Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

ATO abetting abusers to make women homeless

Discussion in 'General Property Chat' started by Solo Forever, 21st Jul, 2016.

  1. Solo Forever

    Solo Forever New Member

    Joined:
    21st Jul, 2016
    Posts:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Often legislation is introduced to protect the interests of the powerful and the wealthy, there are implications that deliberately impact negatively on those who are not "in the club". I'll bet this legislation was formulated by an abuser.
    Women beware of the abusive "set up" whereby an accountant or an intending abuser suggests that your name not be on the title deed to a property. The idea is that the spouse on the higher/ male wage can claim negative gearing - sounds innocent? Here is the real intent: abuse and when you leave you will find you have no claim on the property! You are obligated to the mortgage debt but you have no say whatsoever over the sale, disposal, estate inheritance or any other interest in your home. Result? You have a considerable debt, your credit rating is at the mercy of the abuser and you and your children are now homeless! Did you use your own property that you owned 100% outright as collateral on what was intended to be a joint property? Consider it now gone - all to the abuser. Sell your property? The bank (in this case ING - may they rot in hell too) will gift all (yes all of the proceeds) to your abuser. The accountant? Well he's probably sitting at home, warm, cosy and smug - maybe the abuser gave him a bottle of wine? You and the kids? Well you obviously weren't in the power club...let's hope as an older Australian facing life on the streets through no fault of your own that the strain wasn't so much you did anything drastic... Women we need to take on this legislation and get this revoked this is putting who knows how many women through undeserved hell. If I hear a male suggesting this again - I will know they are intending fraud and abuse - leave them.
     
    Esel, laam, ashish1137 and 1 other person like this.
  2. rhinsor

    rhinsor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    439
    Location:
    Perth
    This can happen to men as well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 21st Jul, 2016
  3. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    It sounds like maybe you had a bad experience, and if so, I'm sorry to hear that. But frankly pretty much everything you're saying is a load of bull. I don't even know what "legislation" you're referring to.
     
    York, Cactus, Nemo30 and 2 others like this.
  4. Terry_w

    Terry_w Solicitor, Finance Broker, CTA Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    9,039
    Location:
    Sydney
    Just this morning I advised a person with a penis (someone vaginally challenged) about the benefits of having a property with wife solely on title. Of course I advised him of the legal consequences - wife could deal with the property without his knowledge, leave it to someone else on death, lose it via bankruptcy.

    In this case the wife is 'in the club'.
     
    Perthguy, Blueskies, Cactus and 6 others like this.
  5. DaveM

    DaveM Adelaide Buyers Agent & KFC Strategist Business Member

    Joined:
    14th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,115
    Location:
    Sydney & Adelaide
    What if a female accountant/lawyer suggests it? All hunky dory then with snaps all round?
     
  6. sanj

    sanj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,153
    Location:
    Perth
    exactly. even with my extended family last year i recommended an uncle have only my aunt on the title and not him.

    i had no idea i was not only the nephew of an abuser but that i secretly was an accessory to abuse too.

    do i need a lawyer?
     
    ashish1137, Cactus and Ran Gus like this.
  7. Ran Gus

    Ran Gus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th Feb, 2016
    Posts:
    66
    Location:
    Australia
    What 'legislation' are you referring to?

    From the sounds of it the word you're looking for is 'strategy', as in the strategy of holding an asset in one person's name to achieve the most favorable tax outcome.

    With regards to the rest of your post: my understanding was that family law courts looks at the wealth of both individuals when dividing assets upon divorce. It's entirely possible that you would be partially entitled to assets which are not held in your name but you have contributed to purchasing and/or paying for (e.g the family home held only by 1 person in a relationship).

    There are plenty of people out there who put investments solely in the names of their non-working spouse (it may shock you that this is also not always a woman).
     
    Cactus likes this.
  8. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,660
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think the point being made by the OP here is that there are consequences of structuring decisions which extend far beyond those relating only to tax planning.

    But I was also under the impression that family law has a lot of power in relation to seeing through structures put in place to try and keep family assets from spouses if they separate - especially when there are dependent children involved?

    Obviously we don't know the full story here.

