You shouldn't be offering to pay more than the valuation I think.

You are not legally obliged to continue so treat this as a brand new purchase. You normally wouldn't pay $10k above a valuation price so why do so now – even if you are getting a $9k grant.

THat is a big mistake. Very hard to forget about a $10k debt.

Do you have a judgment against you? You can be bankrupted any moment so if someone knocks on your door asking for you by name pretend you are someone else and close the door.

Because you can be bankrupted any moment I think it will be very unlikely you will find finance because no lender wants to lend you money only for you to go in bankruptcy

Yes, your broker was incorrect and should not be providing you with tax advice. The accountant is correct.

Interest is only deductible on money borrowed and used for investment purposes. You have paid cash for something. You cannot later replace this cash with borrowed money and claim the interest because you have completed the transaction. You cannot borrow from yourself.

What you could have done is to borrow from a third party temporarily and then refinanced this loan with the LOC

Security of the loan doesn’t matter it is the purpose of the loan, ie where the money goes that counts. In this case you will be borrowing money for your new main residence so it is a private expense and not deductible.

Better be prepared for some legal advice before starting. You would be breaching a few rules possibly if you set it up like that.

You have to look at the sole purpose test – super is supposed to be solely for your retirement. Running a business of development may breach this rule.

You can also only borrow to buy a single acquireable asset. So if your fund purchased the land it could not subsequently be mortgaged or used as security.

50/50 was just an example. Could be other amounts.

It may also be possible to lend the SMSF money unsecured.

or Have a unit trust set up and then you own some units and SMSF own the other. You could lend money to a bare trust of the SMSF and a charge could be taken over the units.Very

complexx and you will need to spend a fair but on advice

SIS Act section 71(1)(i)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sia1993473/s71.html

(1) For the purposes of this Part, an in-house asset of a superannuation fund is an asset of the fund that is a loan to, or an investment in, a related party of the fund, an investment in a related trust of the fund, or an asset of the fund subject to a lease or lease arrangement between a trustee of the fund and a related party of the fund, but does not include: …

(i) property owned by the superannuation fund and a related party as tenants in common, other than property subject to a lease or lease arrangement between a trustee of the fund and a related party; or

Because of the land tax issues, I would tend to favour buying in your personal names with planning on which names to use first.

If there are asset protection issues then a discretionary trust. If the land is in VIC a personal name should be considered first because of the stamp duty issues on spousal sale strategy, but other states maybe a fixed unit trust because of the flexibility.

That is longer than the life of a trust and the live of anyone buying!

Get some legal advice first.
This could result in paying stamp duty twice in some states, especially if the trust is not in existance at the date of contract.