hi guys,
anyone read the article by rowen kelly in the daily telegraph today on pg.86? wanted to post an online link to it but couldn’t find it.
anyway, more confused now than ever before.
prior to reading it, i thought we qualified for the stamp duty concession but not the $7k because my husband purchased an ip pre gst though he has never occupied it or “owned and occupied” anywhere else for that matter. after reading the article my understanding now is that if i purchase the home on my name solely, i will be eligible for both the stamp duty concession and the $7k, as long as i exchange pre july ’04.
anyone care to shed some light on this for me?
julie
hi julie,
I havent read article you speak of,& not even sure if my answer is right,but my understanding is,that even if you have never applied to have your name on a title,but your partner has,that you are no longer eligable for grant.
I would like to know myself,too.Anyone know for sure??[confused2]Hi Alpina,
My verdict is no not eligible.
Here is the paragraph which states why:
You and your spouse/de facto have not owned before 1 July 2000 a residential property, jointly, separately or with some other person, in any State or Territory of Australia.
But you have – am I correct? If it was purchased after 1 July 2000 you would be eligible.
If your not sure I would ring OSR to be sure. Good luck.
I will have to have a look at that confusing article.
Liz Wilson
Mortgage Lender
Hi Lizzy,
would you still be able to purchase a property and get the fhog. lets say if this was the scenario.
Some parents, have purchased, a property many years before the introduction of the FHOG. They help their eldest child in purchasing an investment property at the start of this year. (The mother or father, have put their name on the contract and on the loan documentation, in helping their eldest child, get their first invesment property, this year.)
Heres my question, if the son, now wishes to purchases, another property, and make it a PPOR, would he still be able to claim the FHOG, even though, his parents who helped him get his previous investment property…
… would he still be able to claim the FHOG?
Cheers,
sisThanks to everyone, who can answer this question in advance… still its a triva to me…
Cheers,
sisSIS,
My answer to this one is YES eligible. The paragraph most clearly reflecting this is:
You and your spouse/de facto have not owned on/after 1 July 2000 a residential property and occupied that property jointly, separately or with some other person in any State or Territory of Australia.
So he should be OK to claim for the PPOR.
Liz Wilson
Mortgage Lender
Liz,
im with you 100% in respect to the “owned and occupied” part but bear in mind this provision relates to the first home plus concessions which relates only to stamp duty concessions. the 7k on the other hand relates to FHOG which does not make the distinction from “owned” vs “owned and occupied”.
for this reason, initially it was my understanding that people in my situation are eligible for the stamp duty concession but not the fhog. this article however, tends to suggest that if the ppor is purchased in my name, i would be eligible for both, at least till 1 july.
veru interesting to say the least
julie
Originally posted by alpina:Liz,
im with you 100% in respect to the “owned and occupied” part but bear in mind this provision relates to the first home plus concessions which relates only to stamp duty concessions. the 7k on the other hand relates to FHOG which does not make the distinction from “owned” vs “owned and occupied”.
Julie,
You have your facts wrong. The aforementioned provision DOES infact relate directly to the First Home Owners Grant of $7,000. Here is the direct link to the First Home Owners Grant application form, where on page one it clearly states this provision:
http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/page/downloads/other/ofh001.pdf
Regarding First Home Plus, your stamp duty concession, you will qualify if “at least one of the purchasers has never owned and occupied a residential property in any State or Territory within Australia”. So you do qualify for this.
Can you also clarify why you think you need to exchange pre July ’04? The extended stamp duty concessions apply as long as you entered into a contract after April… I’m not sure of the precise date. Why is July 04 cropping up in your post?
My verdict remains the same for FHOG, alpina – NO, sis – YES. If you still disagree try calling them directly 1300 130 624
Liz Wilson
Mortgage Lender
Julie,
As long as you entered into the contract after April 4th 2004 you are eligible for the extended stamp duty concessions re: First Home Plus pay no stamp duty on purchases up to $500K.
Feel free to PM or email me if you need further clarification, it can be hard not to muddle them all up.
Liz Wilson
Mortgage Lender
Liz,
firstly, thank for taking the time to answer my question. i have gotten my husband involved in helping me respond
the reason i believe im not eligible for fhog is because we would fail pt 2 of the eligibility criteria – ie, my husband owns an ip purchased pre july 2001. the reason i believe im eligible for the first homeplus is because we have never “owned and occupied a property”.
only reason i asked the question was because the article in the daily tele confused me a little by saying that if i put my name solely on the contract given that i have never owned a property i would be eligible for both the fhog and first home plus. the more i read this the more sense it makes.
i make reference to the july ’04 deadline because the article as well as a few others i’ve read have stated that there is an amendment to this policy that will come into effect as from july ’04 that will tighten this eligibility criteria and make people in my situation no longer eligible.
cheers,
julie
not saying anything really
other than read that article in the daily tele and tell me what you think? julie
Originally posted by alpina:if i put my name solely on the contract given that i have never owned a property i would be eligible for both the fhog and first home plus. the more i read this the more sense it makes.
