这种方法避税可行吗？

richstudio

绝对 = 风险
你们就是想把银行赚的利差给私分了。
每个人的税率不一样。这种情况不一定合算。

北京老汉

没戏，因为对你朋友没好处。他并不能少付贷款，因为你这部分钱的利息，被你拿走了

lubber

绝对信任 , 可以

erni

为了点税冒的风险太大，不值。赔了朋友又折钱

3IX37

阮家庄 发表于 2013-1-14 22:30
两码事，offset那方是为了省房贷利息，借出钱的是为了收cash 利息逃税，不是为了tax benefit，ato 要抓楼 ...

Really? Maybe I read wrong.

What I see is LZ provides the fund to a friend, which saved in an offset account of his friend's mortgage. the interest expense saved would be calculated toward the fund LZ provides, even it is still saved in offset account. Eventually, LZ would get full principal plus interest component paid back by his friend, with no tax paid on the interest. ( I think this is the plan)

What do you think the incentive of the whole scheme? And what the commercial sense behind it?

And I am not saying that Part IVA will apply, but it could apply. It really depends on how far ATO wants to go, and whether they think it is worth it.

mmmm2

阮家庄 发表于 2013-1-15 18:16
As mentioned by richstudio, the incentive is '把银行赚的利差给私分了' .  LZ's friend will pay LZ i ...

这部分interest by cash form不就是逃税了吗? 就是跟打cash工一样...但是我也同意这个not solely for tax benefit, 主要目的是赚得比银行高的interest..

3IX37

阮家庄 发表于 2013-1-15 17:16
As mentioned by richstudio, the incentive is '把银行赚的利差给私分了' .  LZ's friend will pay LZ i ...

I absolutely agree with you that Part IVA is the last resort, and the incremental part from lz's principal is essentially an interest by its nature.

However, LZ is trying to argue as the incremental part is only decreasing mortgage interest of Lz's friend, and it is accrued in the offset account, no cash is received. There is a case law supporting expense decreasing component is not an income. My understanding of LZ's intention is to contend this part is not an income, therefore no tax shall be imposed. Based on this assumption, I suggest that Part IVA could apply to against it.

Furthermore, it has not only a sole purpose test in Part IVA, but also a dominant purpose test. In exposure draft legislation, the proposed Part IVA is to put on more weight on the role of an alternative postulate. regardless of the part IVA reform, even the current part IVA would eventually treat the incremental of the fund as an interest, upon which a tax shall be imposed.

The tricky part is time. When is the income derived? Because tax rates change, by postponing the taxing point, LZ still can obtain tax benefits. S.6-5 states it is as soon as the income is applied or dealt with in anyway on lz's behalf or as his direct. My interpretation is the interest would be derived as it goes( accrued in offset account), because LZ can direct his friend to repay him at his discretion.

In conclusion, conceptually there should not be any difference between the scheme and saving the money in a bank. The only difference is under the Bank Act，the bank is obliged to report ATO the interest income accrued on saver's account, but lz's friend has no such obligation. So potentially LZ can avoid paying tax by not announcing the interest income. Having said that it is each taxpayer's responsibility to report his or her income, and it is a tax evasion by not doing so, and the criminal law will then apply, not only the civil law.

jhua4597

看看我理解的对不对：

如果你有10w闲钱，放活期存款的利率假设是4%，你的税率假设是30%，那这笔钱税前利息（简单计算）是4000，要交的税是0.3x4000=1200，税后收入是4000-1200=2800

你朋友的贷款利率假定是5.5%，那10w一年能省下来的利息是5500

那等于你们合作一年一共省下了5500-2800=2700

你们均分这笔利益的话那就是每人1350

那你朋友应付你1350+2800=4150， 4150/100000=4.15%， 因不用交税，4.15/0.7 = 税前5.93%

存技算，没考虑任何风险。

有错请指点。

jhua4597

阮家庄 发表于 2013-1-15 20:43
1350/100000=13.5%

呵呵，自己看了都觉得不对劲，改了。

jhua4597

阮家庄 发表于 2013-1-15 21:01
这样两方同意也可以，但借出钱的就吃亏了，因为你把税务收益算到总收益里面了。实际上，逃税的风险是借出 ...

所以估计没人愿意这么做。

除非是父母和子女的关系吧。

朋友甚至兄弟间估计都少。

小五

我最初的想法非常简单，我的好处：
1。和朋友协商出来的利率肯定是比银行高，比房贷低，这样算出来的利息数额应该是比银行高的。
2。所得利息还是放在offset account里，这部分钱是不算我的收入的，所以不用交税。

我朋友的好处：针对我存在offset account里的这部分钱，他只需要付给我比房贷低的利息，那他实际节省的是本来应付的房贷repayment和付给我利息之间的差额。这部分差额其实很小，所以他基本上是在帮我的忙。而据我的理解，offset account里的钱是不作为收入，所以不用交税，我理解是也应该不会有被ATO之类的政府部门质疑收入来源。

请各位TX指正~~~

a1169377

提及到钱，我觉得世界上没有一个绝对安全的朋友

pinkpinky

我是进来打酱油的

路过的小羊

不要为了这一点小钱，失去了你所说的信得过的朋友

小五

路过的小羊 发表于 2013-1-15 21:54
不要为了这一点小钱，失去了你所说的信得过的朋友

呵呵，谢谢各位同学善意的提醒。本帖纯粹讨论技术上的可行性，风险问题不在讨论之列。

JL2009

澳洲房贷利息和存款利息之间利息差不到，可能就是1.5%左右，不像国内那么大 ，为了这么小的利息差而冒那么比较大的风险不值。

3IX37

小五 发表于 2013-1-15 21:26
我最初的想法非常简单，我的好处：
1。和朋友协商出来的利率肯定是比银行高，比房贷低，这样算出来的利息数 ...

Yes, you are right about that the reducing interest expenses in mortgage account is not an income. However you forgot the basic condition, it has to be the borrower's account. Right?

The interest expenses your friend saved, he doesn't need to pay tax. However, at the same time, he has the liability to pay you the interest you agree upon. In theory, your friend actually holds another seperate invisiable account payable to you, whatever interest payable calculated should be from that invisiable account, and that interest would be taxable as your income, because it can be dealt as you direct and/or on your behalf. (You friend would end up having 2 debts, one is the mortgage owing to the bank, the other would the borrowing from you saved in his offset account. 2 different liabilities on his book should be treated as 2 separate accounts or matters, regardless whether he keeps a book or not. Whatever the amount your freind is due to pay you would be accrued in the latter account.)

I hope this makes some senses.


Back to my earlier comment. Hypothetically, if the interest were not taxable as you thought, the sole or the dominant reason you entered this scheme would be for obtaining tax benefit, because without this, your return from the fund would be the same as the interest from a bank. Part IVA anti-tax avoidance rules woulld therefore apply.

So in conclusion, anyhow you would end up the same, unless you want to avoid your tax by not announcing the income, which is tax evasion, that breaks law.

lingyang

且不论人性本恶，就算LZ很好的规避了这个风险，你得又大量的存款,比如说至少50w，放进你朋友的offset才有的赚，否则每年为了那点小钱还不够折腾的呢

小五

呵呵，看来大家还是不赞同的多啊