2 PPORs for married couple?

[alexlee]

It's my experience that many wealthy people are actually quite happy to pay their share of taxes. I think that feeling that it's necessary to defraud the ATO to get ahead is poor man's thinking. There's enough profit out there for everybody, including the ATO.

Definitely not the wealthy people I know. The wealthy people I know do everything they can to reduce their tax legally. If I managed to reduce my share of taxes to Packer levels, I would be happy to pay it too!

I still don't get why the two have to be mixed. Just because I don't defraud the ATO doesn't mean I am happy to pay my legal share of taxes. I hate it, but I haven't found a legal way to not pay it and I don't really pay enough to justify fraud.
Alex

 

[Mry]

Would CGT be determined from the date of signing contracts or when settlement takes place? I'm assuming settlement...

Sorry, its contract date. Not much luck here for you Jom.

 

[alexlee]

I am disappointed to read that what I was proposing to do is not possible. Thanks anyway to everyone who replied.

Now to start planning whether I should offload the property before the wedding?

Would CGT be determined from the date of signing contracts or when settlement takes place? I'm assuming settlement...

Not possible because it's not legal, Jom.

Why not stick to what's legal AND profitable over the long term? Forget this messing around with PPOR exemptions. Build a portfolio instead.
Alex

 

[Rob G.]

That's ok

I am disappointed to read that what I was proposing to do is not possible. Thanks anyway to everyone who replied.

Now to start planning whether I should offload the property before the wedding?

Would CGT be determined from the date of signing contracts or when settlement takes place? I'm assuming settlement...

Why offload a property that gives a capital gain (concessional) and can give income through renting ? Any existing home loan may also become interest deductible.

CGT only applies to gains from the day it ceases to be your PPOR onwards - IT IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE.

You do not magically incur a huge tax liability on the day you marry !!!!

Get some serious advice from your Accountant, its really not that bad.

Cheers,

Rob

 

[asdf]

It's my experience that many wealthy people are actually quite happy to pay their share of taxes.

Better start telling my mates they should stop buying them infrastructure bonds and start paying their fair share of tax. Might even call a few of them expats working in Asia to come home so they can start paying 46.5% again rather than 10% tax over there.

These greedy capitalists are clouding my judgement. Quick, get me out to Havana so Raul can knock some sense into me.

 

[Perp]

Better start telling my mates they should stop buying them infrastructure bonds and start paying their fair share of tax. Might even call a few of them expats working in Asia to come home so they can start paying 46.5% again rather than 10% tax over there.

I think we're talking about two different groups of people. Working for a high salary paying 46.5% in tax is not "paying your fair share", in my view - that's far too much.

I was referring to people in business, or professional investors, who may pay substantial amounts of tax in real dollars, but lower percentages relative to their total earnings. The people in this category that I know seem to take the attitude of "oh well, I only pay tax when I'm making money". Yes, they work to minimise it, and they don't love it, but they don't resent it.

No doubt about it - high income PAYG earners are totally shafted. I don't know many of those who are truly wealthy though (one or two notable exceptions spring to mind, including some forumites). The higher marginal tax rates are one of the inequities I'd address, if I were the benevolent dictator.

 

[ianvestor]

* simple - eg Pauline Hanson's "2% on everything" - this would be extremely simple but also inherently inequitable because it takes no account of individual circumstances.

This is exactly what makes flat tax inherently equitable (not taking into account individual circumstances).

 

[TheBacon]

I have always been a big advocate of NOT getting married for this simple reason.

Amen to that brother!
Mark

Ah - the SHINK mentality
Single, High Income, No Kids


Heading down a slippery slope...

Ideally, of course, I would prefer the govt tax other people but not me. I'd just prefer that I don't pay tax. Alex

A bit further down...

Yes, optimally I would have a different set of laws that applied only to me and mine.
Alex

Ah - the crux of the matter!!!

Dictatorships might be ok if I am the dictator.
Alex

Alex, I'm loving reading your posts at the moment

TB

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Ah - the SHINK mentality
Single, High Income, No Kids

How about SHANK - Single, Hostile Attitude, No Kids. Suits me perfectly.

Ever since I stopped being a fat slob and got in shape (lost the beer gut), my outlook has grown increasingly more about ME. As in, doing what's right for me, my confidence is shooting through the roof, not putting other people's needs before my own.

I like the new me. A LOT.

Mark

 

[asdf]

Ever since I stopped being a fat slob and got in shape (lost the beer gut), my outlook has grown increasingly more about ME.

Mate, with the serious man drought we've seen since WWII, the ladies out there should be grateful they've even got a gut to hang onto. Sloth away I say!

 

[sailor]

Back to the topic....

Couples can only choose one place between them as a PPOR. Sorry.

Regardless of whether you're a couple or not, if she principly resides anywhere besides her place, then she can't claim it is her PPoR. That's why they call it a principle place of residence.

There are two issues here, one dictated by the ATO and the other by the Family Law Court (FLC) of Australia.

Mry is right in terms of the ATO....you can only choose one PPOR if you live together....married or defacto.

