If i was to buy a property,
Where is it recorded if the split is NOT 50/50 (equal shares)? ie .
if it was say 90/10 %
Where is it recorded if the split is NOT 50/50 (equal shares)? ie .
if it was say 90/10 %
Where is % ownership recorded
- Thread starter Gill Bates
- Start date
The split is derived from the type of tenancy. If you are "tenants in common" then you can nominate the percentage of the ownership split. If "Joint tenants" then the ownership is considered to be 100% for both parties. It is generally a form of tenure used by married couples, who, as joint tenants, are both considered to have an indivisible ownership of 100% in the property.
At least, that's what they taught me at Law school !!!!!
At least, that's what they taught me at Law school !!!!!
To Savanna100,
do u know where it is recorded? especially non equal splits?
do u know where it is recorded? especially non equal splits?
Dear Savanna,
For asset protection purposes, what would be the procedure in converting 'Title' ownership of 'Joint Tenants' i.e. 100% ownership (or 50/50 split) between spouses to 'Tenants in Common' i.e. 99% / 1% split.
Are there any tax implications, duties or changes in documentation as the parties in interest don't change, just the ratios
John H
For asset protection purposes, what would be the procedure in converting 'Title' ownership of 'Joint Tenants' i.e. 100% ownership (or 50/50 split) between spouses to 'Tenants in Common' i.e. 99% / 1% split.
Are there any tax implications, duties or changes in documentation as the parties in interest don't change, just the ratios
John H
You would be best to check with both the office of state revenue and the land titles office.......they really know their stuff and can give you a detailed and accurate answer far better than me !
I do know that sometime stamp duty isn't payable if the changes are required by the family Court.
good luck with it all
I do know that sometime stamp duty isn't payable if the changes are required by the family Court.
good luck with it all
Hi John
At the risk of lecturing
, I'd suggest that you should perhaps take a step back and look at asset protection in the context of your overall financial plan. You need to identify your risk factors and the available options to mitigate and manage those risks, including for example insurance. You need to consider which structure or combination of ownership/control structures provides the best compromise of benefits vs drawbacks and most importantly is flexible enough to allow you to achieve your financial objectives - one of which is obviously wealth protection.*apologies that I'm sounding like a financial planning ad here!*
Turning specifically to what you have asked...what you are proposing to do is a tranfer of part of your interest in the land to your spouse. There are likely to be stamp duty implications. The reason is that most jurisdictions only give stamp duty relief where one spouse owns the whole property and is tranferring from their sole name into joint names following marriage. It also has to be equally held to qualify for the exemption.
What you are proposing wouldn't cut it in qld at least to qualify for the stamp duty exemption Savanna has mentioned.
If this is your PPOR then your approach may be a valid one from an asset protection perspective as you probably don't want to lose your CGT exemption. However, you should weight that up against the likelihood of being sued, the timeframe in which that could happen and the cost of moving the house into a structure.
If the property is not your PPOR then definitely query whether this is the best approach for asset protection. There will also be CGT on the sale by one spouse to the other (provided of course it's not a pre-cgt asset).
If one of you has an inherently risky profession from a liability perspective then it may be best in the long run to just bite the bullet now and pay the stamp duty and CGT costs and move the asset into a trust.
You must talk to your lawyer.
Good luck
N.
Nigel, you said
"What you are proposing wouldn't cut it in qld at least to qualify for the stamp duty exemption Savanna has mentioned."
The only exemption I mentioned is based on orders from the Family Court. The Family Law Act 1975 is federal law and applies everywhere (even in Qld) and has precidence over state law.
I totally agree that John should get expert advice, including financial advice, as what he may need to eventually do is probably very complicated.
"What you are proposing wouldn't cut it in qld at least to qualify for the stamp duty exemption Savanna has mentioned."
The only exemption I mentioned is based on orders from the Family Court. The Family Law Act 1975 is federal law and applies everywhere (even in Qld) and has precidence over state law.
I totally agree that John should get expert advice, including financial advice, as what he may need to eventually do is probably very complicated.
