deals.
Let me now if you want his contact details.

DWG

YES thats one of the reasons you would do it.

I guess it is very much a horses for courses choice.

The cheaper property has been specifically built for student accomadation and therefore if you are happy in having multiple tenants in the property then this appears to be a good investment. The more expensive property obviously has an alternative tenant market and therefore may have more attraction to a future buyer down the track.

If however you have any non deductible debt on your own PPOR then why not look at the cheaper option and use the surplus cash flow to pay down some personal debt. Interest on the additiona $75-$100K debt is a reasonable amount to find each year.

Might want to think about the structure you use to acquire the property so as to provide you with options when it comes to distributing the income stream.

Because they are Accountants and dont have a clue about how you would ever finance the acqusition.

In saying this more and more Property Accountants i know are steering their clients well away from HDT structures.

Bluegum

Yes as Dan mentioned you can backdate the GST registration but not sure i would go back 2 years.

Lodoc loans are primary for self employed clients but there are still one or two lenders (unfortunately some of the better Lodoc PAYG lenders have gone) who under a given percentage will accept PAYG clients also.