All Topics / Help Needed! / This one is for the TAX connoisseurs out there.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Profile photo of George_1994George_1994
    Member
    @george_1994
    Join Date: 2010
    Post Count: 2

    Hello everyone.
    Found a little old house in a great location, and the plan is to demolish it and build something new in its place for ourselves. But before that, we want to keep it as a negative geared investment for a fare few years. My question is, is there, from a tax advantage point of view, better to borrow as much as possible (100%) in order to buy it, or as little as possible something like (80%) or less, in relation to negative gearing?
    Thanks!

    George

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

    For tax deductions it is best to spend as much money as possible – but this may not always make commercial sense.

    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 ducksterduckster
    Participant
    @duckster
    Join Date: 2004
    Post Count: 1,674

    George, it depends on what you earn. What is your marginal tax rate?
    If it is an old house depreciation on the building costs may not be claimable which could have increased the negative gearing without you incurring a cash outlay in expenses.
    As Terry pointed out it may not make commercial sense.

    If you are on say as an example a 30% marginal tax rate and you spend 5000 in net property loss. What are you claiming back?
    30% so you spend $5000 and get back $1500. Based on not having building cost depreciation being claimable.

    you can check the marginal tax rates on http://www.ato.gov.au

    Profile photo of George_1994George_1994
    Member
    @george_1994
    Join Date: 2010
    Post Count: 2

    Thank you guys! No, no the house is old (timber, late ’60) but is not a fallen down shack! Certainly without any repairs, someone can move and leave in it in an hour for a good lot of years, no doubt. It will cost -/+ $200000 to buy anyway.We earn over $120000 and around $60000 respectively. So what do you think?   George

    Profile photo of Jacqui MiddletonJacqui Middleton
    Participant
    @jacm
    Join Date: 2009
    Post Count: 2,539

    Would it be cheaper to simply extend and renovate the existing dwelling?

    Jacqui Middleton | Middleton Buyers Advocates
    http://www.middletonbuyersadvocates.com.au
    Email Me | Phone Me

    VIC Buyers' Agents for investors, home buyers & SMSFs.

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

    It also depends on other factors such as have you paid off your PPOR mortgage? If not then I would be keeping my cash in an offset account attached to that.

    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 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.