What is leaking more Apartment buildings or Body Corporates (BC)?

[Davo36]

Naked revenue grab by our 'business friendly' National government.

Whacking the property investors just a little more.

[speights boy]

Hang on Davo.
Two leaky buildings side by side.
One an apartment with a BC, the other a standalone house.
Are you saying they should be treated differently on this ?

[Davo36]

Yes I do SB.

Because we're talking about the body corporate, not the apartments themselves - those would be on the same basis as the house next door.

But a BC is a small business, running an apartment complex.

Let me ask you these questions:

1) Say the building next door is an office block - they claim all their GST - so why should the apartment complex BC be treated any different?
2) Why should the apartment complex BC be treated any different to say a shop operating in the same area? Or any other small business?

[speights boy]

Strawman argument Davo.

The apartment block is not commercial.
Each owner in it pays residential rates.
The office block in your query earns income, the apartment block does not (as a single entity - the BC - is concerned)

The BC can't claim interest, rates, insurance as an expense for tax purposes.

If you call the BC a small business, why can't the owner of the house also be called a business....simply an even smaller business.

If a private house owner can't claim GST, I can't see the justification for allowing a private apartment owner to do so.

[elguapo]

But a BC is a small business, running an apartment complex.

Isn't it just a method of managing common property held by different parties? It's not any different to what an owner of a house has to do to maintain his property other than the fact there are multiple parties who have to agree. Could you set up a small business to maintain your houses and claim GST on the major works?

[Maccachic]

Court sends in new boss for Tower One

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11174599

[Aston]

"We" must stop speaking of a Body Corporate as some mysterious, bullying, body of authority that dwells up in the clouds.

"They" are not... You are the Body Corporate. Some posters on this thread appear to be level headed competent speakers with knowledge, passion and transparency. I ask the question, why are you not on the B.C. committee? In fact why are you not the B.C. Chairperson or the Committee Chairperson? Your posts on here suggest that you would be supported by most if not all Unit Owners of your respective Bodies Corporate. Remember also that any Unit Owner has the right to attend any meeting of the B.C. committee. If you suspect "them" of having "secret" meetings, then ask them. Ask when and who made particular decisions, that are not recorded in Committee minutes.

The B.C. Manager and the Building Manager work for you, if you don't like what they are doing, sack them. If they are employed under a contract, ask to see the contract. If you consider that they are in breach of contract, challenge them.

With regard to the Long Term Maintenance Plan, this is a requirement and it really needs to be prepared by an independent person/company that is experienced in the preparation of such documents. Also, the LTMP is a negotiated document, the B.C. must approve what goes into it. If you are not on the committee and you consider something in the LTMP to be unreasonable or incorrect, challenge it. If it is established that you are correct, then get the LTMP changed. Do not do a DIY job on the LTMP, unless you are prepared to be responsible for its contents.

With regard to the GST thing. A Body Corporate is not a business, it is simply an agent acting on behalf of Unit Owners. With respect Davo, you're wrong. I suppose in certain circumstances it could become a business but not generally. Not sure about that one.

[speights boy]

Agreed Aston.

Davo

Naked revenue grab by our 'business friendly' National government.
Whacking the property investors just a little more.

Not everyone is out to get you, you know.
Just be careful what you wish for as far as having a bleat about "revenue grab" policies.

[Davo36]

Agreed Aston.

Davo

Not everyone is out to get you, you know.
Just be careful what you wish for as far as having a bleat about "revenue grab" policies.

You're getting pretty patronising there mate.

And as for the strawman argument post, I stand by what I say, and actuqally was just quoting your own strawman argument back at you:

Two leaky buildings side by side.
One an apartment with a BC, the other a standalone house.

[speights boy]

And as for the strawman argument post, I stand by what I say, and actuqally was just quoting your own strawman argument back at you:

Actually not, ol' son.
Perhaps you didn't read the article.

This from Mr McClay.

He said other property owners could not register for GST or receive GST refunds for building repairs. Making the tax treatment of bodies corporate similar to other property owners was fairer, he said.

The Government themselves is using that argument.

[Davo36]

So the revenue minister says collecting a bit more revenue is 'fairer' and you use that as an argument?

So if I argued that it would be "fairer" for you to pay me $1000 per month in perpetuity, that would be a good argument because I think it's "fairer"? If so, let me know and I'll PM you my bank account details.

Look, can we agree that after this change, more GST will be paid by body corporates? Yes? Then you'd also have to agree it's higher taxation right? Via the removal of an existing ability to claim back GST.

By the way, just think about this: The builders, engineers, architects, consultants etc. working on fixing these leaky building are all registered for GST and will claim it back. So did all the entities who built the place at the beginning, including the developer.

[speights boy]

Look, can we agree that after this change, more GST will be paid by body corporates? Yes? Then you'd also have to agree it's higher taxation right? Via the removal of an existing ability to claim back GST.

What is actually changing for a BC ?
Most are not registered for GST now, and they won't be in the future.

What is the change ?

[Aston]

By the way, just think about this: The builders, engineers, architects, consultants etc. working on fixing these leaky building are all registered for GST and will claim it back. So did all the entities who built the place at the beginning, including the developer.

I don't want to get caught up in this debate because I'm not sure who is debating what.

But... At the end of the day somebody ends up having to pay the GST, it can't forever be claimed back from IRD.

Who pays the GST in the end..? The end user of the product or service will end up paying.

In the case of a Body Corporate, the end user is the Unit Owner.

The Body Corporate is only an Agent of the Owners. The B.C. is not a business, so they cannot claim back GST.

[eri]

the argument seems to be that gov. got the gst revenue

when the building was first built

and getting it again for leaky repairs is double-taxation

as if the job had been done right 1st time round there would be no 2nd gst to pay

[speights boy]

the argument seems to be that gov. got the gst revenue
when the building was first built
and getting it again for leaky repairs is double-taxation
as if the job had been done right 1st time round there would be no 2nd gst to pay

And the owner of the leaky house next door?
The owner of the house next door to that with the faulty driveway and roof ?

What about their GST ?