sharetrader
Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 172
  1. #101
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Bright line test, ring fencing of rental losses, removal of building depreciation for starters. None of those apply to other businesses, including commercial property.
    If owning an investment residential property and renting it out is a business, are there any requirements for it to be a going-concern in order for expenses to continue to be deducted for tax purposes?

  2. #102
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    In the unlikely and very extreme event of a diversified share portfolio "disappearing", I´d say our housing market would be in serious trouble also. Best for the banks not to lend anything, just in case the sky falls in !!!
    I'm not arguing the bank's position here, just stating reasons why they take that position. As investors we (mostly) prefer diversified portfolios; from a bank's perspective, diversification increases complexity and oversight. Tutorial over.

  3. #103
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    If owning an investment residential property and renting it out is a business, are there any requirements for it to be a going-concern in order for expenses to continue to be deducted for tax purposes?
    Depends what you mean by going concern. Is it a taxable activity - yes. Does it have income - depends. Does it make a profit - yes.

    I think you may mean something like how long is it OK to make a loss before IRD comes knocking. AFAIK there is no (published) set rule, but IRD systems have a lot of checks and balances and they might well check if there is a pattern of losses. IRD will no doubt take into account when a property was purchased as that can skew the income / expenses ratio.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Why the one house limit? Either tax capital gains - or don't.
    It's recognized having shelter (or a roof over your head) is a necessity. The issue on taxation should be based on necessity. For everything else, yes you should tax it because there's the intent for profit or gain. The single home owner has no intention for profiting other than to keep a roof over their head. I've just read in Silicon Valley there are IT workers living out of RVs and motorhomes because they're able to save (or basically make the sacrifice to save in order to get into a house later on).

    There are not many countries that impose a capital gains tax on everything. Even in the US as the principal residence is entitled to tax free capital gain between moving houses.

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    If owning an investment residential property and renting it out is a business, are there any requirements for it to be a going-concern in order for expenses to continue to be deducted for tax purposes?
    The example the CRA uses in Canada is if you rent the house out, then the capital gains are also taxable. ANY ongoing investment portfolio that runs like a "BUSINESS" with the intent to "MAKE A PROFIT" is always going to attract capital gains tax and not just the annual rental income that is taxed after deductions. In fact, CRA model for taxation is very extensive to have 3 areas of taxation when a person looks to profit. You have salary & wage income, dividend income from investments, and capital gain ; all are treated differently with different tax rates. IRD in NZ is way too lenient in allowing the use of real estate as a way to escape tax when compared to other investment or business models.

  6. #106
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    ... IRD in NZ is way too lenient in allowing the use of real estate as a way to escape tax when compared to other investment or business models.
    There is no CGT in New Zealand, though there are situations where a capital gain is treated as income for tax purposes. The current government campaigned on a CGT, then set up a tax working group that (eventually) came to the CGT party. Next minute, the Prime Minister made a captain's call and canned it.

    There were some exceptions to the proposed GST, like main home, small businesses sold to fund the owner's retirement, baches. The exceptions were not thought through and kept being added to or changed with voter feedback. It was heading for a big unpopular mess and a potential game changer for the government. So, gone.

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    There is no CGT in New Zealand, though there are situations where a capital gain is treated as income for tax purposes. The current government campaigned on a CGT, then set up a tax working group that (eventually) came to the CGT party. Next minute, the Prime Minister made a captain's call and canned it.

    There were some exceptions to the proposed GST, like main home, small businesses sold to fund the owner's retirement, baches. The exceptions were not thought through and kept being added to or changed with voter feedback. It was heading for a big unpopular mess and a potential game changer for the government. So, gone.
    Yes i'm aware IRD will simply treat property gains as straight income gains whereas in Canada, the same situation would be the capital gain would be simply treated as capital gains tax (a different rate / criteria). My problem is in NZ, there is no clear distinction for those 'buying houses with the intent to make a profit.... but hold the property well after the 2 or 5 year brightline test' and therefore able to sell the house without IRD being aware of any knowing that rental income has been collected on the property. They've basically kept a complete blind eye on this area with no internal checks. For eg in Vancouver the city council compile records on how the property is used. ie. say if the person intends to rent a portion of the house out, then they require a rental license from the local city council ; for which the home owner has to declare on their insurance policy, for which the home owner has to apportion what % of the house is rented out to the CRA so when the time comes they sell the house, ONLY that % portion NOT used as rental is tax free on their principal residence (under the change of use of the principal residence act). Even leaving the house vacant, the City of Vancouver compiles that data and forwards it to the federal level.

    Ms Ardern is a joke. Spent all this $ on an independent TWG - only to say no against their advice. Why was there a lack of communication between her Labour Party caucus and the TWG, WITH the NZ public? What came to her decision? What factors she did not like? The people voted her in to address housing affordability and she's failed miserably in this area. While countries like Canada have made great efforts to address affordability while at the same time, discouraging the incentive to use houses as a profiting tool. Because having grown up in Canada, only very few people i've come across make big $ from owning real estate; the vast majority have made their wealth on the sharemarket. But as i've said before in another thread, NZ's tax structure clearly discourages direct investment in foreign shares that fall under the FIF regime. Those living abroad wanting to reside in NZ would be hit with FIF on their overseas investments - yielding the only migrants that come to NZ are the poor ones that have no significant assets abroad.

