6年法则问题请教

chaaann

Oberto 发表于 2024-4-2 19:06
不瞒您说，我真的咨询过了IFPA，也问过ATO。很遗憾没例子，但是非常感谢您的回复。 ...

很同意你的观点，也十分肯定是楼主的情况可以运用六年法则。不明白为什么那么多人说不可以。我也很好奇是哪里找的reference说不可以。

JhYu

Forbne 发表于 2024-4-2 14:31
楼主的情况，按税局规定来，就是不可以。距离远不是理由。

同意。

Oberto

chaaann 发表于 2024-4-2 19:24
很同意你的观点，也十分肯定是楼主的情况可以运用六年法则。不明白为什么那么多人说不可以。我也很好奇是 ...

谢谢！欢迎共同探讨，可能各位发帖都有各自的出发点和假设，可能都有道理，只是适用了不同的情况。我找到一个很有趣的taxboard的文章，专门针对先自住、后投资的，里面说118-192 ITAA97 说首先自住房 is deemed to have been acquired at market value when it is first used to produced assessable income，但是，这个Rule没有Alternative rule to the normal CGT calculation （Alternative 是 proceeds less actual cost base, apportioned for the income producing period）。这个文章是2017年的，可能有更新，我一下子没找到后面的更新。按这个文章所说，已经有很多困惑，但在文章发表时，ATO未提供Alternative rule。稍后发上来供一起研究。感谢。

Oberto

https://taxboard.gov.au/sounding-board-plus/all-ideas/1546

Main residence CGT special market value rule should be a choice
Submitted by
Forgotten Member
Topic
Can government fix it: policy improvements
Date
10/02/2017
Issue
Section 118-192 of ITAA97 provides a special rule under which a main residence (if acquired after 20/8/96) is deemed to have been acquired at market value when it is first used to produce assessable income.

Too many taxpayers don't get the valuation at the time (eg. because they thought they were going overseas for max 6 years so could use the absence choice, but ended up staying for 10 years) and there is no guidance on how do they then calculate their gain on disposal without that valuation. The ATO website (QC 17185) avoids the issue by giving an example of a property purchased prior to 21/8/96. Another page (QC 17193) gives great examples of taxpayers getting valuations on the assumption that they knew of this rule when first moving out and states that use of the special rule is compulsory.

Why not make this special rule an alternative rule to the normal CGT calculation (proceeds less actual cost base, apportioned for the income producing period)? I cannot imagine that this would be a cost to the revenue. Rather it would be an aid to taxpayer compliance.

Board response
The Board agrees this idea has support within the tax community. The Board will raise this at an appropriate stage but ultimately policy is a matter for Government.

The Board of Taxation has undertaken some preliminary investigations into this issue. Further detailed comments are attached. The Board would be interested in getting the views from the community on these questions.

Oberto

很多讨论。很有意思。

felixwoz

Forbne 发表于 2024-4-2 14:31
楼主的情况，按税局规定来，就是不可以。距离远不是理由。

前面有人说 换城市 可以算是不可抗力，请问怎么定义你说的’距离远‘是多少距离？我不想开那么长的车，是因为早晚高峰有点累，算是安全考虑。

Forbne

felixwoz 发表于 2024-4-2 20:08
前面有人说 换城市 可以算是不可抗力，请问怎么定义你说的’距离远‘是多少距离？我不想开那么长的车，是 ...

同城不可以，但是例如因工作需要，悉尼搬去布里斯班，可以。

人在悉尼已中年

felixwoz 发表于 2024-4-2 20:08
前面有人说 换城市 可以算是不可抗力，请问怎么定义你说的’距离远‘是多少距离？我不想开那么长的车，是 ...

ato专门有个部门是发追债信的

Forbne

felixwoz 发表于 2024-4-2 20:08
前面有人说 换城市 可以算是不可抗力，请问怎么定义你说的’距离远‘是多少距离？我不想开那么长的车，是 ...

再说，纠结这个没有意义，因为你在同城有两套房A和B，2019-2025自住房名额一旦给了A, 那么之后B在2019-2025年就一定是投资房，你确定要捡芝麻丢西瓜?

Oberto

又看了一遍ATO https://www.ato.gov.au/individua ... e-as-main-residence
看不出哪里说不可以了？
但是，如楼上有的说的，可能实际操作上不划算。
但是，楼上有的说不可以的，可不可以顺带留下 ATO的Reference?

Oberto

歪个楼：an amendment to Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, 要求Tax Agent举报自己或其它Tax Agent的违规行为，不举报自己或其它Tax Agent是违规。信息来源：https://www.tpb.gov.au/important ... ervices-legislation Important changes to the Tax Agent Services legislation

Oberto

Breach reporting – self reporting
A tax practitioner must notify the TPB in writing if the tax practitioner has reasonable grounds to believe that they have breached the Code and that the breach is a significant breach.
The TPB will be issuing draft guidance for public consultation on the operation of these new laws.
https://www.tpb.gov.au/important ... ervices-legislation

Oberto

Breach reporting – another tax practitioner
       
A tax practitioner must notify the TPB and TPB recognised professional association in writing if the tax practitioner has reasonable grounds to believe that another tax practitioner has breached the Code and that the breach is a significant breach.

The TPB will be issuing draft guidance for public consultation on the operation of these new laws.

https://www.tpb.gov.au/important ... ervices-legislation

Oberto

都不容易。
歪楼结束。

QianNing

Oberto 发表于 2024-4-2 22:06
都不容易。
歪楼结束。

带着税务局的链接和例子的回帖是真正有质量而且用心的回帖，值得一看！

hibounce

现在六年法则连同城都不行了吗。。。。感觉现在就是不管有几种计算方法、ATO的主张就是税就是要往高了算。但是问ATO要钱的时候，就是没人处理，一直等

galaxy2416

我理解这个并不是有明确的界限，还住在一个城市的话，如果选择这么做被审计的话很有可能被ato拒绝合理性。比如，我就是懒得开车，公司近，如果这都能过，那漏洞就很多了，不是很容易受认可，容易被认为有意的滥用规则逃税。之前有例子就是住到女朋友家了，自己房子6年法则被罚。所以ato的例子都是oversea或者换城市，如果只是换房自住，估计只有6个月减免期间。所以，如果不确定的确可以发信问问，白字黑字，以后也没有问题

Oberto

回来确认一下：
自住转投资，如果需要计算Capital Gai, Cost base只能是Valuation，不能按年限。这是现在（2024年4月22号）的说法。
参见 1.Home first used to produce income rule； 2. Doesn't want to treat this house as main residence under the "continuing main residence status after moving out"。

Oberto

再确认一下：
1. 6年法则适用；（个人理解：6年法则本质上是自住房免CGT的概念）
2. 是不是实用？看个人实际情况，没有唯一答案。