Hi Julie,
I don’t think it matters if you put your name solely on the contract, as your spouse has still owned a property prior to July 01… If your spouse was more a “boyfriend” you might get away with it if your name was on the loan only and your name on the title only. I don’t think it’s a good idea even if that was the case.
I think you (and I) were correct originally, eligible for first home plus, but not FHOG. First Home Plus eligibility doesn’t have the clause in it that FHOG does which relates to owning pre-July ’04, so your eligible.
So I continue to stand by my original verdict.
My guess is the article is misleading or it is implying that you commit fraud. Either way I will be interested to read it if I can find it!
Thanks for letting me know there are going to be amendments to the policy – I have not heard of any though? Maybe I’m out of the loop. As I said, to be sure call them on the number in my earlier post, they may make more sense then me?
[wink2]Liz Wilson
Mortgage Lender
Originally posted by Henry:are you saying that if you had an ip and never lived in any house that you owned you could claim fhog on a Ppor purchase.
Henry,
It all depends on when.
If you owned it (or any) BEFORE 1st July 2000 then NO
If you owned it AFTER 1st July 2000 then YES because you never lived in it.
If you dare ask me what happens if you bought it on the 1st July 2000 my brain will explode![wacko]
I hope for your sake you bought it after! [smiling]
Liz Wilson
Mortgage Lender
thanks liz for your contribution. my thinking was the same as yours from day 1. we are working towards getting something before 1 july as i know the laws will be changing
surprised it was released like this in the first place to tell you the truth.never thought we were were eligible for the $7k as hubby bought may ’00
interesting article though although like you i feel that it may be innacurate. if we find a place prior to july ’04 we will run it by the osr and our solicitors but we are pretty sure we know what the answer will be.bad luck henry. looks like we both miss out on that part.
thank everyone for contributing
julie
Julie,
Yeah bugger – two more months and you would have been right!
I guess I would still be checking with OSR if I wasn’t sure.
Good luck with it all… and I will try to find a copy of that article, thus far alluding me…
Beuno Cera
Liz Wilson
Mortgage Lender
Originally posted by Lizzy:Quote:Originally posted by alpina:Liz,
You have your facts wrong. The aforementioned provision DOES infact relate directly to the First Home Owners Grant of $7,000. Here is the direct link to the First Home Owners Grant application form, where on page one it clearly states this provision:
http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/page/downloads/other/ofh001.pdf
Regarding First Home Plus, your stamp duty concession, you will qualify if “at least one of the purchasers has never owned and occupied a residential property in any State or Territory within Australia”. So you do qualify for this.
I understand this is correct for NSW. But what about QLD? I have heard in queensland that if any of the purchases have owned and occupied a property then they would not be eligible for the the FHOG and stamp duty concession. Can someone help me out on this whether this is true or not.
Thanks
Silver,
The rulings on the FHOG are the same, this is because it is a federal initiative:
The Commonwealth has requested that the States and Territories assist first home buyers through the establishment of the First Home Owner Grant (FHOG)
Read my earlier posts in this thread – it answers your question… (oh I’ll say it once more)[sleepyanim]
If you’ve owned a property prior to 1st July 02 regardless of whether you occupied it or not you are not eligible for FHOG.
If you’ve owned a property after 1st July 02 but not lived in it you are eligible.
I’m not repeating myself again!
The stamp duty concession in QLD IS a little different….
If you are not a first home buyer but will be occupying the premises it is a lower rate of duty.
If however you are a first home buyer by these standards; “Your residence is a first home if, before acquiring the home, you did not hold and never before held an interest in
residential land in Queensland or elsewhere other than as trustee for another person, as a lessee/tenant or as the holder of a
security interest, e.g. mortgagee.”
then you pay no stamp duty for purchases up to $500K (after 1st May 04)… or if it was before 1st May 04 purchases up to $160K.Does this help???
Please say yes! I seem to be re-iterating quite frequently myself in this thread [confused2]
Where are all my back-up brokers??
Liz
Mortgage Lender
interesting article though although like you i feel that it may be innacurate. if we find a place prior to july ’04 we will run it by the osr and our solicitors but we are pretty sure we know what the answer will be.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
