What is the difference for the 1st scenario if 99/1 arrangement is done at the start of the purchase? Why would the father be liable for the full ABSD if he is only owner of 1% share of the property? Doesn’t seem correct for IRAS to charge ABSD on 100% of the purchase price in the first place.
Iras impose absd based on property count. For 1st scenario. If father name own 1% he still have to pay full absd of 17%. Iras intention is if u want to buy. Just buy. Pay tax only. If they say pay 17% absd on that 1%... I think Singaporean will continue to buy and buy. Absd will be useless anyway.
Look like the way to avoid absd is husband buy 1, wife buy 1, but must have the financial muscle la. Or buy under trust and pay in full to avoid absd. I support this absd policy even it spoiled my party to get more property. This absd will benefit our future generations. those with extra cash either upgrade to bigger house or invest into other biz which why our government want family fund to set up here. So good biz ideas sure these fund will invest in, and hope we Singapore can have own space X, google, or huiwei. 😂
Because the father is an owner of the property. Doesnt matter his shares, the whole unit is subjected to ABSD. Otherwise many will go through this loophole and unfair to those that follow ABSD rules.
Because it is a limitation loophole and a loan loophole and not a absd loophole. Why you need 1% of a property when the other party can own 100% and even that 1% considered as a 100%(17-19%) absd of the whole property. You can count you know it doesn't make sense other than you don't have eligbility for the loan/you can only buy a studio and you want a 5 room flat.
in the event of a divorce, its not prima facie that the wife will get 99%.. the law doesnt work that way since its a matrimonial asset - rather, it will look at the intention, other factors such as contribution, custody, income etc in determining the allocation of matrimonial assets
There's is a BT article after ST article on this. I think it's on the same subject. Seriously, I doubt there is anything wrong with 50-50, 70-30 or other combinations. It's the tax evasion part that iras is concern about..
@@alanweeproperty yes, I read the article before but iras was not willing to commit to an answer. If iras goes after those in scenario 2, I think it will be a super big Hoo haa issue and cause turbulence in property market. Lol Basically, most that I knew who invest in property did the decoupling method before
Most decouple due to no choice. Has to put 2 names (mostly sc) at a go due to existing unit is under 2 names. They have to put 2 names for the buc and later decouple as they need to claim back absd. If they put in 1 name, they cannot crawl back the ABSD. This is why some have to go 99-1. This is diff from those that are paying 1% absd. This group have to pay 100% of the absd upfront and then do a claim back after they dispose the matrimonial home with x mths. People assume that those buying 99-1 shares are avoiding ABSD or trying to go loophole by 99-1 but they dont even understand the full picture.
Decouple is as mention. Owning property in unequal share is not illegal. These buyers pay tax as per norm. They later sell part share to the other which is also normal in some property transactions. They never evade tax. That is the differen. Anyway,i have written in to iras to seek clarification to be on safe side.
@@alanweeproperty i kw both not illegal. But why they highlight 1:99 and never mention decoupling le? If a couple decouple then immediately buy a 2nd property the intention to avoid absd is the same as 1.99
@@saigo1718 i suppose the first scenario in my video is to evade tax since the father already has property. for the 2nd scenario, the father did not own any property in the first instance. he win toto. decouple as per norm and pay the usual BSD & ABSD. not wrong in my view. he still pays normal BSD on his subsequent property.
@@saigo1718 oic...its everyone's guess. i think maybe a lot of such cases that why it triggers their investigation. or maybe now then they realize it??
99/1 must be an ingenious idea from property agents. Now those who go for that will face the penalty. Yet the agents just walk away with their commissions.
There is this article from ST where they interviewed a Prof Chua. He said that "Of course, this does not mean that those who made transfers in higher percentages cannot be hauled up for audit. It would be interesting to see if iras will also pursue cases where a more substantial share, say 50%, and not 1%, was transferred soon after," Prof Chua notes. So maybe after iras have dealt with the 99-1 people, then next will be these people. This reminds me of 雍正，after he dealt with one group of people, he target the next group until they are all wiped out,一网打尽，一个不留！😨🤣🤣just follow the rules la and all can sleep peacefully at night!😂😂🎉
I think as long it's not to evade tax like sell/ transfer share immediately after exercise option. It's should be ok. Decoupling to buy properties is quite common. If they want to catch. Iras should go all the way back before 2016 before hdb disallow decoupling on hdb flats... That mean many property owners would have committed a crime...
