Vendor Finance & CGT (tad more complicated!)

Hi everyone, I've got a bit of a complicated tax question.

Heres the deal:

Property with $40K mortgage.

Sell say for $100K (normal contract)

Or sell for $125K (part Vendor finance / part Bank)
(property has good potential for upside - major new biz's coming to area)
Bank will value for $100K
Bank will lend 80%, so $80K
Vendor finance $40K
Offer no deposit (caveat / private loan)

Property was vendor financed before, people left (moved inter-state to WA).
I wish to do this to a few properties (so can classify as business) if tax situation is good.

If I follow the vendor finance model (rather than straight sell) do I have to pay CGT (on the full amount) or can I just do it as income ?

Also part of the purchase was financed by a non related 3rd party loan (no caveat/mortgage, but private lend to company) If I do sell the property (and cannot claim it as income) can I claim the private loan off any CGT (because part of cost base)?

Thanks
I.A.
 
Last edited:
why someone pay $125K when only worth $100k. Maybe sucker or desperate. If do homework they buy other property in same area for $100K. Although many suckers out there.

why you sell the property without mortgage on vendor finance. caveat just means beware latin. very little rights. just let people know someone has interest in property. what if go under. you not secured. bank will not like second mortgage to you.

also pay stamp duty on higher value. why. when you can buy other property for $100K. makes no sense but as i say see suckers all the time.
 
""why someone pay $125K when only worth $100k. Maybe sucker or desperate. If do homework they buy other property in same area for $100K. Although many suckers out there. ""

2 Reasons:
1. No Deposit
2. High Growth

I am selling to miners - In the last 2 years price have increased by over 50%,
Thats 25% per yr. I am selling to people who are on $80K+ a year (some on $120K per yr).
But they don't have great financials (usually employed under 6 months with multiple companies, so non usual situation, etc).
So thats why some people chose to vendor finance.

""bank will not like second mortgage to you.""

Will they like caveat finance? Do banks like personal loans?
I know some banks that do allow 2nd mortgages! Do those banks hate 2nd mortgages???
Most banks hate unsecured debt, but they will still lend to someone even if they have personal debt...

""what if go under.""

Pls. re-read the question - who holds 1st mortgage? The Bank.

Really I would simply like an answer to a tax query, not a morality contest.....
And in my humble opinion there is much more stuff to get angry about, such as:
~ Death of half a million plus Iraqs
~ Torture of Detainees
~ Rendition Programs (stealing people of the streets, flying them to another country)
~ Removal of Habeas corpus

Lets try and remove all the emotional issues.... And keep it orientated towards an answer (that could be beneficially to a some people).

thks.
 
Dear Evil Capitalist:D

Don't forgot CGT should be calculated on market value of the property. So if you are selling above market rates, then I don't know who the extra bit will be treated, but you may be able to class it as income rather than CGT. This may be beneficial depending on your incomes.
 
My view of it....

Structure as a $100k property deal $80k from bank (as per usual for buyer).

Additionally an unsecured personal loan from vendor to buyer of $40k.

From vendor perspective will be an interest bearing investment, treating interest payment as taxable income.

Cheers,

The Y-man
 
Wraps – Vendor finance arrangements
Newsflash 74, 15th February 04
If the Vendor Finance arrangement has the following features the income stream received, once the wrap arrangement has begun, is considered to be principle and interest by the ATO. The income stream received before the wrap arrangement is entered into is considered rent. Reference ID2003/968.
Typical Features of a Wrap (Vendor Finance Arrangement)
1) The purchaser pays a deposit at the time of entering into the arrangement.
2) The settlement (change of the title deed to the purchaser) does not take place for several years after the arrangement is entered into.
3) The purchaser has the right to occupy the property prior to settlement
4) The purchaser pays a weekly amount (regardless of the name it is given in the arrangement) for the right to occupy the property
5) As part of the arrangement the purchaser pays the rates, taxes and insurances on the property.
6) The balance of the purchase price to be paid on settlement of the arrangement is reduced by the weekly installments.
7) If the purchaser fails to complete the arrangement the deposit and weekly installments are forfeited.

Now what about the profit on the sale of the property? Is that normal income or capital gain and when is it taxable? Assuming an agreement similar to that described above the answer to this question revolves around whether the vendor is in the business of selling houses or an investor just realising an investment. The key issues in differentiating here, according to ID2004/25, 26 & 27 are:
1) The Vendor did not use the property for any other purpose than to enter into the wrap. A straight rental of a property before entering into a wrap arrangement would avoid this point.
2) The property was sold at a profit
3) The wrap arrangement was entered into within 6 months of the vendor purchasing the property.
4) The Vendor is in the business of purchasing properties to resell. It would be difficult for the ATO to argue this case if the Vendor only bought and sold one property.

If you are caught by all of the above then CGT cannot apply to the sale of the property as the profit on the sale is revenue in nature. If a transaction is caught as income, CGT does not apply or in other words CGT is the last option if income tax doesn’t catch it. But even if you weren’t caught by the above and CGT applied there would be no discount if the property was held for under 12 months. If you did hold the property for less than 12 months before entering into the wrap it is better to argue that you are in business and caught by the above because the profit on sale would be revenue in nature and as a result not assessable until settlement which could be 25 years away (ID2004/27). If you hold the property for less than 12 months but it is subject to CGT you don’t qualify for the discount but would be assessable on the profit in the financial year of entering into the wrap. Note you do not actually have to pay the tax on the gain until settlement but it will be calculated as part of your taxable income in the year that you signed the agreement to sell. You have 30 days from the date of settlement to go back and amend the old return. Refer chapter 6 of the ATO’s 2004-2005 rental property booklet.
Section 104-15(1) of ITAA 1997 states that a CGT event happens when the owner of a property enters into an arrangement with another party to allow them to live in the property and title may transfer at the end of the arrangement. Section 104-10(3) states that the time the CGT event happens is the time of entering into a contract for the disposal of the asset, not when settlement (title passes) takes place.
For example this means that the vendor who enters into a wrap on a property that has been previously used as a rental and held for more than 6 months will be subject to CGT on the property in the financial year the wrap agreement is entered into. Accordingly, if at this stage the property has not been held for 12 months no CGT discount will be available even if they eventually end up holding the property for 25 years under the arrangement.
If you are not subject to CGT on the property because it is considered trading stock ie caught by all 4 points above, you are not entitled to claim building depreciation. Reference ID 2003/377.
 
Julia

I don't think this case would be classed as a wrap.

The title would pass to the new owner straight away and the new owner wouldn't have the right to reside in the property until settlement.

It is just the deposit that is being paid in installments.
 
I am with Terry on this one having just done it on a couple of properties.

The Vendor Finance portion has been treated as funds received today despite payble over the next 5 years and I have been taxed accordingly.
Thankfully the loan is in my SMSF so 15% is a lot less than it could have been.
 
Back
Top