The Bill that will see the bright line test extended from two-years to five has passed its third reading and now awaits the Royal Assent to become law

The bill which will see the bright line test extended by three years has passed its third reading and will become law.

On Tuesday night, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill was passed 63 to 57.

Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens all voted in favour, with National and Act voting against it.

The bill contains a range of measures but its centerpiece was extending the bright line test from two years to five.

“This measure is about preserving the integrity of the tax system, which is vital,” Revenue Minister Stuart Nash said in the House.

The bright line test – which requires tax to be paid on any gains made from a residential property sale – was first imposed by the National-led Government in 2015.

The Labour-led Government has argued the measures don’t go far enough and that extending the test to five years will help deter property speculators and “may” have of a dampening effect on the housing market.

National opposed the changes, despite it being a bill that “in the normal course of events, we very much would have been supporting,” according to the party’s Finance Spokeswoman Amy Adams.

“But we cannot support this bill because of the egregious, and I think in fact duplicitous, way in which a stealth capital gains tax is being imposed on New Zealanders through this legislation.”

She argued that at two years, there is a body of evidence that suggests the likelihood of people buying and selling property are more likely than not to be speculating.

After two years, she says the likelihood of this happening is far less– "you are capturing, deliberately it seems, genuine investment behaviour.”

She reiterated her comments that Inland Revenue was telling the Government that two-years was a “much better period for capturing speculators than five years.”

She cited the bill’s Regulatory Impact Statement which said: “the IRD considers that two years is the better bright-line period, mainly because this reduces over-reach.”

An IRD spokesman has previously said it “does not necessarily provide a position for or against” on legislation, its job is just to provide advice.

Meanwhile, ACT leader David Seymour has called out the National Party for opposing the three-year extension, when it was the party which brought the bright line test into law in the first place.

“Amy Adams’ contortions on the Bill would qualify her for Cirque du Soleil. She tries to claim that a five-year bright line test is a stealth capital gains tax but the two-year bright line tax introduced by National was not.”

The bill will become law when it receives the Royal Assent within the coming days.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

99 Comments

The Brightline Test for capital,gains is a nonsense.
If property market goes up and someone sell,and buys on the same market how ismthere a capital gain if it is just inflation.
Surely also, that all,the expenses involved in holding the property I.e.rates, Insurance, repairs and maintenace will be able to be deducted so there may be bugger all capital gain??????

up
15

well it's not inflation because inflation has been far less than the capital gain % yoy we've seen in the last decade or so

NZ inflation is property inflation buddy

up
18

You've still made money no? Your mortgage hasn't gone up in line with inflation so you have made a profit. Same as any other taxed asset (shares, tax on fixed interest income etc) which is how it should be.

I don't see why people don't understand this.

Imagine you had exactly the same equity to purchase property or shares. You decide that shares are the way to go, so you rent and watch your shares increase in value.

Somehow the capital gains on those shares are different to simply putting it into property?

You cannot live in shares so the brightline test will not apply.

The brightline test, restrictions on foreign buyers and any ring fencing of losses is targeted at residential homes and making them "more affordable" to first home buyers.

This is all code for no one cares about greedy people who own more than one home so we are making special rules just to nail them.

I would much prefer a comprehensive capital gains tax based on sound taxation principals as opposed to a targeted witch hunt on landlords which is politically and envy motivated.

Agree. A tax on some things is always fraught with complications, misinterpretation and avoidance (although in this case it's pretty clear cut it's on houses). Same goes for any proposed GST exemptions. It'd easily become a mess. I say put on a universal CGT with no exemptions or just a straight up capital tax; once the tax revenue and government debt levels are in the right place, start looking at cutting the lowest tier tax rate.

They are actually very different, share purchases are usually made with Cash, whereas property purchases are made with a mortgage. Cash payments of shares do not expand the money supply, property purchases with a mortgage expands the money supply (which actually devalues the cash everyone else holds).

