Friends of ours signed a contract to buy an OTP unit on the Gold Coast a few years ago (against our advice) and when it came time to settle, post GFC, the unit was worth much less, they couldn't settle and lost their 10% deposit. Within the same financial year they sold a block of land and made a gain. They only recently married and are still using different accountants. One accountant said the loss on the OTP could offset the gain on the land. However the other said it could not, but my friend did not ask why. Which one is right?
I would have thought they could offset each other, but perhaps because they did not actually settle and take ownership it's different?
Depends. Are the owners the same for each? Did each occur in the same financial year? If so and htey are both on capital account then any losses could be used to offset gains.
But it could be something to do with forfeiting the deposit on the OTP one. Not sure.
Thanks Terry. Yes, for both properties they are tenants in common 50/50. Pretty sure everything happened in the same financial year, although in theory the loss, which happened first, should carry over anyway. Hope for their sake the 2nd accountant is wrong. There is still the chance that the receiver may chase them for the shortfall (and all other costs as per the contract) as the unit eventually sold for $250k LESS than they were buying for. The situations people get themselves into….
QLD. I read the contract <moderator: delete language> – which is more than they had done – and all the possible penalties for not settling are clearly spelt out. I truly hope they are not pursued because it would bankrupt them and even then the other party would still not recover their money. Unfortunately the developer went bankrupt because there were so many defaults on this complex and another one he had also sold OTP.
Yep. Their contract states they can be liable for all rates, strata levies etc plus two types of interest daily (don't remember know what they were but it totalled approx $500 per day) PLUS the sale shortfall!!
Approx 1 year ago, before the unit eventually sold, they got a letter from the receiver and had to send details of all their assets etc. They have heard nothing since and are hoping it has gone away. Me – I would rather know than stick my head in the sand.
They should see a lawyer as there is a high chance they will be sued for the $250,000 shortfall. This could be increased a lot by the addition of legal fees etc.
Bankruptcy is a high possibility so they should prepare asap.
We have been trying to tell them that, but they still prefer to employ the ostrich theory. This conflict of opinions from the accountants has just raised the issue again. Mind you, they are just now doing their 2011 tax returns so that may give you an idea of how importantly they view their wealth creation, They have a few other properties and complain about negative cashflow etc but don't follow up on our advice about tax variations etc.
They are good friends and normally I would applaud people taking action to get ahead, but they have merely bought properties over the last few years off the back of successes we have had, without any of the due diligence, consideration of their personal circumstances, strategies etc that we employ to greatly increase our chances of success. And unfortunately they are not very teachable – breaks our heart.
The ostrich method is very common. It is an interesting phenomenon.
Did they answer the administrator's request by listing all their assets and liabilities? I hope not.
Please let us know how they go. Might take many months but I am sure that the Administrator will come after them if they have assets – it generates more fees for the administrator.
Unfortunately yes, without seeking legal advice first . There's not much equity available so they would fall far short of the final amount, but I guess anything is better than nothing for the Administrator if they have creditors to pay.
So, they employed an investing strategy that carries a greater element of risk than some, without fully understanding the legal ramifications (let alone the market they were buying into), did not ensure they had a plan B in case of problems, and may lose everything. Theirs would then become the BBQ story that scares off other potential investors.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.