马上注册,结交更多好友,享用更多功能,让你轻松玩转社区。
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?FreeOZ用户注册
x
请问大家试过用superannuation买房吗?据说是可行的。看以下的报道。
Super opens doors to property
Katherine Towers
From: Herald Sun
April 21, 2008 12:00AM
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email
Share
prop
SUPERANNUATION, itself, is complicated. Add in words such as funds, schemes, trustees, concessional tax rates and borrowings, and things start getting really tricky.
Throw in "instalment warrants", "limited recourse loans" or "packaged debt deals" and people understandably throw up their hands in confused frustration.
These terms have become the latest conversation catch-words since the Australian Taxation Office recently put out a clarification on changes which has opened up a new investment option for self-managed superannuation funds.
In a nutshell, pre-Christmas changes to the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act (SIS Act) mean Australia's 370,000 self-managed superannuation funds can now borrow to buy property.
So mums and dads with a DIY super fund can borrow by using their self-managed super fund. Before this change, superannuation funds - which have concessional rates of tax - were not allowed to borrow to buy an asset.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Now you can. But there's a catch.
You can only borrow and invest using a non-recourse loan called an "instalment warrant".
Although they might not be aware of it, instalment warrants were used by mum and dad investors during the Telstra float. They paid a small percentage of the upfront share price and borrowed the balance, which was repaid by instalments until they owned the shares outright.
What the new laws mean is that people can borrow within their super in a similar way, to buy an investment property for example.
The borrowers then repay the lender in instalments under an instalment warrant arrangement.
This differs to a normal mortgage in that the repayments are not spread over 20-25 years but are, for example, made in three big payments say in two to five years until the loan is fully repaid.
The security over the investment property is the "warrant" (held by the lender) and the repayments are the "instalments" (paid by the borrower) hence instalment warrants.
"The changes mean that as long as an investment is made under an instalment warrant arrangement and the asset is one that a SMSF is permitted to acquire under the SIS Act, then a self-managed super fund can theoretically invest in any asset," Maddocks tax partner Michael Taylor-Sands said.
"What's now happened since the reform is that a couple of banks and non-banks have released products (packaged debt deals effectively) allowing SMSFs to buy property using instalment warrant arrangements."
But it gets even more complicated. Under the new laws the loan must be "limited recourse".
This means the lender can only get back a specific asset -- the investment property to which the instalment warrant relates -- if the instalments are not paid in full.
The lender can't make you sell your other investment properties, or sell your luxury liner, if you breach your instalment obligations.
Mr Taylor-Sands said the limited recourse nature of the loan means there are restrictions.
"A key limitation is a commercial one in that the lender, being the product issuer will only lend a certain amount against an asset because they have limited recourse to that asset to recover the amount lent," he said.
Mr Taylor-Sands said tax experts were still absorbing the changes to the laws and, more specifically, the ATO's clarification. But he said most experts agree that while an instalment warrant arrangement could be used by a self-managed super fund to gear into the property market, they couldn't use such arrangements to borrow money to finance property development or construction.
"A lot of people, including mums and dads, think that if they buy a block of land and put a couple of townhouses on it they are going to make a million dollars.
"Under the new laws, an instalment warrant arrangement can be used to buy the block of land but the prevailing view is that it cannot be used to fund the development cost."
* Katherine Towers is YourMoney legal writer: ktowers@iprimus.com.au |