'or nominee'?

[Rolf]

Depends on your structure - if you have a Corporate Trustee company, then the company's name goes on the S&P, but because it is buying for the Trust, the Trust can glaim the GST.

That is what I got from Garth in Jan at least, and is what I intend to do on my next purchase.
I believe it should say "XX Ltd as trustee for XX Trust" on the S&P to be safe.

cube, were you battling the IRD over this, or something else?

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Correct Rolf!!

[xris]

I believe it should say "XX Ltd as trustee for XX Trust" on the S&P to be safe.

Should the full name and address of every director of xx Ltd also be written on the S&P Agreement?

xris

PS/ For those checking, yes, as I have just realised, I have once again made a comment by asking a question: a character fault no doubt.

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Not according to the structure beagles Xris. The trustee must go on the S&P so with a corporate trustee it is the company.

[Carex]

If we were not 100% sure that it would be bought into the Trading Trust could we still write it as:
"XX Ltd as trustee for XX Trust and or nominee"?

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Carex as you are not an active trader you would be OK regardless. If you think you may become a trader then the conservative advice is buy it into your trading entity unless you are 100% certain you want to keep it. You can always sell it out of your trading entity to a buy and hold entity later on.

[xris]

Not according to the structure beagles Xris. The trustee must go on the S&P so with a corporate trustee it is the company.

I do not dispute that fact, but I was not really thinking about this from a tax angle. Rather I was thinking about the importance of identifying the buyer.

In the following example:

xx Ltd and trustee for xyz trust, or nominee

I would insist (if I were the vendor) that every director of xx Ltd and every real person trustee of xyz trust be fully identified - full name and full residential address. If there were more non person trustees then on we go until every person involved in the purchase was identified.

I would insist on nothing less.

Why would any person want to enter into a very important legal contract with a phantom, which is not a total exaggeration by me.

xris

[Cliffy]

Hi Cliffy. As long as you aren't at the front of teh chain you're fine. I assume you mean someone else has a property under contract and they assign it to you and yo uonsell?? In your particular case as you ar like me, a trader, you MUST get the assignment done to your trading trust, not an "or nominee" entity.

Yes, but if the assignor is not GST registered and the IRD see the assignment as a 'transaction' from assignor to assignee. Can GST still be claimed?

I'm thinking yes, as it's still 2nd hand goods, as long as two parties aren't related?

[rustica]

According to Garth Melville at the last GBI course last weekend if a situation arises that the first person/entity is not gst registered, and a trading trust (which is gst registered) occurs, they are now recognising the first person/entity as not being gst registered, therefore cannot claim gst

i.e. Rustica Lamb and/or nominee (then I sign the property to my trading trust) if seen by the ird I will not be able to claim gst.

This only starting occuring in Dec

This peice of info had several traders racing to check recent s&p's

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Dead right Rustica. You must not do it anymore if you are a trader, as per my earlier post.

[xris]

Dead right Rustica. You must not do it anymore if you are a trader, as per my earlier post.

What has changed between now and six months ago?

As far as I can see the law in this regard has not changed, just the IRD's interpretation of the law.

This seems to me to be grossly unfair.

Is it yet another example of the IRD thinking itself to be above the law. Or worse still, in reality actually being above the law.

Maybe I have this all wrong, but it was just a late night thought.

xris

[RentMaster]

Maybe there was a court case on the matter, and that is what helped 'clarify' the rules.