Using Our Planetary geared property negatively has been a favorite of Australians to build wealth for a long time – and it is easy to see why, with proven capital growth, the easy ability to borrow to fund property purchases and a big tax refund, the end of the year. But is this strategy still the best option now that SMSFs can borrow to acquire residential and commercial property? This article will compare each system and provide some insight to enable you to make a better-informed decision about your next (or your first) investment property purchase.
- Why Is My Computer Running Slow? Fix Your Problem Quickly!
- Where Internet Jurisdiction Can Get Your Business Sued!
- 5 Expert Insider Steps to Begin Transforming Your Health & Body Today! READ MORE :
- Property Management – Understanding What Real Passive Income Is
- Free SEO Tips – How to Optimize Your Site in Two Hours
First Match – Financing:
To finance the purchase of your investment property, you will need to borrow. This means paying a visit to our friends at the banks. In Australia, the home lending market is dominated by big players – and regarding the loans available to SMSFs, it is no different. Leading the pack are Westpac, NAB, and St George. CBA also has a lending product – however, it is more restrictive than the others. The LVRs available when obtaining an SMSF loan compared to a normal investment property loan are slightly reduced – typically 72% – 75% for residential property and 65% for commercial property. This will mean you will normally need a larger deposit if buying via an SMSF – however, for most people, this will not be a problem as you will likely have more available in your super than sitting in your savings account.
In addition to the lower LVRs, the banks’ establishment and legal fees are significantly higher for an SMSF loan than for a typical investment property loan. Once again, these additional costs can be offset by the other superannuation monies you have available – i.e., you don’t have to fund it out of your pocket. Regarding the lending side – borrowing via an SMSF is always more expensive than a typical investment property loan, both in terms of the setup.
Negative Gearing: 1 SMSF: Nil
There is a compromise here, though. If you have enough equity available in other properties to fund some or all of the borrowings the SMSF requires to complete the purchase of a property, you can become the bank and lend to the SMSF. This is called member financing’ and can be used as a replacement or complementary to bank financing. This method substantially reduces borrowing costs.
Second Match – Taxation:
You are probably wondering what the taxation consequences are when comparing negative gearing against the SMSF purchasing a similar property. It works like this: A property is negatively geared when the total taxable income generated from the parcel is less than the total deductible expenses.
For example, if your negatively geared property costs you an additional $200 per week over one financial year, your overall tax deduction (negative rental income) would be around $10,000. If your marginal income tax rate is 30% + 1.5% Medicare, you would expect a tax refund check of about $3,150 at the end of the year. Overall, you are still out of pocket by around $7,000.
If your SMSF held property with the same costs, you could salary sacrifice $200 of pre-tax income to cover the loan repayments and other property-related expenses. You do not pay income tax on any amount your salary sacrifice, so if that amount totals $10,000 per year – then just like the above example, your tax saving is the same – but instead of paying the ATO week to week and then getting a refund at the end of the year, you are simply not paying tax on that money at all.
As you may know, any employer’s concessional contributions’ such as salary sacrifice into super, are taxable by the super fund at 15%. However, the SMSF is entitled to the same deductions relating to your property, meaning there will be a nil tax impact. So, when you compare the strategies, the week-to-week tax impact is the same. However, when it becomes time to sell the property and realize the capital gain, the SMSF is the clear winner if it is held for over twelve months.
The SMSF pays 10% on the capital gain – so if the property were sold for $150k more than you paid, the SMSF would pay $15k in capital gains tax. By comparison, if you held the property in your name and had a wage income of $80k, the tax and Medicare payable would be under $30k. But wait – there’s more! If you hold the property long-term in your SMSF and commence a pension when you reach age 55, all the income (such as rent) and capital gains on assets used to support that pension (such as the property) are tax-exempt. If $15k tax is better than $30k, then $0 tax is the Holy Grail.
Third Match – Access to Funds:
Another important consideration is access to funds. Monies contributed to super must stay in super until at least age 55. By comparison, if you profit from selling an investment property held in your name, the proceeds can be used to pay off your mortgage, credit cards, car loans, pay for a holiday, or buy a boat. However, suppose your goal is to continuously build up a property portfolio to provide income for your retirement and to re-invest any gains you make into more properties. In that case, the fact that you can’t access the funds becomes less relevant.
As I mentioned, super monies must stay in super until age 55. If you are like me, that time is a long way off – but what about your parents? They are a lot closer or more likely over that magical age already. So, there is a way for your parents to help you purchase your first investment property while simultaneously generating a healthy return on their money AND providing the means to legitimately unlock some of the equity you will build up in your SMSF investment property. To learn more about this fantastic strategy, read my other articles and check out my blog via the link at the bottom.
