TaxUpdate.com.au - New Online Property Tax Depreciation Schedule Update Service

[Maverick]

Hi,

In the last issue of the API magazine I've noticed advertisement about the New Online Property Tax Depreciation Schedule Update Service - http://www.taxupdate.com.au/ . The site is launched on July 1st 2004 - there is not much info at the web site now, just a short advertisement.

Enjoy!

 

[nelson]

Hmmm. Was that post an advertisement for the advertisement about that site?

I thought the changes to 'effective lives' that will come into play on July 1 apply only to properties purchased after that date. That's what the general understanding was when the draft changes were released earlier this year.

The ATO has made many changes to depreciation since 1985. Do they expect every schedule out there to be updated every time they change something? I don't think so.

Setting up a site and charging people a fee (I assume there will be a fee) to amend their schedules every time there is a change would be a great little earner. Wish I'd thought of it. If I can get any clarification from the ATO on whether existing schedules need to be amended, I will let people know.

 

[sandyr]

What a joke......

Obviously BMT (ie Maverick there newsletter) trying to drum up business

To update schedules? and worst probably expecting a fee for it....

The draft ruling clearly applies (and check with ATO) to plant and equipment acquired after July 1 2004.

So what would they be checking?

And would u pay a fee for it?

Or would you just go back to the original QS and get him to amend if anything needs amending

Sigh

 

[nelson]

That taxupdate site was up for a few days, but now it's gone?

And it wasn't connected to BMT. It did have a director in common with a big depreciation company, though.

On the site, they were implying that in light of the changes to depreciation, existing schedules needed to be looked at. And they would be happy to do this - for $80.

The ATO has said repeatedly that the new rules apply to assets purchased after July 1 this year. I phoned 2 reputable depreciation suppliers today and they confirmed this.

I wonder whether somebody alerted taxupdate to the definition of 'deceptive and misleading conduct'?

 

[geoffw]

I think there may be two issues here.

1. There was a case last year where some articles claimed by a taxpayer as separate depreciable items were ruled to ba a part of the building- flywire screens and bathroom cabinets were two examples which spring to mind. Some depreciation schedules may have to have been adjusted because of the “enthusiastic” nature of the schedules- and there were already some companies which had attempted to redo your QS schedule for a fee.

2. The new rules- which appear to be only applying to properties bought after July 1- however, the fact that it applies to be only for properties bought after July 1 does not appear to be well publicised. If I had not been a part of this forum, I would not have known.

 

[nelson]

That site is back up. It says in part:

"To safeguard against audit a taxupdate of your schedule will be required to show compliance to the ATO’s list of depreciable assets."

Is it 'misleading and deceptive' to say that all schedules need to be updated when according to the ATO this is not the case?

The 2 companies who have done schedules for me over the past year have told me mine are fine despite the changes.

That site also has testimonials from people who say they loved how easy it was to amend their schedule on-line. The funny thing is this facility isn't available yet.

And check out who one of the directors is. He's also on the website of a large company that does tax depreciation schedules as one of the head honchos.

 

[Paul Bennion]

Taxupdate.com.au

Hi, just thought I would clear the air about Taxupdate. I notice that there has been a lot of interest about it. Pitty this interest wasnt shown when the ATO had the rulings out for public comment. You may have been able to prevent some of the changes from taking place. The ruling is on two issues. Firstly the effective life has been reassessed and, yes, it takes place for properties settling after 1 July 2004. The second issue though, is on those items which actually qualify as plant. The ATO have defined a concise list of plant from which a number of items such as light fittings, vanity basins, laundry tub units etc are defined as part of the building. By submitting your old schedule you are open to audit and any penalty or adjustment due to a previous incorrect claim. Taxupdate brings your old schedule into compliance. Please read my website and feel free to ask me any questions but please dont critisise without being fully informed

 

[nelson]

Washington Brown (big QS company) have contacted all their clients to say existing reports don't need to be amended. And they've said that if amendments were required they would do them free of charge. I think most reputable QS companies would act similarly. Anybody else know what other companies are doing? As a client, I would expect them to act fairly.

 

[geoffw]

My accountant told me, when I asked, that it was only the more aggressive QSs and accountants who had been claiming things like bath vanities and wirescreens as separate to the building- and it's those sort of items whcih were in dispute.

 

[nelson]

I'd say you're right, Geoff. I bet there is still the odd cowboy out there putting down kitchen cupboards as something seperate from the building.

 

[Fester]

Actually I had some of mine re-worked after the ATO vs Woodward case in January 2003. The ones that needed re-working were my Depro reports. Charge, $67 each!

 

[ntowill]

We prepare a lot of depreciation schedules and we also see a lot of our competitors schedules. The thing that worries me about this site is that they seem to be relying totally on the previous reports. Say the current report has an item depreciating a wardrobe. How will taxupdate.com.au know if the wardrobe is built-in or free standing? One is a legitimate claim whereas the other is not. Do they assume the previous QS knew what he was doing or do they assume they didn't? For only $80 I doubt there will be too much in depth analysis going on.