Property market hasn't had inflationary effects other than in rental and mortgage costs, but when property markets fall here, it will have a very very large inflationary component that flows out of the property market, and into the general price level, unfortunately.

The reason we don't tax property in NZ, and why we never do, is because what you're effectively doing is taxing debt.

I have over the past 30 years used debt to buys shares on various stock exchanges, so your assertion in that regard is wrong .

The rest of your comment , I concur with

A capital gain made on shares is not taxable unless you are share trader. The brightline test is specific to residential property which indicates it is politically based rather than principal based.

The market value of shares goes up due to inflation and the salaries for most of us are reviewed annually for inflation adjustment too. I don't see you complain about the unfair tax implications on those.
If our retirement savings are to be taxed at the marginal tax rate, I guess extending the bright line test to 5 years is more than fair.
Deduction of expenses is permitted under this tax rule. This is because failing the bright line test leads to a capital gain being identified as an income, and the general deduction rules will apply.
Educate yourself a little before making such comments, MAN 2.

I believe there is no plan to change the current exemption on the main home:

"The bright-line test does not apply to a person's main home. A person can only have one main home. If a person has more than one home, their main home is the one with which the person has the greatest connection."

So, I don't see the relevance of your comment? It will only affect second home owners or investors. If they are buying and selling in the same market, they are traders and should be paying tax already.

Yes, yes and yes. Extending the flipper tax is the first step. More to follow. Most kiwis thinks its a good idea.

Good point. Anyone who owns a second home, or worse a rental to become an amateur landlord will face this CGT. Though I'd ague that it is in fact a tax on stupidity for buying into an overheated market.

up
22

Nice to see the new government getting on with what it promised to those who were left out in the cold by National. Hopefully getting rid of "negative gearing " will be followed soon by" restrictions on overseas buyers". It certainly has not taken them long to get on with things. Just watch this fine country of ours go ahead in leaps and bounds. The mindset has certainly changed. This is a government that has principles and it will implement them.

up
21

That school kid, young fella who distributes flyers to letterboxes in my street is paid peanuts for his labour. Yet, he pays tax on his income.So property investors & speculators, stop your moans and groans and gripes about the Brightline Test.Just pay your taxes on your gains,like everybody else

It will not drop prices, all it will do will be to aid seasoned investors(not speculators) to be able to buy without much opposition.
First home buyers and others will be left out in the cold again as there will not be the investors or speculators houses going to market.
That is the cheaper end that first home buyers normally buy will not be offered as much.
The lower priced homes will increase especially in the desired growing cities such as Christchurch.

..based on your (flawed) theory, as a landlord beneficiary you wil be happy not?

Rastus, won’t bother investors the increased Brightline from 2 to 5 years.
What will affect many investors especially in Auckland and over leveraged will be if they bring in ringfencing

yes ring fencing will have an immeadiate hit on cash flow, so I agree it will be much mroe effective short term at least. But I see the two as a package. Should have happened years ago. Imagine all that tax!

TM2, from what are you basing that ring fencing will effect Auckland based speculator/Landlords more due to current leveraging levels?

Some facts (including references/links) would be nice. Why do thing Christchurch based speculator/Landlords are on average any less leveraged?

Prove that your not talking through a hole in the back of your MAN head.

How is 'being able to buy without much opposition' any benefit if it's not joined by a drop in prices? Surely the whole benefit in being the only bidder is that prices will be lower than a competitive market?

TM2, yeah. house prices will NOT fall. so you dont need to complain on these

And yeah; You can also say that there are loop holes to escape the bright line test and taxation and can easily be worked-around. Yes may be still possible for such people who are seasoned in this,to make profit without tax.

The advantage is that it will prevent some 'good' ,hardworking and socially-moral people from entering this property-business to sit idle making profits without paying tax. They will think 5times before entering this business.

So you will not be hurt; just that it will make a better future for NZ.

