Here is the Argument for Refinancing and never Sell

That's what I thought but I didn't want PC members reading and believing one could do it direct.

 

It would work out like this:

Discretionary Trust makes a $25,000 distribution to X who is on the top marginal tax rate of 49% with other income of $200,000. X makes a deductible contribution to super of $25,000 and claims $25,000 as a deduction. X's income is still $200,000

 

I need pictures to understand the trust etc structure properly in my mind. And possibly a slow explanation.

 

I am a visual person too.

If you would meet with me, I would draw you the pictures. But you just won't!!!

 

It's not a competition, as I said different strokes for different folks

the forum is a bouncing board to share opinions everyone has one, I like your style but does not mean I have to follow.

 

In one post you said:

In a later post you said:

I thought the definition of a B&H investor is one who "retains assets to generate income and grow net worth".

IMHO you admitted that you were a B&H investor. That is why I said "I rest my case".

I don't understand why you made the comment about "It's not a competition". I don't believe I have ever said that it is or even implied it. If I have, I am happy for anyone to correct me and I will apologise.

Totally agree about the 'different strokes' comments. Many times on PC, I have posted that "there are many ways of skinning this (investment property) cat".

I was just pointing out the inconsistencies between your two earlier posts on this thread. In one post, you stated you weren't, then in a later one, you said you were.

We are both retaining investment properties to generate some of our income and grow part of our net worth. I call that part of me a B&H investor; I thought you would have too.

 

Hi Kieran

I was trying to explain and not too well that I would not go back to my original strategy when I started investing which was B&H all properties only and refinance, title of thread.

I would continue using current strategies which in the main is trading properties

The point exactly that there is no right or wrong.

MTR

 

Or buy, build, sell some, hold some.

This is a strategy that involves holding but is not a traditional B&H strategy @kierank

 

What about:

Buy lots, renovate some, demolish some, build some, hold most, sell some, ...
​

That is what I do. I thought that was what B&H investors did. I don't mind if I am not traditional; am I a contemporary B&H investor or maybe a modern B&H investor? Anyway, I see myself as a B&H investor.

Who cares about titles and subtitles? It is more important that we take action.

BTW, with shares I consider myself a B&H investor as well but we won't go there.

 

Sounds great to me @kierank. I like renovating and building too.

Buy and hold forever doesn't work for me. I bought half of a development site in Melbourne but we never got around to developing. There is only so long I can hold a negatively geared development site without developing. Once a market nears peak I have no reason to continue to hold a negatively geared development site I have no plans to develop

 

get a good accountant that will work through your personal scenario, really important

 

If you sell 12 months after the value add activity how do you argue to the ATO this is capital gain and not revenue? I would have thought this is an example of undertaking the activity for the profit on sale not the income generated from it.

 

My thought is, do it once or twice, then that's generally ok. Do it more than this and you may need to explain yourself...