    FWIW, my accountant has in the past recommended a structure where the husband may face legal risks due to his occupation or business activities - whereby the wife owns 99% of the property and the husband 1% of it. Not sure if that's still his preferred approach - I'm a couple of years away from being able to afford a PPOR, but I'll be asking this exact question at that point. If it turns out that 100% in my wife's name is the best solution - so be it.
     
  9. Terry_w

    Terry_w Solicitor, Finance Broker, CTA Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    9,039
    Location:
    Sydney
    Yes this is basically correct, s79 Family Law Act 1979
     
    Observer, ashish1137 and Ran Gus like this.
  10. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,588
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    @Solo Forever - interesting first post.

    Doesn't that only apply if you have kids? Can't go to the Family Court unless you are a 'family', not a couple.

    ...& then runs of with your ex?
     
  11. Aaron Sice

    Aaron Sice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    900
    Location:
    Ocean Reef, WA
    While this sounds like you've been burned and I truly sympathise with that, to take this kind of stand as a first post on a property forum is not helping anyone.

    People do this all the time for a variety of different reasons as it is within the law; and considering a law has to be vetted by a number of different people and organisations, you've basically called everyone who has had anything to do with the formulation, structuring and application of the law an accessory to a level of domestic violence.

    That's the bit where Steve Price calls you "hysterical" and all debate is shut down because there is no response from either party to restart a conversation and keep the community talking and recognising problems..
     
  12. The Falcon

    The Falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    957
    Location:
    Sydney
    Our PPOR is 99/1....my wife is the 99.

    Me; self abuser.

    Wait...that didn't come out right.
     
    marty998, ashish1137, Phase2 and 2 others like this.
  13. Brady

    Brady Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    465
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    very interesting first post - don't feed the troll.
     
    Phase2 and Terry_w like this.
  14. Terry_w

    Terry_w Solicitor, Finance Broker, CTA Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    9,039
    Location:
    Sydney
    Not at all.
    Family Law act covers marriages and defactos whether same sex or opposite and whether kids exist or not.
     
  15. larrylarry

    larrylarry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,508
    Location:
    Sydney
    My friend @Terry_w in the legal profession is right and so are the other comments. @thatbum was succinct with the "load of bull" comment.

    The Family Law Act is a commonwealth legislation that has these things covered. A caveat can be placed pursuant to constructive trust doctrine/equitable interests to prevent any dealing.

    I have no properties under my name at all, only in wife's.

    The OP either wrongly perceived the application of laws or received wrong advice. I'm more than happy to check the legislation OP referred to as well as the bill, first and second readings etc.
     
  16. larrylarry

    larrylarry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,508
    Location:
    Sydney
    Length of marriage, financial and non financial contributions to the marriage as well as other considerations.
     
  17. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,588
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    @Terry_w - thanks for setting me straight :)
     
  18. inertia

    inertia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    289
    Location:
    Newcastle, NSW
    My wife and I bought a property. At the time I was the primary carer of our children (and continued to be so for another couple of years). The house was purchased in her name, mortgage is also in her name.
    I'm back at work full time now. I almost earn half her salary, so not much point changing the financial structure.

    My sympathies to the OP - abuse is abhorrent, but even in a separation that does not involve abuse, you would hope that calm heads prevail - especially when children are involved.

    Cheers,
    Inertia.
     
  19. Nemo30

    Nemo30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    31st Dec, 2015
    Posts:
    440
    Location:
    Somewhere
    I think women need to empower themselves so they dont become "victims", perceived or otherwise.

    Educate yourself, become self sufficient, dont enter into agreements you arent comfortable with, regardless of your gender.
     
    hobo, pinkboy and samiam like this.
  20. Terry_w

    Terry_w Solicitor, Finance Broker, CTA Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    9,039
    Location:
    Sydney
    And what does the ATO have to do with all this? (in the heading)
     
  21. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,793
    Location:
    Perth
    Some banks will allow a spouse or partner to be on a mortgage when they are not on the title. That makes the spouse or partner responsible for the debt but with no control over the asset. It's risky for the spouse or partner to enter into this kind of arrangement and the outcome could conceivably as per the OPs post. Some women are not informed of the financial and legal implications of this type of structure. Not sure if the legislation is at fault here. Perhaps we need to teach everyone to be more financially savvy so they can understand what they are signing.