Is property an actual investment ?

[fungus pudding]

For many ,like alot of investments, property investment is about timing.
I was fortunate to be in the right place at the right time to start a rental portfolio in 1996.
This was when residential properties with a 10% yield were very common.
Eventually,over a period of 5 years, I ended up with 6 rentals.
Most if not all of my residential properties recieved enough rent to cover all the cost. This worked for me because I cant stand negative gearing.
I was lucky to have hit the jackpot, for timing, as my rental investment value went up hugely over a 10 year period.
Tax free capital gains.
I sold every property I owned as soon as I had owned it for 10 years.
This is the undisputed time for the tax man.

I'm not sure where or how you got that idea, but I doubt if the taxman sees it so black and white. Length of ownership is one factor, but the taxman is more interested in the wider picture - and if there is one over-riding factor, it is intent.

[fungus pudding]

actually it was my accountant that informed me if you own a residentail investment for over 10 years there is no capital gains tax BLACK AND WHITE. Does not matter what your intent was if you have owned it over 10 years.
Any other period shorter than that it come's down what the taxman believe's your intent was WHICH CAN BE A VERY GREY AREA.
If you want clarity on the 10 year rule it is in black and white available from IRD.

Here is black and white from IRD site.

How long do I need to hold the property to make it a capital gain?

There is no time limit. If you buy a property with the firm intention of resale, it doesn’t matter how long you hold it - the gain on resale will be taxable (and any loss may be tax-deductible).



Example

You buy a property with a firm plan to resell it for a profit. The property market falls and you decide to hold onto it instead. You rent it out for 15 years and then sell it when the prices are again rising rapidly. Any gain on that sale 15 years later is likely to be taxable.


As I said, intent is the over-riding factor. I have never seen a mention of 10 years anywhere in IRD information. Intent is never a grey area as you claim.

[fungus pudding]

keep researching you will find it.
Unless of course they have altered there position on the 10 years since I sold my last property about 3 years ago.
I doubled check with what my accountant was telling me at the time directly with IRD some years ago so I know that was there ruling back then.

Nothing has changed, and I don't believe it is there to find. Perhaps you could find and post it?

[fungus pudding]

Like I said if it's not there IRD have had a play around with the rule.
It is not unusaul for them to do so.

I do not think you understand tax law. Any activity you undertake to make income is taxable. The IRD have no discretion whatsoever to make rules about who pays or to decide that something is no longer taxable because 10 years have passed. If it is deemed income by IRD it is taxable and always has been. Yes, you'll almost certainly get away without being taxed if you haven't traded or drawn attention to yourself and claim you bought for the income but it didn't work out, or you were sick of it, had kids now, more work in day job, blah blah etc. , but that is not to say there is a 10 year rule. You'd be in trouble if you admitted your plan was to sell after 10 years for the gain. Back in the early 70s when prices were going gangbusters like they do every so often, Wallace Rowling introduced a speculation tax to cool the market. If you sold within 6 months you were taxed 90% of the profit, and it abated to a lower amount every six months to zero after 10 years - but that was spec tax, not income tax. It didn't last long because it dried up the market and prices skyrocketed. (I've always been grateful to Labour for that cos I'd just bought a few) Introducing capital gains tax will have a similar effect but it will be a one off rise. (If Labour get in stock up on a few houses before the CGT is introduced, the tax will probably be 15% of profit as far as I can find out, but it will be a good move) Anyway, believe what you like. Just be careful about giving such advice to your mates.

[fungus pudding]

The IRD are constantly reviewing and changing all sorts of tax rules/laws.
Tax legislation is always changing.
I think my accountant calls it closing loop holes and my accountant is forced to go to several seminars a year, to keep his practice licience, because of all the rule changes.
So what are you on about.
Get your head out of the sand.

Of course they are always reviewing things, Tax is a very complex area but any law changes have to go through the minister. Govt. depts. cannot make or change law. There is not and never has been a 10 day rule. Argue all you like, but you'd be better spending your time finding out the truth if you don't believe me.

[fungus pudding]

To clear this up...
if you purchase a property as an "investment" (ie. with no intention to resell the property) then no tax is payable on any capital gains regardless of the length of time you owned it.
if you purchase a property with an intention of selling it you are deemed to be a "speculator" and tax is payable on the capital gains regardless of the length of time it was owned.
if you are a "dealer" in property (ie. you regularly buy/sell/develop property) there is a 10 year exemption period where property that was purchased as an investment and which was never part of the rest of the tradable property pool, is exempt from tax on the capital gains.

The 10 years in that case is one factor the IRD will consider, but it is not a hard and fast rule. If there is an apparently good (acceptable by the IRD) reason an investment can be sold in a shorter term by a trader without incurring tax. Equally if the IRD don't swallow the reasons stated, tax can be levied after 50 years. There is a degree of safety in that the IRD are unlikely to query the transaction after a lengthy term but nowhere to my knowledge is 10 years cast in stone. Nothing over-rides intent, and the IRD are not always convinced by what they are told. A trader selling an investment is always on slightly thin-ice, but the longer the term - the thicker the ice gets.

[JBmurc]

Interesting only lived in our Family trust home for 3-4yrs looking to sell accountant doesn't believe I'm liable to pay TAX and I have a history of trading /spec building within a company >>>>

[fungus pudding]

the ten year rule is enshrined in the legislation, so it most definitely is a hard and fast rule. Even the IRD has to comply with the actual law. Here, go read the Income Tax Act for yourself, in particular Section CB 9-11

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...LM1512301.html

As I read it, this defines sales within 10 years as income and points to exclusions. No argument with that, it's what I stated in my last post; but where does it state sales after 10 years are exempt?

(P.S. I'll go along with your previous post where you cover intention - regardless of length of ownership)

[fungus pudding]

It doesnt have to. The purpose of the Income Tax Act is to specify what IS income subject to tax, not what is not income. Just as the Crimes Act specifies what is a crime, not what is not a crime.
If the money earning activity is not covered by a specific clause in the Act, it cannot be declared to be income, and thus no income tax is payable.

There are many taxable earning activities not specifically covered by the act. Intent is what matters.

[fungus pudding]

All I know is my accountant assure's me that it is best practice for someone in my position to hold properties for at least 10 years and by doing that it covers the intent issue(very grey area) very nicely.
I trust his professional advice on property matters.

Precisely. It's best practise. All I have said, and your accountant will agree is that the 10 years is not cast in stone, or in law. The IRD will be the final judge on your intentions, and will not necessarily believe the taxpayers story. As far as having the final word - that's simply because various posters insist I am wrong yet will not cite the relevant tax ruling. That's because they can't.