@@alanweeproperty hard to say, you never know. Iras spokesperson already said there is no limited backdate. It can go as far back as 2011. Maybe they will deal with these people in batches. Now our reserves seriously need top up after covid. Where to get quick money, tax the people la.🤣😂🤣
@@alanweeproperty yes, decoupling is such a common thing done by almost all property investors. Tons of people do property decoupling so that their names r free up for next property. If decoupling also cannot, then iras basically got to spend its lifetime catching millions of buyers dtd from 2011. Lol. Iras most likely target those 100-1 cases where 1% was transferred to someone immediately after otp exercised and holding existing properties. In ST article, it was already clearly stated that iras will go after those based on the number count of properties owned.
so hardworking, so fast got new video. party is over after absd hike to 17%, the risk to flip is too high. for rental income also not worth it unless the yield is above the current FD rate.
yes. true. FD n T bills rates are very attractive..can liquidate property and park all inside. lock in 24 months. can sleep very well at night until 2025. but must put local banks or even china bank. quite sound. i will avoid US or swiss banks....later close shop...
@@alanweeproperty must buy property too la as interest brate will not be forever high or low. Diversified your assets is best defense against inflation.
In Singapore, people are hungry for property cos in the long run, the only direction is one way, that is upwards. So buy property can have rental and a high chance for capital appreciation. Those houses that were bought donkey years ago regardless of how lousy their location etc all went up in the end.😂😂
😂 bro, u need to declare even u married overseas. Just don't get caught if couple buy HDB resales each 😂. Best is don't register la as advice by Alan. That why PAP is smart only allowed 35 and above to buy resales HDB.
What is the difference for the 1st scenario if 99/1 arrangement is done at the start of the purchase? Why would the father be liable for the full ABSD if he is only owner of 1% share of the property? Doesn’t seem correct for IRAS to charge ABSD on 100% of the purchase price in the first place.
Iras impose absd based on property count. For 1st scenario. If father name own 1% he still have to pay full absd of 17%. Iras intention is if u want to buy. Just buy. Pay tax only. If they say pay 17% absd on that 1%... I think Singaporean will continue to buy and buy. Absd will be useless anyway.
Look like the way to avoid absd is husband buy 1, wife buy 1, but must have the financial muscle la. Or buy under trust and pay in full to avoid absd. I support this absd policy even it spoiled my party to get more property. This absd will benefit our future generations. those with extra cash either upgrade to bigger house or invest into other biz which why our government want family fund to set up here. So good biz ideas sure these fund will invest in, and hope we Singapore can have own space X, google, or huiwei. 😂
Because the father is an owner of the property. Doesnt matter his shares, the whole unit is subjected to ABSD. Otherwise many will go through this loophole and unfair to those that follow ABSD rules.
Because it is a limitation loophole and a loan loophole and not a absd loophole. Why you need 1% of a property when the other party can own 100% and even that 1% considered as a 100%(17-19%) absd of the whole property. You can count you know it doesn't make sense other than you don't have eligbility for the loan/you can only buy a studio and you want a 5 room flat.
in the event of a divorce, its not prima facie that the wife will get 99%.. the law doesnt work that way since its a matrimonial asset - rather, it will look at the intention, other factors such as contribution, custody, income etc in determining the allocation of matrimonial assets
Thank u for your clarification on divorce matters. I just generally use the split based on tenancy in common basis.
In 2nd scenario, eg. those who do decoupling in the past, be it 50-50 or 99-1, would iras go after them?
www.businesstimes.com.sg/property/iras-probing-property-transactions-stamp-duty-tax-avoidance
There's is a BT article after ST article on this. I think it's on the same subject. Seriously, I doubt there is anything wrong with 50-50, 70-30 or other combinations. It's the tax evasion part that iras is concern about..
@@alanweeproperty yes, I read the article before but iras was not willing to commit to an answer. If iras goes after those in scenario 2, I think it will be a super big Hoo haa issue and cause turbulence in property market. Lol Basically, most that I knew who invest in property did the decoupling method before
I doubt they will...becos who know their boss also did the same. 😆😆😆
Most decouple due to no choice. Has to put 2 names (mostly sc) at a go due to existing unit is under 2 names. They have to put 2 names for the buc and later decouple as they need to claim back absd. If they put in 1 name, they cannot crawl back the ABSD. This is why some have to go 99-1. This is diff from those that are paying 1% absd. This group have to pay 100% of the absd upfront and then do a claim back after they dispose the matrimonial home with x mths. People assume that those buying 99-1 shares are avoiding ABSD or trying to go loophole by 99-1 but they dont even understand the full picture.
