Chan & Naylor Response
Hello All,
I believe it is necessary to clarify things once and for all. Rumour, regardless of source, when spread and repeated often enough tends to be believed as fact. In the interests of Chan & Naylor and our thousands of clients, I’m writing to you all so that the truth is known and the rumours cease.
1.
Use of Chris’ Testimonial: Chan & Naylor had been using the testimonial for over 9 years; we first started using it previously when we did a lot of business with Chris who was providing our clients with his Employer’s Benefit Trust and other trust products back in the 90’s. The testimonial came from a comment Chris made to a new client he had referered to us; the client is still with us today. Ed and Dave asked Chris if they could use the testimonial during one of their many meetings at the time, to which he agreed. This was of course a long time ago and understandably Chris may have forgotten.
Last year, when Chris first asked us to remove the testimonial from our brochure, we did so immediately and had new brochures printed. This was at a time when Chris was venturing into a new business activity providing education to accountants, to which he rightly believed made the testimonial a conflict of interest. However, it appears that during our recent move, to our new Head Office, a bundle of old brochures was uncovered and used by one of the 40 staff we have here. These have all since being thrown out. We have apologised to Chris about this recent error, it was
not an intentional marketing ploy but an honest mistake.
2.
Regarding the PIT: It was written by Kevin Munro & Associates – it is a modification of his HDT. We have included additional clauses that provide extra benefits to Property Investors. In NSW the structure included a Unit Trust but we referred to wholly as a PIT for simplicity and for no other reason than that. For those of you who did not see Greg Vale’s response to Chris Batten’s comments about their Trust Deed here is a link to what he said (Greg Vale is a Partner at Kevin Munro & Associates)
click here
We have had many requests from accountants wanting the deed. Initially we obliged but later discovered that they did the tax returns wrong. We fixed it for the clients at no charge. However, it became apparent that if we were to allow other accountants to use the deed we needed to train them first. Due to our increasing client demand we are unable to provide this service to accountants; although I am investigating the possibility of licensing the rights to the deed outside of Chan & Naylor.
3.
Our Intentions: Our intentions are nothing more than to provide our 4000 clients with up to date information, education and good service. We had no idea that labelling our customised deed with a different name would cause such interest. We also had no intention of alienating other professionals. We have another business called
Eknowhow Accounting which provides systems and mentoring for over 500 accountants all around Australia, New Zealand & Canada – so it would not be wise for us to upset our fellow professionals and customers. This is further proof that there was no malice aforethought in developing this deed and controlling its use.
4.
Let’s move On: We agree with Chris that what’s more important is moving forward and being constructive with our time. We can make changes by working together in a way that could prevent certain legislation from adversely affecting our property returns. One thing that you are all aware of is the recent change in the treatment of Unit Trusts here in NSW. The method of implementing this change is very unusual. Firstly, NSW OSR, without warning, released their statement in February, making the effect retrospective. With this in mind Chan & Naylor plan to lobby the NSW Government and request, amongst other things, 12 months grace for the implementation of this change which is common practise for such broad sweeping alterations in the law or its implementation. We intend to request that the change be made effective as at December 2006 or allow the Trustee to nominate a beneficiary as having an equitable interest in land. This was done in Victoria. You can assist with our lobbying effort by registering your name -
> to register > to read more.
This petition closes 10th March 2006. Therefore please inform other investors who you know may be affected by this change.
Please Note: The information collected will only be used for lobbying purposes mentioned above. Chan & Naylor will NOT use this information as a means to promote or market their services or products.
Lastly, I will be honest and say that due to an already overloaded scheduled it is not possible for me to become a contributing member - we wish to set up an office interstate and are busting at the seams here in NSW - I hope you understand. Besides, a quick review of this thread is evidenced enough that Dale, Chris and Nick are all capable of answering your questions regarding structuring and tax. As a side comment, it’s great to see such discussions taking place as this information should be more broadly known.
In light of what I said at the outset, I am concerned about misleading, damaging and false statements made about Chan & Naylor, its directors, our services and products (eg the PIT). Therefore, if you have any questions or want clarification regarding any of the issues raised, including the PIT, please feel free to email me directly on
[email protected]
Happy investing
Regards
Tony Melvin
Managing Director - Chan & Naylor Australia
), then go for Nick. 