Based on almost every policy change affecting property, people always come out to bash it saying this won't drop the prices. All this talk but no one actually provides their own insight into how they would approach dropping prices.

Rental prices will not drop as less rental property will be offered, and that is what property investors should be concentrating on.
Capital gains are just a bonus!

Stop the Resource Management Act and local councils from making it illegal and expensive to build new houses. That's how.

Just as National tried to do for years and years, opposed every step by the opposition parties.

they had a majority for nine long years and did f all about the RMA
bit harsh to blame a minority opposition for inaction.
the shame is we now have to wait until they gain power and hope this time they dont talk and pretend but actually take some action to change the RMA

But if there is less competition then all things being equal prices should not be bidded up as much

ExactlyFritz, love it at Auctions when we are the only bidders!

So this will drop prices?

I'm always baffled how your logic works. Auctions are conducted because there are plenty of bidders. If same old faces bids from one auction to another will it even reach the vendor's reserve?

...

...

up
12

Speculation or investment, any gains should be taxed just like wages and earnings, fair and square. Regular wage earners pay taxes, however small their income is to pay for healthcare, infrastructure and all other government services. I do not understand why property investors want to ride on the back of wage earners and not pay their fair share of taxes. There is a term for these people in societies, which i wouldn't use here. The intent based tax laws on capital gains in property investment are one of the most silliest things in the world. It was good in old days when moral values were high and NZ society was more homogeneous. With great influx of immigrants coming from different cultures, this just doesn't work. All the data points that people invest in property for capital gains.

up
14

Fantastic news. Another promise kept - tick! Next, it's bye-bye to negative gearing too!

Labour campaigned they would create a level playing field for first home buyers and this is exactly what they are doing. See here in June 2007, the Labour Government was keen on abolishing it then too; http://www.nzherald.co.nz/commercial-property/news/article.cfm?c_id=28&o...

...one can only wonder why the donkey didn't do this 5 years ago..ring fencing losses included... can any explain what the downside might have been (loss of landlord votes excepted)? THE Man feel free to tell us all.

Great to hear that Labour has solved both the tax free property gains issue and the housing crisis by lowering house prices for FHB . Lets review this in a year or two and judge by actual results to see whose predictions are correct. I hear the bookies are giving odds of 1000 to 1 on achieving the intentions so invest $100 and if you are disappointed by Labours results you will have the deposit for a inflated property price.

....a review in a year or two.. ... whatever. But Im sure it would be better than another 9 years of doing nothing. Id rather back a govt that tries, than one that spent 9 years with only a knighthood on the runsheet.

wow..

See here in June 2007, the Labour Government was keen on abolishing it then too;

You must highlight the year there 2007 . So that means the voters were NOT aware of the perils of property speculation. Thank god , after 10 years , atleast 54% voters realised it

Yep all good things they are getting through them at a good rate. A government with a long term focus not a short term one. Well done.

So after 5 years i can sell and not pay cgt,is that correct.
If it is thats fine.

No, under the "initial intent" provision, IRD can still investigate someone for CGT - no time constraints. Under Brightline, it's just more clear cut that's all ;)

No. This just clarifies the position for under 5 years, no change to the situation beyond this.

yes but as has happened in the past the IRD wont be interested,
the passing of this law is just forcing them to do there job

Talk about "after the horse has bolted".

Another election campaign policy implemented.

I think ban on foreigners will be important but does anyon know how long the process will take ? Any deadline as are extending the time limit as now are having cold feet and are trying to dilute the ban under pressure.

.

I can hear the sound of screaming frogs / darklords.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

So that's what that high-pitched continuous whine is coming from. Thought it might be time to go to the vet and have the fur clipped out of my ears.

The bitter side of life is that there are more than 450,000 private landlords providing accomodation to almost 1,5M people in this country. Putting more pressure on their business will result in fewer houses being available for rent . little or no new property investment, and eventually higher rents, so all that will be translated to higher Gov accomodation and WFF bills and driving the Gov to invest in more social housing.