However, the FLC will now recognise defacto relationships as are provided in each State under their respective Property Law Acts. And the various definitions of "de facto relationship":

De facto:

1. A de facto spouse is either 1 of 2 persons, whether of the same or the opposite sex, who are living or have lived together as a couple.
2. 2 persons are a couple if they live together on a genuine domestic basis in a relationship based on intimacy, trust and personal commitment to each other; and
   
3. 2 persons are not a couple only be cause they are co-tenants.

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Dictionary/glossary.asp?gWord=D

However, I and some of my friends, have been advised by our respective legal eagles, that even though we and our respective "boyfriends" all live in our own PPOR's, and spend significant amounts of time at our boyfriend's PPOR's, and they at ours; that under the law we are considered to be defacto couples. We have all been legally advised to draw up "cohabitation agreements" to protect our respective assets.

Note: none of us have joint bank accounts, or contribute financially to the food, electricity, rates, or phone bills; of our respective "partners".

So the ATO has one rule, and the FLC another.

The plot thickens!

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Mate, with the serious man drought we've seen since WWII, the ladies out there should be grateful they've even got a gut to hang onto. Sloth away I say!

Hahaha mate, in a perfect world maybe. But:

1. I got sick of being disgusted when i looked in the mirror

2. Women are able to choose who they wish to mate with. Men don't have that option (unless they are very very high value). There's a saying - 'When dating a man, a woman looks in one of two directions - up or over his shoulder.'

Mark

 

[jsj]

Tax is not a penalty that one should manipulate their circumstances to try and avoid; it's the means by which we collect necessary contributions for the common good.

I couldn't agree more.
We all need roads, schools, libraries, hospitals etc.
No one wants to pay more than their fair share but why begrudge paying it? And why avoid it at the risk of penalties or worse. I set things so that I minimise my tax, within the law.
If you are paying a lot of tax it means you are earning a lot of money. I prefer things as they are for me now as I am presently paying more tax every quarter than I earned in my first few years working.

The ATO has far reaching powers. One reason why many criminals eventually end up on tax evasion charges when the police can't pin them for the actual crimes which 'earned' them the money.
Only two things in life are certain, death and taxes.
Given a choice, I know what I'd rather evade.

 

[Country_dweller]

Regardless of whether you're a couple or not, if she principly resides anywhere besides her place, then she can't claim it is her PPoR. That's why they call it a principle place of residence.

Hmm... I understood that you can claim it for up to 6 years even if it rented out, so long as you lived in as your PPOR for a period of time (?3 months).

Obviously once a couple live together in the same house then that would be their PPOR. Having said that, I recall an example in the ATO CGT booklet that shows a his residence and hers residence as they showed that they each spent time at both locations, but part of each was subject to CGT. I think they were both co owned.

Tammy

 

[asdf]

2. Women are able to choose who they wish to mate with. Men don't have that option (unless they are very very high value). There's a saying - 'When dating a man, a woman looks in one of two directions - up or over his shoulder.'

Mark

The highly deluded maybe. Head out to any bar/club during wedding season (Sept till May) on the wends and you'll find half a dozen hens parties. 75% of the attendees will not have a ring on their finger. Yes, women might have lots of choices these days thanks to advocates who have done great work for women's causes in the past few decades. But I'm sure theres a few lonely hearts after the bridal waltz.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Hi asdf,

The point of the saying is that women always marry 'up'. Never on equal terms or below. Feminism may have taken hold in a lot of areas of our society, but the fact is that the large majority of women still want a man that can look after them.

Mark

 

[asdf]

I couldn't agree more.
We all need roads, schools, libraries, hospitals etc.
No one wants to pay more than their fair share but why begrudge paying it? And why avoid it at the risk of penalties or worse. I set things so that I minimise my tax, within the law.
If you are paying a lot of tax it means you are earning a lot of money. I prefer things as they are for me now as I am presently paying more tax every quarter than I earned in my first few years working.

It is this mentality that we have a 46.5% tax bracket and not a flat 15% for everyone. I am happy to pay for what I need. Not subsidise half the morons who contribute next to nothing to society. Why should I have slogged my ars* off furthering my education from an early age when these idiots (who had a choice) were out partying, getting stoned, smashed, making a nuisance of themselves, taking no accountability or responsibility for anything who could only get a job paying median wage then proceed to say the rich earns more so should pay more tax?? They use the exact same services we do. Yet we pay 3-4 times their entire WAGE just in tax!

Maybe I should've added to society's burden by partying hard when I was younger and now in my aduit life, get on the blame band wagon and lobby for more generous govt hand outs. But then I'd be a bald, fat, ugly and miserable couch potato. So I suppose I can't complain...

 

[asdf]

but the fact is that the large majority of women still want a man that can look after them.

Mark

Herein lies the problem. But I hear ya. Its tough all round... for both sexes.

 

[sailor]

Feminism may have taken hold in a lot of areas of our society, but the fact is that the large majority of women still want a man that can look after them.
Mark

Not in my part of the world. Most women I know are so independent, they'd be appalled by having a man look after them financially. In fact most of the women I know, are more financially secure than the men they go out with....and have sewn up the risk by getting the blokes to sign cohab agreements.

 

[wylie]

Hi asdf,

The point of the saying is that women always marry 'up'. Never on equal terms or below. Feminism may have taken hold in a lot of areas of our society, but the fact is that the large majority of women still want a man that can look after them.Mark

I don't agree with this at all.