Claiming the FHOG twice

[Sharpstone888]

For eligibility of the FHOG all parties have to meet the requirements. Could someone put one spouses name on the title of the property, but have both on the loan (for servicing), then a few years later do a similar thing but with the other spouse on the title.

This could allow double FHOG and double stamp duty concession. (provided they still exist) Am I right in saying this?

Chris

 

[Rolf Latham]

Hiya Chris

I know its not the intent, but the OSR would see it as theft, since "eligible person" in practive means "elgible couple"

In any case, spouses have to sign and dec to say they havent owned previously

ta
rolf

 

[Sharpstone888]

Thanks Rolf,

So say I buy a property under my name and claim the FHOG (SD concess) myself, then move in with my partner (she then becomes my de facto/spouse), would this de facto/spouse relationship destroy the prospects of her getting the FHOG by herself (only her name on the title) ???

Chris

 

[Qlds007]

Chris

Yes it would certainly disqualify her from be able to claim the FHOG down the track.

 

[Sharpstone888]

Thanks, just checking

Chris

 

[asdf]

Thanks Rolf,

So say I buy a property under my name and claim the FHOG (SD concess) myself, then move in with my partner (she then becomes my de facto/spouse), would this de facto/spouse relationship destroy the prospects of her getting the FHOG by herself (only her name on the title) ???

Chris

Ahhh the old get hitched chest nut. Again shows how the government disadvantages families and married couples. Just move in with her and be the "flat mate". OSR doesn't need to know shes your partner unless you declare it on your tax return. Theres plenty of flat mates that end up in the sack together. But try explaining the financial merits of not getting married to a woman... don't think you'll get very far. Good luck buddy.

 

[Sharpstone888]

But try explaining the financial merits of not getting married to a woman... don't think you'll get very far. Good luck buddy.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this?

Good idea though, pretend we are just flatmates, though she would be on the loan documents (would this make it look a bit suss).

Cheers,
Chris

 

[asdf]

I don't quite understand what you mean by this?

Ha ha... you will at the right time.

Just put the property in her name and you go guarantor on the loan so that sorts out your serviceability. Can't have your name anywhere on title deeds for the FHOG to apply. Print out a copy of the FHOG application form from OSR website and it should make more sense on what you can and can't do. Then just do what you can and not what you can't.

 

[Hoffy]

Why not just be thankful for one serving of FHOG as is intended by the legislation. Why try to take more than you know you are entitled to. It's our tax money.

 

[newtoinv]

i wasnt aware that you can be a party on the loan if you're not listed on the title. how does that work? - I was told by my lender this wasn't possible as the co-borrower has no direct benefit to the loan.

So if I wanted to purchase a house in my name - I could use somebody else's income aswell as my own to service the loan?

Could someone explain this?

 

[Kristine..]

newtoinv

Welcome to the Forum

Happy to answer this but please start a new thread so as not to hijack Sharpstone888 thread

Cheers
Kristine

 

[Bargain Hunter]

Why not just be thankful for one serving of FHOG as is intended by the legislation. Why try to take more than you know you are entitled to. It's our tax money.

This is a question of what is fair and reasonable compared to what is legislated.

If two people are entitled to a grant when seperate, why not be entitled to the same amount once married/defacto? The ruling is a crock of s#*t and designed to ensure that less than the full grant is given out.

The same ambiguity is present with the land tax threshold. If there are two names on the titles the full value of the land is assessed against both parties. WTF? Surely a fair and reasonable person would assess the value 50/50, or if the ownership is not evenly shared assessed at the appropriate split.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The tax system and the legislation around it is geared towards the ATO and OSR collecting revenue and giving back as little as possible while the government (regardless of the party) can crow about their acheivements in helping the average Aussie. It has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with fair and reasonable.

Andrew

Andrew

 

[Perp]

Why not just be thankful for one serving of FHOG as is intended by the legislation.

This is a question of what is fair and reasonable compared to what is legislated.

Bargain Hunter, I agree that the system is full of inequities, but this is about committing fraud to get back what you consider you're entitled to, which is illegal. I'm not sure I'd go so far as Hoffy and say you should be "grateful" if you consider that you're missing out , but you certainly shouldn't manipulate your circumstances with an intent to defraud your fellow citizens.

Yet another reason I think de facto relationships should be registered. Fair enough if you don't want to get married, but it pisses me off mightily that people can be in a relationship when it suits them, yet pretend to be single when it suits them. You should have to register de facto relationships with the Government before gaining any benefits normally applicable to "couples", such as Family Law rights, couples health insurance, etc.

 

[Hoffy]

This is a question of what is fair and reasonable compared to what is legislated.

If two people are entitled to a grant when seperate, why not be entitled to the same amount once married/defacto? The ruling is a crock of s#*t and designed to ensure that less than the full grant is given out.

The same ambiguity is present with the land tax threshold. If there are two names on the titles the full value of the land is assessed against both parties. WTF? Surely a fair and reasonable person would assess the value 50/50, or if the ownership is not evenly shared assessed at the appropriate split.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The tax system and the legislation around it is geared towards the ATO and OSR collecting revenue and giving back as little as possible while the government (regardless of the party) can crow about their acheivements in helping the average Aussie. It has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with fair and reasonable.

Andrew

Andrew

So what. You can just go and commit fraud because you think it is just.

 

[Sharpstone888]

What issues are there with the title being in one name and guarantor on the other, if the couple splits up? Would this be messy (messier than normal)?

Thanks for all your help guys.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

If a couple are living in the same house, but no co-dependent they'd have an argument for each getting the grant.

By not co-dependent I mean they're not married, not a defacto couple, they keep their money reasonably well separated. They also can't guarantee each other's loan or have any interest in each other's property at all. Casual b0nkin9 between friends would be permitted I guess

The grant is intended to help first home buyers as owner occupiers, not to help people accumulate property assets. If the government helps a couple buy their own home, that's great. If a single person purchases a home good for them, and if they later marry someone who's also got their own home it's a bonus.

If one person gets the grant then marries someone who's never owned a home, that's reasonable too. If the couple later separates then the non home owner would have a partial claim on the marital assets so they'd get a share of the grant in a round about manner anyway. The grant isn't a perfect system but it works reasonably well under the circumstances.

I've got no problems with someone benefiting from the grant and later turning the property into an IP, they still only ever receive the grant once so they won't get it later when they do buy their own home.

 

[Sharpstone888]

I'm going to go with the normal, both names on loan and title and claim the FHOG once between us. It seems the easier, less messy way and I'm very grateful for the 14K that I will receive.

Thanks Guys.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[asdf]

You should have to register de facto relationships with the Government before gaining any benefits normally applicable to "couples", such as Family Law rights, couples health insurance, etc.

Unfortunately the hand outs are for the singles not the couples who are continually let down by our useless government, both state and federal.

 

[murtagh]

Unfortunately the hand outs are for the singles not the couples who are continually let down by our useless government, both state and federal.

Can you name one hand out only for single people?

Gawd, single people sleep alone. I reckon that's worth about 30k per year right there.