GST confusion continues..

[Stevegoodey]

It's frightening how much confusion there still is around GST claims for Property investors and property traders.

This zinger is from the December Property investors magazine by Mark Withers.

"One common trap is a GST registered property trader buying from an unregistered vendor incorrectly thinking they can claim GST."


For those of you who are rightly confused, a GST registered trader "Can" claim the GST from an unregistered vendor.

Ouch....

[Damap]

Nice to see Mark just as umm, well, "qualified" as when I knew him Steve :-) .

[Rosco]

Looking forward to reading the article :-)

[donna]

If the article is not written by Mark - it may have been written incorrectly.... I wonder if he's watching this thread?

cheers,

Donna

[Rosco]

It's frightening how much confusion there still is around GST claims for Property investors and property traders.

This zinger is from the December Property investors magazine by Mark Withers.

"One common trap is a GST registered property trader buying from an unregistered vendor incorrectly thinking they can claim GST."


For those of you who are rightly confused, a GST registered trader "Can" claim the GST from an unregistered vendor.

Ouch....

Just read page 35 of the property magazine, and as you put it is clearly wrong!

Property Traders obviously need to be very careful around GST and especially CZR. But a GST registered property trader who buys a trading property from a non GST registered vendor, can make a second hand GST claim, and claim the GST on the purchase.

Ross

[Stevegoodey]

When I brought it to the attention of the Property investor magazine I got this reply.

"Hi Steven. Just spoke to Mark Withers and this was his response -
I should have written Registered vendor not Unregistered vendor.
Where a property trader buys from an unregistered vendor they are entitled to an input tax claim provided the vendor is not an associated party. Registered vendor to registered vendor though the compulsory zero rating rules apply and no refund is generally available.
My apologies for the slip."

So it wasn't a print error or a mis quote.

I genuinely wonder if Mark was mistaken or didn't have total understanding of the rule?

[Wayne]

2 letters makes a huge difference to the message - Un

[Keys]

Interesting. Many don't proof read what the write. Often I go back over something I've written and edited a word here, phrase there. When sending an article to a magazine the option for editing just is not there any more.

Although that ^ looks OK, it was edited about 5 times before I clicked the button. From moving words to correcting spelling errors. There may still be grammatical errors and such like in it though.

Gotta giggle. The word bookwork jumped up as a word needing correcting (red line under it). But if you put one of these : before and after it you get:

[donna]

That's the big diff. betw. online and print - editing is avail. online.

cheers,

Donna

[Wayne]

Interesting. Many don't proof read what the write.

what they write

[Wayne]

Note that it is the case in this instance but I find the proof reading in the Property mag to be poor - far to many simple mistakes.
News papers are no better.

[Keys]

what they write

Mwah hah hah hah.

Ouch. Got me!

[BigDreamer]

what they write

Haha - I'm guilty of not proof reading what I write most of the time.