Call me dumb but what is the exact definition of "Family home'?
Can a de facto partner have a family home? Can I have a family home also?. Can a family trust have a family home also?.
Printable View
Call me dumb but what is the exact definition of "Family home'?
Can a de facto partner have a family home? Can I have a family home also?. Can a family trust have a family home also?.
Your RV will be higher as there will be actual sales data for that property. Where as mine has no sales data - so all they can do is tweak it by whatever % they reckon is right.
Edit. Heres a wee test. Flash house opposite me has just got a "sold" sign put on it. RV = $900,000. Went on the market Oct 2018 under auction - didn't sell. Then listed for $845,000 (around what I thought it would go for) and didn't sell. Now advertised at $798,000. I'll keep an eye out for actual sale price
Yes we got new RV last year i think it was upto 690k I see these days the banks uses some online instant valuer I guess like QV.co.nz can do early last year the bank believed are property was worth $815k ...insane lift in value... if the misses would allow me I'd list it for $850k and if sold go back renting for a year or two as these values aren't going to last
I was at my bank the other day and they used www.homes.co.nz for instant valuations
Its quite a good site - but there is about a six month lag between sale and the new records being shown on the property. I use it as a broad guide - but to try and get a firmer idea on value you need a few more sales. Fine if you are in an area with lots of sales. Not so good if they are infrequent.
Can also get property estimates from Trademe, including rent estimates, where the sources of data are clearly spelt out. Not sure how the data sources compare to homes.co.nz but easy to compare anyway. Trademe has a lot of data from their many thousands of listings, and also produce quite comprehensive sale and rent analyses each month.
Family Home would be simply "Primary Residence" - that's the term the Cdn Income Tax Act defines. You can NOT have more than 1 primary residence. The common sense "reasonable person test" applies. Such as a married couple is expected to be living in ONE place together. A "reasonable person" would not choose to live in SEPARATE houses where each partner has their own home in their name. This has been tried many times in Canada for the sake of avoiding capital gains tax but with mandatory tax filing, the CRA computers use AI to match tax returns to the land information data base. If IRD has any inclination to be smart about implementing new taxation like CGT, they better do a good job copying the wording of the tax acts in places like Canada.
As for the previous recent replies about setting a "Valuation Date", I don't think it's a problem at all. Sure there will be some that may disagree with valuations but as far as CGT goes, in 5 or 10 years time these valuations will be reset by actual "Cost Base" figures (simply the figure that the price of the house was traded at). You will find those that want to pay less CGT would want to have the highest valuation as possible. While those that own their primary residence, would prefer to have the lowest valuation as to minimise the amount of rates / property taxes to pay.
Yes just brought that up on PT forum >>> and did call HSBC up to see how hard it would be to shift waiting on a callback...
be good to least be able to take the offer to the current bank and see if they can match the deal ..on current loans 3.69% would be a saving of over $3k pa
Thanks SBQ and Artemis
I knew I was trying to be too clever!!:t_up:
Out of idle curiosity, how do the TWG's proposals align with other countries GCT regimes?
Which countries tax what, at what rate, with what exemptions? What's the treatment of losses? What is or isn't ring-fenced? Are they simple? Are they complicated? What's the compliance burden? What's the workload like for the various versions of IRD? What sort of a contribution does it make to the overall tax take?
Something a little bit deeper than the TWG's report, or the parroting of "Other countries have a CGT so New Zealand should too" would be a welcome addition to the debate.
@ GTM_3442 - I can speak about Canada as I grew up in Canada.
In short, the Cdn income tax system is extremely complex and I mean virtually all filers would most be unaware of any tax laws they've broken. Even accountants and lawyers have a tough time deciphering the act. My tax prof (back in the 90s) explained the excessive complication was simply due to lawyers and accountants fighting in court and the wording to plug up loop holes which resulted in the ITA being over 1 million words long.
Generally speaking, Canada has 3 types of income for taxation; (A) working income, interest income, royalties, & bonuses, (B) Dividend Income, & (C) Capital Gains. The latter attracts the lowest form of taxation. The calculation for CGT in Canada is very straight forward. You take the sale price minus the 'adjusted cost base' which is the sale price (or FMV) less expenses related. For eg. buying stocks on the share market you can deduct commissions or related expense. When a person dies, deemed disposition applies which means 'fair market value' is factored. In the case of stocks, they just take the day's trading price. For real estate, generally the CRA will accept any reputable valuation if the GV or RV is disputed by the tax filer. After you calculate the gain, THEN you take HALF of that gain and pocket it. The OTHER HALF is what goes towards 'taxable income'. The reason why you pocket half of the gain as tax free is due to factoring inflation (and also saves a lot of computing of inflation rates over the years).
The most remarkable advantage Cdn residents have in terms of taxation is their ability to structure their income for taxation. Generally the rich and wealthy have like 90% of their income in the form of capital gains (very similar to the US model of how much tax the very rich pay). But it's not all for the rich that benefit, the working class (middle class) have ways to forego taxation on their income through investments like Kiwi Saver (called RRSPs). Up to 18% of the person's income can be allocated to a pension fund similar to Kiwi Saver. Then upon retirement, the pensioner can structure their fund to pay tax on those gains in the form of CGT (and typically most pensioners don't have working wage income so they would be on the low tax bracket). This is a VERY different model to NZ and i'm not sure how IRD would fit this model?
I can understand why so many in NZ are against CGT. Because they've paid tax on their earnings and then get taxed on the gains when they invest their after tax income. Perhaps it's the fault of NZ's simplistic income tax approach? Like having no exceptions with GST vs Canada has no GST on essential services (doctors / medical / fresh foods /etc), no CGT on principal dwelling home.
The TWG talks of a 'broad base tax' which is different to Canada where you have many exemptions that cater to specific special groups like 1st Nations. IMO a fair tax system should have exemptions because people are not all the same. Some have special high earning abilities, some groups are disadvantaged from birth, and this is the nature of being human and so taxation should be more adaptive than being a 1 size fits all approach.
This week it emerged that while the Tax Working Group has disbanded, Cullen has had his contract extended by the Government.
Cabinet papers show Cullen was to be paid $1062 a day in his role as chairman of the TWG.
“We extended his appointment as the chair of the TWG to 30 June because we were aware there would be extended public discussion on the report, and this has played out,” Finance Minister Grant Robertson said in a statement
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/03/c..._national.html