Loan Contamination

If you have a separate split of say $50k and then pay this into a savings account which also contains $50k so the savings account now has $100,000 and if you subsequently use $50k to invest then you may be able to claim 50% of the interest on the $50k - you could argue you can trace the money to the loan, but it was diluted with the cash.

But if you just paid $50k back into loan and then paid $50k from the loan, via a bank cheque maybe, then you can trace the $50k directly to borrowings so you should be able to claim all the interest on this $50k. Even though it was mixed originally you paid off this mixed loan and started again with a clean loan.
@Terry, thank you very much for all your response and wisdom on this topic, your work on these forums are truly appreciated. Next time I come to Sydney I will need to buy you a scotch (on the rocks of course, not mixed with anything ;)
 
@Terry, thank you very much for all your response and wisdom on this topic, your work on these forums are truly appreciated. Next time I come to Sydney I will need to buy you a scotch (on the rocks of course, not mixed with anything ;)
No mixing. And don't try and buy me an orange juice with milk in it, or I might think there is something else in it.
 
LOC and contamination

I have been reading through this thread and I believe I do get it when it comes to loan contamination. I have set my borrowing up at present where they are A.OK for the taxman and the accountant is happy.

My question is this... there is a Macquarie Global Limit LOC - with three splits. PPOR, Day to day split for wages and spending and investing split. The investing funds are used only for deposit on IP1 and expenses associated with IP1. A separate loan exists for IP1 with another bank.

There are funds available in the IP split that have not been drawn down - to use for IP2 deposit - but we have hit serviceability cap so IP2 on hold for now.

The funds in the day to day split have diminished (renovating PPOR).

The bank will move some of the limit of the IP split to either a new split or the day to day, which will allow us to continue the renos.

Does this impact deductibility? Can I move some of the available credit over?

My guess is no we cannot move it over without impacting our deductibility and probably just best to keep saving for the reno, but thought it was worth asking. Thoughts?
 
I have been reading through this thread and I believe I do get it when it comes to loan contamination. I have set my borrowing up at present where they are A.OK for the taxman and the accountant is happy.

My question is this... there is a Macquarie Global Limit LOC - with three splits. PPOR, Day to day split for wages and spending and investing split. The investing funds are used only for deposit on IP1 and expenses associated with IP1. A separate loan exists for IP1 with another bank.

There are funds available in the IP split that have not been drawn down - to use for IP2 deposit - but we have hit serviceability cap so IP2 on hold for now.

The funds in the day to day split have diminished (renovating PPOR).

The bank will move some of the limit of the IP split to either a new split or the day to day, which will allow us to continue the renos.

Does this impact deductibility? Can I move some of the available credit over?

My guess is no we cannot move it over without impacting our deductibility and probably just best to keep saving for the reno, but thought it was worth asking. Thoughts?
Deductibilities depends on borrowings, so changing the credit limits on loans should not matter as long as drawn amounts don't change.
 
I've been asking my lender about re-fi'ing my loans with split loans.

According to him, he says it's not necessary as he says my tax accountant would take care of calculating the deductible and non deductible part.

Is this a common answer that lenders tend to palm to people?
 
Your lender has just displayed why they aren't allowed to give tax advice. They are 100% wrong wrong wrong.

You don't want a loan that is blended. It always results in issues.
 
I've been asking my lender about re-fi'ing my loans with split loans.

According to him, he says it's not necessary as he says my tax accountant would take care of calculating the deductible and non deductible part.

Is this a common answer that lenders tend to palm to people?
Yes this is very common - but as Paul says they are not allowed to give tax advice. The trouble is most people would just accept what they say.
 
I've been asking my lender about re-fi'ing my loans with split loans.

According to him, he says it's not necessary as he says my tax accountant would take care of calculating the deductible and non deductible part.

Is this a common answer that lenders tend to palm to people?
While they can't give tax advice, it's SO important that they understand the tax implications of the loans they're setting up!

Most have no clue. Or interest in getting a clue.
 
My missus is in a tricky/messy situation.

The figures below aren't exact but portrays her situation.

A few years ago she purchased IP1 for 500k. Instructing her broker to get her the best rate possible, she acquired a loan larger than the purchase price of IP1 by getting her mum to cross her PPOR against it. The loan was 700k. She then parked the excess 300k in the offset. So she was effectively paying interest on the same 400k but at a slightly better. (To make things more confusing her mum has 5% ownership of IP1.)

Her wages and savings have also gone into the offset account since purchasing IP1.

She then bought IP2 for 700k @ 80% LVR, paying for the remaining 20% directly from her offset account.

She's now trying to refinance to another bank and in the process:

1. Unwind the IP1 loan and unencumber her mum's PPOR.
2. Draw out equity from IP1, which has now been re-valued at 600k.

After refinancing the total loan would be 480k (80% LVR of 600k). Broker says split loan is not required as total loan has actually dropped from 700k :confused:.

I'm concerned about this comment because the extra 80k in equity being taken out is not by definition money taken out to invest (there's been no investment made!).

I'm wondering if she should have the equity put in a separate split:

loan 1: 400k (80% of purchase price of IP1).
loan 2: 80k (equity). Money not taken out.

Am I right on this?
 
1. Unwind the IP1 loan and unencumber her mum's PPOR.
2. Draw out equity from IP1, which has now been re-valued at 600k.
From what I understand from your post - To release mum's property from IP1 without using any cash, equity from another property or further x-coll, you'll have to pay LMI as the LVR will be around 83%. This uses all IP 1 equity, and releases Mum's PPOR with no loan attached.

However - due to the total loan being $700k and some of that being used for IP2, you're probably all x-colled up and how it untangles will depend on the value of Mum's property, the value of IP2 as well.

I'd say it's unlikely that Mum's property will be unencumbered at the end, however it could definitely have the risk against it reduced.
 
Hypothetically at the end it could look like this -

IP1 - 80%
Ip2 - 80%
Mum's PPOR - 3% toward IP1
- 20% toward IP2 (or the balance if value on IP 2 has gone up.)

All secured individually so no more x-coll.
 
My missus is in a tricky/messy situation.

The figures below aren't exact but portrays her situation.

A few years ago she purchased IP1 for 500k. Instructing her broker to get her the best rate possible, she acquired a loan larger than the purchase price of IP1 by getting her mum to cross her PPOR against it. The loan was 700k. She then parked the excess 300k in the offset. So she was effectively paying interest on the same 400k but at a slightly better. (To make things more confusing her mum has 5% ownership of IP1.)

Her wages and savings have also gone into the offset account since purchasing IP1.

She then bought IP2 for 700k @ 80% LVR, paying for the remaining 20% directly from her offset account.

She's now trying to refinance to another bank and in the process:

1. Unwind the IP1 loan and unencumber her mum's PPOR.
2. Draw out equity from IP1, which has now been re-valued at 600k.

After refinancing the total loan would be 480k (80% LVR of 600k). Broker says split loan is not required as total loan has actually dropped from 700k :confused:.

I'm concerned about this comment because the extra 80k in equity being taken out is not by definition money taken out to invest (there's been no investment made!).

I'm wondering if she should have the equity put in a separate split:

loan 1: 400k (80% of purchase price of IP1).
loan 2: 80k (equity). Money not taken out.

Am I right on this?
No. This is going to be very messy to work out as only part of the extra $300k initially borrowed will be deductible. She will have to go through statements and work out how much cash was put in over the years. Impossible to work out accurately if cash is going in and out. Say only half of this $300k was deductible (may be much less) then the original loan is a mixed purpose loan. So work out the percentage of the $700k that is deductible.

The non deductible portion needs to be split off. Once split it can be paid off.

If you pay off before splitting then the amount paid will partially come off the deductible portion.
 
No. This is going to be very messy to work out as only part of the extra $300k initially borrowed will be deductible. She will have to go through statements and work out how much cash was put in over the years. Impossible to work out accurately if cash is going in and out. Say only half of this $300k was deductible (may be much less) then the original loan is a mixed purpose loan. So work out the percentage of the $700k that is deductible.
Almost impossible to work out as there are 2yrs+ of mixed use.

The non deductible portion needs to be split off. Once split it can be paid off.

If you pay off before splitting then the amount paid will partially come off the deductible portion.
Going back to the milk & juice analogy (or milk and urine :eek:)...

What you're saying is start fresh. Go to the bank and swap the milk/juice cocktail for jug of milk and jug of juice, completely separated. Pay off the orange juice. Only milk is left. Proceed with refinance

If pay off before splitting there's no way to avoid paying off a bit of milk because it's all mixed in. :D

Would this work?

1. Split the 700k loan into 400k deductible and 300k non-deductible portions. Assuming can't work out how much of the 300k non-deductible portion is deductible hence taking all of it to be non-deductible.

2. Pay off the 300k split.

3. Refinance to new bank. Secured against IP1 only.

loan account 1: 400k
offset account against loan account 1: can put wages/savings in there without any problems
loan account 2: 80k equity. Only take out for purchasing new IP
 
Would this work?

1. Split the 700k loan into 400k deductible and 300k non-deductible portions. Assuming can't work out how much of the 300k non-deductible portion is deductible hence taking all of it to be non-deductible.

2. Pay off the 300k split.

3. Refinance to new bank. Secured against IP1 only.

loan account 1: 400k
offset account against loan account 1: can put wages/savings in there without any problems
loan account 2: 80k equity. Only take out for purchasing new IP
I would have to sit down and think, but if you could split into the relevant portions - even if one of the portions were mixed, then you could fully pay off the mixed portion and start again.
 
Top