Will this development cool off new launch sales?
Yes. For sure. Those use children and ah Kong n ah ma name will have to go across crossway to buy..😆
Then if buy under son and he takes the full loan can right? nothing to do with the father... Does he needs to be employed?
The son need to have an income to take a loan from the bank..
If son no income and fafter is cash rich, just do pledging or unpledging loh in order for son to get bank loan.
99-1 and decoupling both hv the same objective. Then why decoupling iras never check le ?
Decouple is as mention. Owning property in unequal share is not illegal. These buyers pay tax as per norm. They later sell part share to the other which is also normal in some property transactions. They never evade tax. That is the differen. Anyway,i have written in to iras to seek clarification to be on safe side.
@@alanweeproperty i kw both not illegal. But why they highlight 1:99 and never mention decoupling le? If a couple decouple then immediately buy a 2nd property the intention to avoid absd is the same as 1.99
@@saigo1718 i suppose the first scenario in my video is to evade tax since the father already has property. for the 2nd scenario, the father did not own any property in the first instance. he win toto. decouple as per norm and pay the usual BSD & ABSD. not wrong in my view. he still pays normal BSD on his subsequent property.
@@alanweeproperty tks alan. Actually im not referring to your video but rather at what IRAS is querying recently on 1-99 only:) tksss!
@@saigo1718 oic...its everyone's guess. i think maybe a lot of such cases that why it triggers their investigation. or maybe now then they realize it??
99/1 must be an ingenious idea from property agents. Now those who go for that will face the penalty. Yet the agents just walk away with their commissions.
well they have to pay for the bills....
There is this article from ST where they interviewed a Prof Chua. He said that "Of course, this does not mean that those who made transfers in higher percentages cannot be hauled up for audit. It would be interesting to see if iras will also pursue cases where a more substantial share, say 50%, and not 1%, was transferred soon after," Prof Chua notes. So maybe after iras have dealt with the 99-1 people, then next will be these people. This reminds me of 雍正，after he dealt with one group of people, he target the next group until they are all wiped out,一网打尽，一个不留！😨🤣🤣just follow the rules la and all can sleep peacefully at night!😂😂🎉
I think as long it's not to evade tax like sell/ transfer share immediately after exercise option. It's should be ok. Decoupling to buy properties is quite common. If they want to catch. Iras should go all the way back before 2016 before hdb disallow decoupling on hdb flats... That mean many property owners would have committed a crime...
@@alanweeproperty hard to say, you never know. Iras spokesperson already said there is no limited backdate. It can go as far back as 2011. Maybe they will deal with these people in batches. Now our reserves seriously need top up after covid. Where to get quick money, tax the people la.🤣😂🤣
@@alanweeproperty yes, decoupling is such a common thing done by almost all property investors. Tons of people do property decoupling so that their names r free up for next property. If decoupling also cannot, then iras basically got to spend its lifetime catching millions of buyers dtd from 2011. Lol. Iras most likely target those 100-1 cases where 1% was transferred to someone immediately after otp exercised and holding existing properties.
In ST article, it was already clearly stated that iras will go after those based on the number count of properties owned.
but i trust the institution. i think they will do the right thing.
so hardworking, so fast got new video. party is over after absd hike to 17%, the risk to flip is too high. for rental income also not worth it unless the yield is above the current FD rate.
yes. true. FD n T bills rates are very attractive..can liquidate property and park all inside. lock in 24 months. can sleep very well at night until 2025. but must put local banks or even china bank. quite sound. i will avoid US or swiss banks....later close shop...
@@alanweeproperty must buy property too la as interest brate will not be forever high or low. Diversified your assets is best defense against inflation.
In Singapore, people are hungry for property cos in the long run, the only direction is one way, that is upwards. So buy property can have rental and a high chance for capital appreciation. Those houses that were bought donkey years ago regardless of how lousy their location etc all went up in the end.😂😂
Why 99/1? Why not 99.99999/0.00001? Just pay S$1.
can also.... but lawyers usually do round up. so cant do so many decimal points...lol
Register a marriage in another country. Simple
idea!
😂 bro, u need to declare even u married overseas. Just don't get caught if couple buy HDB resales each 😂. Best is don't register la as advice by Alan. That why PAP is smart only allowed 35 and above to buy resales HDB.