Wow, reading that summary the result actually went the opposite way to my expectation. I kind of agree with the fact that having a fully encumbered property means the mortgagees needed to have been asked permission for the sale... the flow on will be interesting.
Vendor owes a bucketload of money to ATO
- Thread starter danwatto
- Start date
Wow, reading that summary the result actually went the opposite way to my expectation. I kind of agree with the fact that having a fully encumbered property means the mortgagees needed to have been asked permission for the sale... the flow on will be interesting.
Thanks Paul
By legal advice - do you mean from the Conveyancer? I am using a solicitor rather than a licensed conveyancer so will be seeking his advice.
For GST - are you referring to GST charged on new properties? This is a very old house, so there should be no GST.
I had one like this 15 years ago ,the ATO had a caveat over the property I signed a contract with a simple add on clause on conditional that the caveat was taken off by the time came to settlement I think from memory ,the contract fell over 3 times the vendor was in the correctional centre and was looking at a long custodial sentence,,his Mother was dealing with the Agents,each time it came to settlement they would just give me the deposit back ,I would just walki in the next day and sign another contract,when that one did settle the ATO paid out prior to the settlement,i only paided 53k for the property and the ato was paided $37.k. still have that property..
RE agent calls me today and says everything will be ok, that they will not release the deposit held in trust to the ATO, and that it will only be paid at settlement.
Also they said the Bank and their commission, all fees etc will get paid first and ATO last. Vendor even went so far as to say there will be no delay in settlement it will still happen on Wednesday!
That would be ideal - however I want that confirmation from my Solicitor not the ATO.
Solicitor says I am very "unlucky" and these cases are extremely rare
Will wait and see what happens when more information comes back via Solicitor.
I think it will be a good idea to also let my Bank know soon, as they will be careful not to release funds if they are not getting good title.
Also they said the Bank and their commission, all fees etc will get paid first and ATO last. Vendor even went so far as to say there will be no delay in settlement it will still happen on Wednesday!
That would be ideal - however I want that confirmation from my Solicitor not the ATO.
Solicitor says I am very "unlucky" and these cases are extremely rare
Will wait and see what happens when more information comes back via Solicitor.I think it will be a good idea to also let my Bank know soon, as they will be careful not to release funds if they are not getting good title.
This is exactly why you DONT USE a conveyancer. Good you are using a solicitor. The conveyancers cant help when the ***** hits the fan. Ok - NO GST issues. Good.
Hi Paul, sorry you might have misread, it says I'm not using a conveyancer but a Solicitor.
Is this sufficient or are you saying I need a separate solicitor that specialises in tax cases?
I think you might have misread. He said good that you're using a solicitor.
Who do you use btw?
RE agent calls me today and says everything will be ok, that they will not release the deposit held in trust to the ATO, and that it will only be paid at settlement.
Also they said the Bank and their commission, all fees etc will get paid first and ATO last. Vendor even went so far as to say there will be no delay in settlement it will still happen on Wednesday!
That would be ideal - however I want that confirmation from my Solicitor not the ATO.
Solicitor says I am very "unlucky" and these cases are extremely rare
I think it will be a good idea to also let my Bank know soon, as they will be careful not to release funds if they are not getting good title.
While they mention the ATO the actual party handling this will be the AGS (Aust Govt Solicitor). The banks see this stuff all the time and its just part of property settlements. It can delay but if all paperwork and ATO bank cheque are in order it will be OK. Yes its normal the agent is instructed to not release any $ - even their own fee.
It continually amuses me how people seem to think they can just choose not to comply with laws that they don't like, or that don't seem logical, or that they're not aware of.
Finally settled today, only 2 days late.
Solicitor didn't proceed until received letter from ATO confirming what funds they would take and where from.
ATO confirmed would only take the leftover funds, and from the Vendor's not from us.
Took 3 days to get hold of the contact from the letter at the ATO though, but all worked out in the end.
Solicitor didn't proceed until received letter from ATO confirming what funds they would take and where from.
ATO confirmed would only take the leftover funds, and from the Vendor's not from us.
Took 3 days to get hold of the contact from the letter at the ATO though, but all worked out in the end.
As has been stated, it makes it a bit tricky but is not unusual. The ATO still wants the sale to proceed as it will give them funds so just see your solicitor ASAP and they will make sure it's attended to.
EDIT. Sorry didn't read to the end of all the posts! Good to hear you settled.
EDIT. Sorry didn't read to the end of all the posts! Good to hear you settled.
ATO gets hands on off-market sale
Thought that I would reopen this recent thread with a 'live' case.
The case in question (in a nutshell), the vendor supposedly owes the ATO several $M. The sale proceeds will provide the ATO some relief from this debt. The vendor is delaying settlement.
Can the vendor frustrate the contract & settle with the purchaser to avoid having to pay the ATO one cent? Will the purchasers (partner in a big 5 law firm) be content with an out of court settlement & repudiation of the contract? The vendor has already put their solicitor on the case.
This'll be an interesting one to watch play out.
Thought that I would reopen this recent thread with a 'live' case.
The case in question (in a nutshell), the vendor supposedly owes the ATO several $M. The sale proceeds will provide the ATO some relief from this debt. The vendor is delaying settlement.
Can the vendor frustrate the contract & settle with the purchaser to avoid having to pay the ATO one cent? Will the purchasers (partner in a big 5 law firm) be content with an out of court settlement & repudiation of the contract? The vendor has already put their solicitor on the case.
This'll be an interesting one to watch play out.
It certainly will be. Many people are surprised at the powers of the ATO.
In that case the big difference is the Vendors unwillingness to give the ATO a cent.
Therefore they would rather keep their house as an asset than give it to the ATO.. I can imagine once you've paid the ATO it would be very difficult to get it back.
What's interesting is they tried to quietly sell it. I could speculate that they didn't think they ATO debt was officially owed yet since it was still being challenged, maybe this is why they weren't worried about selling?
Even if the sale went though, holding cash is a risk, since the ATO can just garnish it from their bank account. Unless they planned to send it overseas
In my case the vendor had no problem paying the ATO, although it was probably sooner than they wished!
Therefore they would rather keep their house as an asset than give it to the ATO.. I can imagine once you've paid the ATO it would be very difficult to get it back.
What's interesting is they tried to quietly sell it. I could speculate that they didn't think they ATO debt was officially owed yet since it was still being challenged, maybe this is why they weren't worried about selling?
Even if the sale went though, holding cash is a risk, since the ATO can just garnish it from their bank account. Unless they planned to send it overseas
In my case the vendor had no problem paying the ATO, although it was probably sooner than they wished!
Similar threads
