All Topics / Legal & Accounting / Should I transfer the IP to a DT?
Hi,
Before I have always known to purchased IP in our names ( joint tenants), didn’t know better at the time! Wasn’t aware there are many types of structures you can invest in.
One of our IP, the land zoning allows us to build at least 16 apartments.
My plan for the future is to develop the apartments.I need help on the following options:
1. Should I transfer the property to a discretionary trust? I will be liable for GGT/ stamp duty at market value.
2. Leave it as it is, and purchase my future IP in a DT?
I appreciate on any given advice.
The best piece of advice would be to speak to a good accountant because there are a lot of things you need to take into account, and you want to make sure you get it right now or you may pay a heavy price down the track.
A few things to think about though:
1. Are the properties negatively geared? A discretionary trust (DT) can’t use the losses (except in some circumstances) so the negative gearing benefits are lost. This is one reason to speak to an accountant for proper advice. Other structures (eg – unit trust) may be a better option for negative gearing.
2. DT’s also do not get the land tax threshhold (roughly 400k in NSW). Its common practice to buy a couple of properties in your own name first to use up the threshhold. Land tax on 400k is around $6,400 pa which adds up over the life of your investment!
3. You will be up for stamp duty and CGT when you transfer to the trust. Using the 400k example above, thats $13k stamp duty plus CGT.
4. Regarding the development – asset protection, liability, and tax planning would be important issues here. DT’s provide a great deal of flexiblility in this regard.
Mike has covered it all.
I can add that asset protection will be weakened by transferring an existing asset to a related trust.
What are the long term goals? Can you do the project on your own or will you bring in partners?
I think a discretionary trust will add the greatest flexibility. To make it easier to bring in others down the track maybe consider using a unit trust with a company as trustee and the units of this trust owned by your discretionary trust. This will make it easy to bring in someone else – say you are short of money and want someone to inject cash to 10% of the value, you could just transfer 10% of the units without needing to change title deeds etc.
Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
Thanks Mike & Terry for the replies,
Interesting.. Terry you have mention that asset protection will be weakened by transferring an existing asset to a related trust. Does that also include by having a corporate trustee?
Mike, My accountant is stupid! I confronted him in regards to our plans and goals before the purchase. It seems that he wasn’t too fond of having complicated structures, and said to just go simple and purchase it under our names. He also said that inflation will raise the tax bracket so no need to worry about legally minimising tax.
We are going to ditch our accountant; we’re in the process of searching for a new accountant now.
In the meantime, I am crunching the numbers. Probably best to pay stamp duty again. Ouch!
The property was purchased nearly a year ago with a negative gearing of nearly 5 K per annum.
We knew we had made instant equity from day 1. The selling agent was not local, wasn’t familiar with the rezoning on some of the streets in the suburb. The vendor was a motivated seller.So, if we were to pay stamp duty now, I suppose it would be market value? An expensive lesson learnt! I guess I will be better off transferring sooner than later?
We have got finance ready to purchase again and if I were to pay stamp duty again on the transfer will slow us down on reaching our goal.
Yes, sounds like your accountant has cost you thousands!
Asset protection is weakened by transferring assets. If you were to go bankrupt then transfers can be reversed under the Bankruptcy Act. To reduce the risk you need to consider transferring for market value with full payment and the sooner the better. The farther in the past the transfer the greater the protection.
Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
btw, having a corporate trustee won't assist in the claw back provisions. But it would assist if the trust is sued.
Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
Yep, the wrong advice has dug a massive hole in my pocket! To make it worse he is a distant family member too.
Terry, you probably aware that I have recently set up a DT to purchase another IP.
Ideally, to minimise risk I should create another DT for the transfer.
Will there be any risk if I was to have the same trustee?"Asset protection is weakened by transferring assets".
Does that only apply to being bankrupt?
What if someone was to sue us? Are we safe in that matter?
Is there a period of time where the Bankruptcy Act has the power to reverse the sale?I appreciate on any given advice. thanks
hi ST
At the end of the day it is bankruptcy which you are really trying to protect yourself from. If you are sued and lose then the other party will have a judgment against you for an amount of money. They can then try and get this money out of you by using a few different methods such as garnishing bank accounts, forcing the sale of properties you own etc. The final one (or even the first) is trying to make you bankrupt.
Once you are declared bankrupt then a bankrutcy trustee will step into your shoes and then try to get as much money back for the creditors as they can. They may look at past transactions and may examine you in court about these,
Depending on how you answer and structure things and the size of the transaction then they can try to reverse the transaction. Different time periods apply for different siutaions. eg if you know you are going down and then transfer you house to your wife for $1 then this could probably be clawed back indefinitely. If you are currently solvent and transfer $100,000 to your trust as a gift then this could possible by reversed for 3-5 years etc. If you sell to your trust and the trust pays you market value then there may be nothing to be clawed back from this transaction, but they may look at where the funds from the sale went.
I am just going from memory here, but I think if you look at the bankruptcy act at section 120, 121 then you may find the answers. I am away at the moment.
Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
4 year claw back on bankruptcy.
If you are not in a high risk industry and dont forsee yourself going broke you can still transfer to trust. You would need to do it asap, so your 4 years will be up. If you leave it in your own name your are still the in same situation, that you can loose it. You will have to pay stamp duty and CGT as you said, but the end benefit will outweight this. If you transfer I wouldnt develop it for at least the claw back period if not longer as developing is risky.Regards,
Brad
Callaughan Partners | Accountants & Business AdvisorsThanks guys for the given advice,
I will need to look at the bigger picture, I Would need to sit down with a knowledgeable accountant and work with some numbers.
" I’ll rather pay today dollar than tomorrows".
Cheers : )
If it is an undervalued transaction then under the bankruptcy act, s120 it could be clawed back for up to 5 years
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s120.htmlIf the transfer was done to defeat creditors ie to make the property unavailable to pay creditors then indefinite under s121
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s121.htmlA reason of asset protection would fall under s121 and that is why lawyers don't promote doing things for asset protection.
There is an old case of a barrister who transferred his half of the house to his wife many years ago and then later went bankrupt owing a large tax debt. The ATO was able to get at his half share almost 20 years alter. Cumins is the case.
Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
Thanks Terry, for adding the link.
I googled and studied on Cumins case, and it was interesting… That means I have to get legal advice before going ahead with the transfer.
st81hp79 wrote:Thanks Terry, for adding the link.I googled and studied on Cumins case, and it was interesting… That means I have to get legal advice before going ahead with the transfer.
Most definitely. Many issues to consider.
Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
http://www.Structuring.com.au
Email MeLawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.