  8. #108
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Yes i'm aware IRD will simply treat property gains as straight income gains whereas in Canada, the same situation would be the capital gain would be simply treated as capital gains tax (a different rate / criteria). My problem is in NZ, there is no clear distinction for those 'buying houses with the intent to make a profit.... but hold the property well after the 2 or 5 year brightline test' and therefore able to sell the house without IRD being aware of any knowing that rental income has been collected on the property. They've basically kept a complete blind eye on this area with no internal checks. For eg in Vancouver the city council compile records on how the property is used. ie. say if the person intends to rent a portion of the house out, then they require a rental license from the local city council ; for which the home owner has to declare on their insurance policy, for which the home owner has to apportion what % of the house is rented out to the CRA so when the time comes they sell the house, ONLY that % portion NOT used as rental is tax free on their principal residence (under the change of use of the principal residence act). Even leaving the house vacant, the City of Vancouver compiles that data and forwards it to the federal level.

    Ms Ardern is a joke. Spent all this $ on an independent TWG - only to say no against their advice. Why was there a lack of communication between her Labour Party caucus and the TWG, WITH the NZ public? What came to her decision? What factors she did not like? The people voted her in to address housing affordability and she's failed miserably in this area. While countries like Canada have made great efforts to address affordability while at the same time, discouraging the incentive to use houses as a profiting tool. Because having grown up in Canada, only very few people i've come across make big $ from owning real estate; the vast majority have made their wealth on the sharemarket. But as i've said before in another thread, NZ's tax structure clearly discourages direct investment in foreign shares that fall under the FIF regime. Those living abroad wanting to reside in NZ would be hit with FIF on their overseas investments - yielding the only migrants that come to NZ are the poor ones that have no significant assets abroad.
    Yet interestingly in NZ, there has never been a fund to invest in residential property. There are funds for commercial property. I asked Brian Gaynor a while back why this was. He said it has been tried in the past but it just does not work. There is no money to be made in residential property. (in other words its too hard). So I do not think there are profiting mechanisms with residential property. I manage three rentals that have appreciated in value the last 10 years, but if I go back and work out the return after all costs, I would be better off having put my money in the stock market. Once the growth in capital value that we have seen the last 10 years plateaus, it is going to be a season of discontent for those holding residential property.
    Last edited by blackcap; 16-12-2019 at 07:32 AM.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Yet interestingly in NZ, there has never been a fund to invest in residential property. There are funds for commercial property. I asked Brian Gaynor a while back why this was. He said it has been tried in the past but it just does not work. There is no money to be made in residential property. (in other words its too hard). So I do not think there are profiting mechanisms with residential property. I manage three rentals that have appreciated in value the last 10 years, but if I go back and work out the return after all costs, I would be better off having put my money in the stock market. Once the growth in capital value that we have seen the last 10 years plateaus, it is going to be a season of discontent for those holding residential property.
    If you take your time frame longer, you'll find residential houses would perform better than shares. Of course subject to what houses or shares you buy - I would speak specifically houses in the Auckland market because i've seen many of my cousins that bought houses there shortly after 2000. The amount of windfall in gains is immense if they were to sell today. For the same period, you've had a dot come crash and a GFC.

    Reason why no residential property funds? Because in the similar fashion with commercial properties ; the residential holding will be subjected to tax on the gains and rental incomes, for which the net result is little or no gain. HOWEVER, to the individual landlord.... that structures buying a bunch of residential properties over many years while collecting rental income, can sell over the long long term without paying a $1 in tax. As I mentioned before, no one considers taxation.. not even the manage funds in Kiwi Saver that addresses the taxation for investors. They talk about fancy annual returns over so many years but they're not net of taxes they pay and taxes that the individual has paid.

    I seen the stock market crashes.... without a doubt, Auckland residential property has an advantage.

  10. #110
    FEAR n GREED JBmurc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    8,476

    Default

    Not sure how many on here read the "NZ Property investor mag" but now and again I get an issue and as I've enjoyed many a good investment return in NZ Property I like to keep up to date with present market >>

    Now in the latest issue I read a piece on "Why you should take interest only loans over your investment properties" and forget about paying off the debts as NZ property only goes higher in value on average 10% pa so just use the increased equity you get and buy more and more properties on I.O and never pay the properties off.

    Surely we must be getting to peak Property love here in NZ as looking over the average yields nationwide on current average selling prices we see yields of 3-6% so no wonder I.O lending is all the rave as after an ever increasing insurance/rates costs taxes etc not going be much if capital left to pay down any of the actually property purchase price .. pure madness IMHO
    seems like the core investment plan of many is BUY and hope for Cap gain as in the past it worked great so why would it top now
    Last edited by JBmurc; 16-12-2019 at 08:35 PM.
    "With a good perspective on history, we can have a better understanding of the past and present, and thus a clear vision of the future." — Carlos Slim Helu

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •