Join our investing community

Forestry Tax Breaks.....

Discussion in 'Accounting, Tax & Legal' started by Alan, 11th Sep, 2006.

  1. Alan

    Alan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    603
    Location:
    Sydney
  2. See Change

    See Change Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    59
    Last edited by a moderator: 12th Sep, 2006
  3. Alan

    Alan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    603
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'd be surprised if any existing schemes are affected but I guess we'll wait and see.

    If tax rulings were in place at the time and the guidelines were followed then I don't see why there should be any problem for existing setups.

    The rules sometimes change and I guess all we can do is legally comply with what is available at a point in time.

    There's often a push by certain Groups to get rid of things like negative gearing on property etc too. If it's legally available today, I'll take advantage of it. If the rules change tomorrow, I'll adjust as required.


    :)
     
  4. See Change

    See Change Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    59
    I suppose with negative gearing , they've tried it before and it was a disaster in someways. I'll be suprised if they try it again given the number of people it affects.

    Agri-investing has a more chequered past.

    See Change
     
  5. JoannaK

    JoannaK Member

    Joined:
    16th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    18
    Location:
    Sydney
    Chances are that if the rules do change then it will affect existing schemes. The ATO did the same thing with film investment where product rulings were issued, tax breaks confirmed yada, yada, yada...then a couple of years later the rules were changed and made retrospective. No longer could anyone claim the deductions they were previously entitled to claim.

    Left thousands in the crap...
     
  6. See Change

    See Change Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    59
    No further news though this article is interesting as it gives some more detailed info


    Coalition MPs to debate plantation timber tax breaks. 12/09/2006. ABC News Online

    But the Liberal whip, Stewart Macarthur, says the schemes should be changed.

    He argues they distort investment by putting the focus on the tax advantage rather than the long-term future of the timber industry.

    He says the investors get a tax break for paying up to $9,000 a hectare when the cost of planting the trees is only about $1,500.

    "It seems to me this is a very big margin which provides tax relief to high income earners, but I'm concerned that the actual timber production is not enhanced by this approach," he said.

    He says the schemes are not achieving the Government's main aim of boosting the plantation industries.

    "I've been concerned that the managed investment schemes have a great discrepancy between the amount of money that the promoter charges the investor and the cost of actually putting blue-gums in the ground," he said.

    "So my simple argument is that there is a very big margin to the promoter which is not attributed to the growing of trees which is the government's policy."


    See Change
     
  7. Rolf Latham

    Rolf Latham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    45
    Location:
    Gold Coast and Sydney
    Hiya

    I have a couple of dozen clients that have money in these tree investments.

    Many moons ago had a few of the tea tree clients, some are still paying the price.

    The ATO should not be able to rescind decisions which change peoples live's in this way. Its plain wrong.

    ta
    rolf
     
  8. Alan

    Alan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15th Aug, 2005
    Posts:
    603
    Location:
    Sydney
    Totally agree Rolf.

    While I personally don't have any Agri-investments, if people were to enter into an ATO approved scheme and the guidelines were followed, it's just plain wrong to change the rules half way through the game.

    If the change is, 'from next year, any new schemes will not receive the same benefit' that is one thing, but to effectively make retrospective changes is another thing all together. Mind you, it doesn't appear clear yet if there will be any changes at all, or indeed, if there are changes, what they will be.

    Speaking of the ATO, did anyone see the following Paul Hogan's letter:

    OJ, me and my mate the taxman, by Paul Hogan - National - smh.com.au



    You've still got it Hoges! :D :D