The executor of an estate has fiduciary duties to maximise the estate of the decreased. There can be conflicts of interest where someone is both executor and they apply, in their personal capacity, for the superannuation death benefits of the deceased, and this is because they are trying to avoid having the super death benefits paid into the estate, to benefit themselves.
Mum and Dad divorce many years ago, son dies without a will. Son has about $40k in assets plus about $400,000 in super death benefits. Under the intestacy laws where a person dies without a spouse and children then both parents will benefit equally from the estate.
The issue here is that $40k is in the estate and will go to each parent in the share of $20k each.
If the superfund pays the death benefits to the estate the parents will get another $200,000 each.
If the superfund pays the mum, dad will miss out on $200k and similar if the superfund pays dad.
But, by mum applying for the benefit herself she is depriving the estate the money which means she is potentially breaching her duties as executor. As executor she should be asking the superfund to pay the money into the estate – it is her legal duty to do so.
Moral of the story – seek legal advice before accepting the position of executor, especially if the deceased
This strategy is simple yet often overlooked.
Strategy: When buying a new main residence borrow 80% to acquire it, whether you need to or not.
Bart has $400,000 cash and wants to buy a new main residence for $500,000. He plans to borrow $100,000 and then later set up a LOC to invest.
He borrows $100,000 and settles on the purchase. Then he asks for a $100,000 LOC and the bank starts asking questions. Eventually, after giving a DNA sample Bart is approved, but they want a statement of advice from a financial planner saying that Bart will invest in shares.
Lisa is in the exact same situation. Lisa gets some credit and tax advice and borrows $400,000 to buy her main residence. At application stage she splits the loan appropriately so that at settlement she can pay down 2 loan splits and is left with one split with $100,000 outstanding.
In summary, Lisa has overcome the cash out restrictions and gotten a lower interest rate.
If someone sells a property and has a large capital gain is it worthwhile taking a whole year off work to save tax? In my view it is always great to take a year off work, but it might not actually save you that much tax.
Richie Rich is about to sell an investment property with a $200,000 capital gain. He is sick of it under performing and draining him with land taxand has a low yield. Richie is toying with the idea of taking a whole year off work to save CGT. Is it worth it?
Let’s assume Richie earns $100,000 in his job, and the sale will happen in the 2018-2019 financial year.
If he sells the $200,000 gain will be reduced to $100,000(due to holding it longer than 12 months) and added to his other income for the tax year. The result is an annual income of $200,000
Tax on $100,000 $26,117 Net income $73,883
Tax on $200,000 $67,097 Net income $132,903
Difference $40,980 Difference $59,020
The Capital Gain will mean $40,980 in extra tax payable for the year.
This means by giving up a year’s income from work Richie would only earn $100,000 from the capital gain. Therefore, he will save $40,980 in tax by not working.
But not working means he has less income, working the full year in which the sale occurs will net him only $59,020 as opposed to his normal $73,883 (a difference of $14,863).
He would need to determine if the effort of working is worth the pay cut of $14,863 which is about $286 per week.
He should also factor in transport costs to work and other work-related costs – clothing, lunches etc. and there are also heaps of non-financial things to consider. There would be time to do other things such as:
Written by Terry Waugh of www.structuringlawyers.com.au
Company owned assets cannot be gifted by a person’s will. This is because they don’t own the assets, the company does. However, if the person owns the shares in the company these shares can be gifted, as long as not owned as trustee.
Bart calls the property at 123 Smith street ‘his’property. But it is owned by a company of which Bart is the director and sole shareholder. Bart simply ignores the existence of the company in his thinking.
In Bart’s will he leaves 123 Smith street to his friend Millhouse and the rest of his assets to Barney. The property is worth $500,000 and the rest of Bart’s assets are worth $400,000.
What’s the issue?
Moral of the story – understand your ownership structure and act appropriately.
Written by Terryw, estate planning lawyer at www.structuringlawyers.com.au
It is best not to use cash as deposit for an investment property, especially if you will have a main residence loan. Using cash on an investment reduces your deductions and increases your non-deductible interest.
But what do you do if you don’t have a main residence at the moment, but at looking to acquire one soon?
It is possible to use cash as security for a loan. Normally you may not want to or need to do this, but it is possible, and it can assist with maintaining high interest deductions in some situations.
Generally, the security used for a loan does not affect the deductibility of interest. This means anything can be used as security for a loan without effecting the deductibility of interest. The security could be shares, cash or even a car.
The beauty of cash is that it doesn’t need to be valued or sold for the lender to recover its money so the potential LVR on a loan secured by cash is 100%.
Tom has $100,000 cash and wants to buy an investment property for $500,000 before he buys his Main Residence. He might be doing this because he has found a ‘bargain’.
Normally Tom would pay a $100,000 deposit and then borrow $400,000 for the $500,000 property. But doing this would mean that going forward Tom would have $100,000 less for the future main residence. He may be able to access it and borrow against the investment property, but this will have some bad tax consequences:
$100,000 x 5% = $5,000 less per year in tax deductions for the next x years (life of the loan).
So instead using the cash as a deposit Tom could use the $100,000 cash as security and borrow $500,000. Ideally this would be done in the form of 2 loans
Loan A $400,000 secured by a $500,000 property. LVR 80%
Loan B $100,000 secured by a $100,000 term deposit. LVR 100%.
Tom could wait for capital growth (from natural market increase and/or a quick reno) and then release the cash, or if Tom quickly buys the new main residence the cash could be released, and the main residence used as security for the investment loan.
This could happen like this:
Loan A $400,000 secured by the IP. interest deductible against the IP
Loan B $100,000 now secured by the main residence. Interest is deductible against theIP
Loan C $400,000 secured by the main residence. Interest not deductible. The $100,000 term deposit is released and used at settlement to pay for $100,000 of the purchase price of the main residence.
Overall 90% LVR.
As above. $500,000 property with a $500,000 loan secured by both the property and the cash.
After 2 years the property is now worth $625,000. Tom applies to remove the cash as security and the bank agrees as the LVR is now 80% based on the property value alone.
$100,000 cash is then used as deposit for the main residence. Tom has an extra $5,000 per year in tax deductions for the next 30 years plus.
Tom has 2 properties securing 2 loans at ABC Bank.
Tom sells his main residence and will buy a replacement main residence in a few months. The trouble is Tom didn’t realise that his investment property was also secured by the main residence. The investment property is relatively new and hasn’t grown in value so the bank is insisting that $100,000 of the proceeds of the sale of the main residence be used to reduce the loan on the investment property.
Tom refuses and the bank refuses to discharge the mortgage on his main residence so his sale cannot settle.
Luckily there is a solution. Tom lets the bank keep $100,000 from the sale in a term deposit and to use this as security for the investment property (as well as the investment property mortgage itself).
Then when Tom finds his new main residence he will offer this as security for the investment property and the $100,000 will be released.
The 3rd example is probably the more common situation in which the cash as security is used.
There is a cost to doing this – When cash is used as security it will be in the form of a term deposit with an interest rate much lower than what the bank is charging. So, Tom may lose 3% in rate – get charged 5% for the loan, but receive 2% interest for the term deposit. There are tax consequences of this too as this would not be deductible.
But hopefully the use of a term deposit will be brief, and the benefits can last many years to come.
Only authorised deposit taking institutions will allow for cash to be used as security.
Written by Terryw broker at www.loanstructuring.com.au
Discussion at https://www.propertychat.com.au/community/threads/loan-tip-using-cash-as-security-for-a-loan.36038/