Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 3,801 through 3,820 (of 16,319 total)
  • Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    Zabeel01 wrote:
    Can anyone give me any advice…from what I understand…there would be no way to set up something that could offset taxable income with the depreciating assets while at the same time protect all the assets from anyone who decides to sue / seize assets.

    Not sure what you mean here.

    Any entity to claim depreciation and this will be used to reduce the taxable income of that entity. This in turn will reduce the taxable income of the person behind the entity as they will get less money. (but if there is negative income this cannot be used to offset another entity – usually).

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    ygue6072 wrote:
    From my understand about Of the Plan purchases… when you sign the contract you agree to that price (e.g. $360k) if in 12-18months time when it is time to settle the property value decreases (e.g. to $300k) you are still locked into the original price of $360k. This is why obtaining finance might be difficult as the bank wouldn't be willing to lend you that amount based on the new lower value. This would mean you would need to come up with the difference…

    Yes, price is locked in. And recently many off the plans have been coming in with valuations low. This may be due to a few reasons such as:

    1. Developers selling off remaining stock at a discount just to get rid of them.

    2. Developers and/or agents inflating prices initially to gain high commissions

    3. Market drop

    What could happen is something similar to this:

    buy for $500,000 with a 1 year settlement.

    come to settle at the value is now $450,000

    Bank is willing to lend you $450,000 x 90% = $405,000

    The purchaser must still pay $500,000 so will need to find $95,000 cash.

    The purchaser only budgetting for 10% of $500,000 = $50,000 so they are short by $45,000.

    If the purchaser cannot settle they they will lose their $50,000 deposit and could be sued for the any loss the vendor may have suffered.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    mu5hu wrote:
    Terryw wrote:
    Jacki wrote:

    I can't help with any of the preceeding questions as am new to the game myself. However I have a question regarding unit trusts and potential dangers when splitting units.

    I have just a read a book that recommends (when negative gearing) issuing income units to the main income earner to gain maximum tax benefits from the loss and the capital units to the non (or low)-income earner so if you sell, minimum CGT applies. If this is a husband and wife, in the event of divorce (hopefully never happens), would setting up a trust this way leave the person with the capital units with the ownership of the property – or would the property still get split equally?

    Thanks a lot for your help.

    Jacki

    Hi Jacki

    That book must be out of date now. It would not be possible for a set up like this to pass muster with the ATO as there would be no commercial reason for the unit hold to buy the units if they would not be entitled to the capital gain.

    see http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.ht…/NAT/ATO/00001

    If it was set up like this, then the family law court could still look at the set up and divide the asset in a manner they think fair. They have the power to look behind companys and trusts.

    I too read a book that was published in 2005 that said you can issue the income units to the higher income earner while the lower income earner with the capital units using the UT.

    Terryw, the address you attached to that post isnt complete and includes the … in the address so could you please copy the full link because i am interested in that link. Thanks!

    That post was 4 years ago, so I cannot remember what I was referring to.

    If you want to read about hybrid trusts then try:

    TD 2009/17

    http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=%22TXD%2FTD200917%2FNAT%2FATO%2F00001%22

    Forrest v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 6

    PBR 1011723097188

    http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.aspx?doc=/rba/content/1011723097188.htm

    PBR 28993

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    dymockc wrote:
    I would also think, that if the property would to decrease closer to settlement, that my LVR would be higher as I would in theory be borrowing less?

    But you would still be paying the same amount even if the property decreased. The loan will decease in size with the LVR based on the value, but the purchase price the same. So if the value decreased then you may have to chip in a bit of cash.

    Consider a drop of 10% – could you come up with the cash to settle if this happened?

    Plan for the worst (and 10% may not be the worst) and then hope it doesn't happen.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    From smsftr 2012/1

    Money other than borrowings used to improve an asset

    30. Subparagraph 67A(1)(a)(i) provides that borrowings under an LRBA cannot be used to fund improvements. However, money from other sources can be used to improve (or repair or maintain) a single acquirable asset. For example, accumulated funds held by the SMSF may be used to fund the improvements.23 However, any improvements must not result in the acquirable asset becoming a different asset.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Re borrowing for property in a SMSF, this is the ruling to read:

    SMSFR 2012/1

    Self Managed Superannuation Funds: limited recourse borrowing arrangements – application of key concepts

    http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=SFR/SMSFR20121/NAT/ATO/00001

    (if itnerested)

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    JacM wrote:
    Terryw wrote:
    Yes, it may be a good idea to do in your SMSF. Seek professional advice as things are tricky.

    e.g. The SMSF must pay for all expenses. If you pay yourself then it could be deemed a contribution to the fund and this could result in you contributing too much for the year and the fund attacting penalty tax – excess contributions can be taxed at 46.5%.

    SMSF may be able to borrow from members too, without mortgaging the property – eg you have a LOC and on lend to SMSF.

    Yep I'm all over that issue.  Just went through my first ever SMSF tax return and was very on the ball with the contribution caps.

    Hi  JacM

    Can I ask what you pay for the SMSF tax return and auditing?

    (I am just about to set up a tax agent business).

    Thanks

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    stu_macca wrote:
    Hi,

    I'm also looking at setting up a trust. Primary reasons are allow us to divert income to the lower income earner in the future (perhaps when we have more passive income and one can invest full time), asset protection and to be able to pass money in to the kids efficiently.

    I have recently been advised by my buyers agent that I will not be able to leverage my full borrowing capacity if bought through the trust. Further, my bank has said i will likely not be offered the same discounts I am getting. Has anyone else come across this? Did anyone decide not to use a trust as a result?

    Best to take your finance advice from a finance broker and the legal advice from a lawyer.

    There is no reason why using a trust would mean you cannot leverage your borrowing capacity. Trusts can still get high lvr loans and equity accessed.

    Discounts may be affected as the borrower will be different to your personally.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    No.

    This is because the partners of a partnership are jointly and severally liable for debts. Could be very dangerous.

    Also if you have a charge over personal property then this itself is property. So if you were to get sued the creditor would stand in your shoes and have the benefit of the charge or mortgage over the asset.

    There is also provision in the bankruptcy act to make any transaction designed to defeat creditors void. Also provisions regarding the transfer of assets to avoid creditors and/or undervalue. You would have CGT and stamp duty issues on the transfer and possibly more land tax if that person owns other assets. If that person is acting as trustee for you then you still own the assets and they would be available to creditors too.

    Also consider what happens if that person:

    divorces

    dies

    goes bankrupt

    does a runner

    or

    misappropriates your funds.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    Zabeel01 wrote:

    I was told if the company was the trading business and trustee for the trust that the assetts were in, then the assetts were safe as we would be sole directors of a company that owns nothing & they can’t sue the Trust because we would be beneficiaries only, and beneficiaries cant be sued.  Is this true?

     

    This is a bit confusing.

    If the company is a trading company then it owns a business. There would be value there such as goodwill and maybe some assets. If this company was sued, by a customer for example, then the business would be at risk. The customer could wind up the company if a debt was unpaid and the business would cease to operate.

    If the trust was sued, such as a tenant suing the landlord, then it would be the company that is sued. A trust is not a legal entity so cannot be directly sued. The trustee is sued and then the trustee is reimbursed by the trust for any loss they suffer. So if a landlord sued the trust and won the person could get their hands on the assets of the trustee including the business and business assets.

    There may also be a risk that the directors of the company can be sued. e.g OHS issues, unpaid tax etc. Maybe a tenant is killed by illegal electrical works authorised by the director. In this case the trust assets, the company's assets and the director's assets could be at risk – and the director could face criminal charges.

    This is one reason to have only 1 director. Another reason is to get one spouse out of having to give personal guarantees to a bank – so if the property flops then only one of you goes down with the ship.

    There is a risk that one director could act without the permission of the other spouse. Directors control the company and other spouse shouldn't be involved in the running of the company or they could be deemed a shadow director which would be the same as being a legal director.

    If a director is sued personally, perhaps for something totally unrelated, then they could go bankrupt. Their assets would be gone, but the assets of the trust would generally be safe and protected (depending on a lot of ifs). But their shares in the company could fall into the hands of creditors and then the creditors could get hold of the trustee company and the business. The control of the trust could be rescued by the appointor sacking the trustee and appointing a new one. But a bankrupt cannot be director so another would have to take control. The role of appointor is not considered property and cannot fall into the hands of creditors (case of Burton from memory).

    If a benenficiary were to go bankrupt then the creditors could stand in their shoes – but their only right over the assets of a discretionary trust will be to be considered for a distribution. The trustee would consider them, but not give them any money if it is going to fall into the hands of the trustee in bankrutpcy.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    Zabeel01 wrote:
    Thankyou so much for answering!  

    Can I ask you, as you seem to know your stuff, if the assetts are in the trust and the company is the separate trading business trading as trustee for the trust, does this still make the assetts available to anyone sueing??  And can we still offset our depreciation against our business income even though the assetts depreciating are in the trust?

    I was told if the company was the trading business and trustee for the trust that the assetts were in, then the assetts were safe as we would be sole directors of a company that owns nothing & they can’t sue the Trust because we would be beneficiaries only, and beneficiaries cant be sued.  Is this true?

    Also, would you suggest just making one of us a director?  Would this leave the other person more vulnerable? What would their role be??  Please excuse my ignorance!!

    Thankyou so much for your time

    Hi

    Best not to have a trading company act as trustee for a variety of reasons such as:

    1. Same legal owner of all assets. So if one is sued there will be a burden of providing the assets are held on trust for the other. eg. If the company is sued then the company may need to prove that assets it holds in trust are that. If the company as trustee is sued then the company will have a right to be indemnified out of hte trust assets. If these are not enough to satisfy the debt then the company is personally liable for the short fall – so your business will be at risk.

    2. Trading companys will often need to give charges over their assets. Eg. a lender lending to the company in its own right or as trustee will require a mortgage over property as well as a charge over all assets of the company – used to be called a fixed and floating charge. This will complicate things if the company has 2 roles.

    Trusts are treaded as separate entities for tax purposes. So if the trust owns an asset it can claim depreciation. If the company owns it then it will claim the depreciation.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    SMSF also provides the greatest form of asset protection available.

    Maybe consider not selling. Borrow 80% initially, get it cashflow neutral, or negative geared after depreciation and then the new contributions to the fund may be tax free to an extent to – ie no 15% contributions tax if the fund is running at a loss. Keep saving in a 100% offset account (for new contributions) and once you have the 20% for the next property repeat.

    Then when you meet a condition of release draw a tax free pension and sell the property CGT free.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Yes, it may be a good idea to do in your SMSF. Seek professional advice as things are tricky.

    e.g. The SMSF must pay for all expenses. If you pay yourself then it could be deemed a contribution to the fund and this could result in you contributing too much for the year and the fund attacting penalty tax – excess contributions can be taxed at 46.5%.

    SMSF may be able to borrow from members too, without mortgaging the property – eg you have a LOC and on lend to SMSF.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Don't think hanging onto it that long is really necessary. You just have to make sure the fund meets the "sole purpose test" and is investing for the sole purpose of providing for the retirement of its members.

    Make sure you seek legal advice before setting up a SMSF as they are complex with many many issues.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    I have seen people analyse things for years.

    I had one friend who has a Ph.D and an IT background. He spent years looking at trusts so that he could set up properly. Then when he nearly set up a hybrid trust the ATO had issues with some of them and that through him and then 2 more years went by. Finally he started looking at property and did all sorts of spreadsheets and analysis and lost many a deal because of timing.

    Roughly 10 years from when he started he finally purchased a property.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Yes you can. But the fund cannot borrow to fund the renovation.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    You are at risk.. Parternships should be avoided as you are liable for what the other person does.

    But, you should seek legal advice because there are claw back provisiosn under the bankruptcy act. So if something does happen and you are sued and end up bankrupted then any assets you had transferred to the trust will be at risk of being clawed back for creditors.

    You should also never own assets in a trading trust as if the trust goes down the assets of the trust are at risk. Use a separate structure to own assets.

    And be very wary of using 2 directors. Directors often go down with the ship so why risk both of you?

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    how strange!

    So strange it is funny.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    Its very dangerous investing in other countries and even more so considering it is Indonesia.

    On the general investment side:

    1. How will you fund this? Can you borrow in Indonesia? Unlikely to be able to borrow from a bank.

    2. How about the tax aspects? Very complex when dealing with cross border tax issues. You will need to lodge a tax return in Indonesia and Australia – taking into account the Indonesian property too. So you have exchange rate calculations to deal with as well as the general tax issues such as is there a tax agreement between Australia and Indonesia? Finding a tax agent with knowledge of this will be difficult too. Expect to pay much more for your tax return.

    3. Estate planning issues – you will need to look into doing a will in Indonesia as well as Australia. Will an Indonesian court accept a will drawn in Australia? Maybe, but it would have to confirm to the laws in Indonesia. Maybe they won't. What if you die intestate – with an invalid will maybe. What are the intestacy laws there? Who will benefit? What if you want to leave the asset to someone else and there is a statutory requirement that means spouse inherits automatically etc.

    4. Getting legal advice there is difficult. You will get contradictory advice from the same lawyer on different days of the week.

    5. You will pay stamp duty or tax to the lawyer only to find out a year later that the lawyer spent the money and needs payment again because the tax wasn't paid!

    Then you have the general cultural and other issues:

    1. How well can you read Indonesian? Can you understand legal contracts written in Indonesia?

    2. Are you aware of how widespread corruption is there? Are you prepared for the bribes you will need to pay.

    3. Are you ready for the "shakedown"? As a foreigner you will pay more for everything. Amounts will be added to everybill. Repairs will cost more, electricity more.

    4. Are you aware that the legal system doesn't work the same as in Australia. Even if you have a court order it may be unenforceable. To get the court order you will have to bribe at every step along the way. The bureaucracy there is crazy. Even if there is no issues the process for any transaction is long and drawn out. You may have to provide incentives just to get the paperwork processed in a slow manner.

    5. Different concepts of time. "jam carot' or rubber time means that if you organise a meeting at 3pm no one will come until 5 to 6 pm. They will blame the traffic, even if there is none. So you will have days and days wasted just waiting around.

    I went to Indonesia a few years ago to assist an Australian man who had his property stolen – title transferred. He has a supreme court order to that he is the legal owner but the title still isn't in his control more than 3 years later.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213

    I have had a few email enquires regarding using trusts and not maxing out.

    I agree with Richard, the only way it could work is if you can get different people to act as directors for each trustee company and you just be an un named beneficiary.

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

Viewing 20 posts - 3,801 through 3,820 (of 16,319 total)