So it is a lose-lose equation ... obviously the half-brained whinger and DMGs here are celebrating their out of pocket sugar coated triumph that will bite them in the wallet sooner or later.

Making it more difficult for the speculators to sell in the next five years ( after the horse bolted) means less lower decile properties on the market and increasing the existing stock price - so should these speculators be forced to sell, then they might not make a CG at all, if not making a loss, hence the intended deterrent is useless while the unintended consequences will be high more damaging.

And, you will start seeing more of this: " The Council of Trade Unions says mounting evidence of underfunded public services justifies the government abandoning its pre-election commitment to Budget Responsibility Rules that seek to reduce net Crown debt to 20 percent of gross domestic product "
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/a1d9cc1f/rising-public-sector-needs-m...

All financial gears are interlinked and housing is one of the big ones in that box.

Yup! - Brock Landers, now that you mention it, I also hear something. To me, sounds more like a whining sound and its coming from above ;-)

There will simultaneously be fewer properties sold by investors, and also a reduction in properties offered to rent? Curious.

up
10

And if those 450,000 landlords stopped being landlords presumably the houses would just disappear? People don't need a landlord to "provide" accommodation. The only people that create new accommodation are the contractors and tradesmen designing and building dwellings.

In Christchurch plenty of young people are now heading along to the bank and buying or building their first house. Landlords are really only necessary to service the needs of transient people like students.

The situation is like this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzBe_aXW8AAnsR7.jpg

up
11

Nah.

That's like me going into the supermarket, buying up all the milk using my credit card, then taking it outside and selling it on the street at a markup - claiming to everyone that i'm "supplying it".

Show me your new builds and i'll believe you.

Great comment. Hammer on the nail right there.

The 450,000 landlords are not providing anything. They merley own housing stock due to the of the tax and benfit system providing them with a financial advantage over home owners. The occupants pay for everything and more...so landlord provides zilch.

You mix the ownership of housing with the shortage (as many do). If we can wrestle these houses off landlords for home owners instead, then to me that is a win - even if prices don't budge. At least the ticket clipping, welfare and tax bludging landlord has gone.

rastus, currently, from a leveraged perspective, speculator/Landlords are just "willing" caretakers of the banks asset. A legislative change or financial shock can change it from "willing" to something else overnight. It's becoming easier to become caught between a bank and potential buyers both playing hardball.

(piggy in the middle)

Thank you all for making my point - it shows how limited your vision is and your disconnect from realities around you. The majority of landlords owned their rentals for a very long time they will not be selling anytime soon.

Some here have vested interest in flaring up sentiments and just exposing their ignorance, others forget that over 1/2 of these 1,5M people cannot buy ( or afford to buy ) a home even if it was dirt cheap and the Gov cannot accomodate them even if it kept building social houses for 10 years.

The rest forget that we import and organically grow thousands of people every year needing a place to rent ( whether they come from Aus, Europe Asia or the Islands ) so recycling the existing rental solves just few problems for some individuals or FHBs ... the majority of rental accomodation added every year by the private sector in way of redevelopment, subdivision, and new building helps in meeting that demand at all levels.

Reduce that ( or kill it ) and you will be creating a big problem down the road for everyone and every tenant will pay the price of that shortage. Wellington is a simple example.

For so many years All previous govs being Labour or National were Not stupid nor silly to allow / encourage private rental property development through tax incentives. They were fully aware of the consequences just like they were aware of their budgets.

However, it was worth opening the eyes of some simple thinking people who choose to be fooled by the CoL's rhetoric or basic primary school math.

The government is going to build a whole bunch of new houses, the private sector will continue to build houses regardless of whether it's investors or home owners who end up buying them. What happens to the stock held by investors is not terribly important, either they continue to hold and rent out or they sell and home ownership increases as first time buyers move in instead.

Property investment has been encouraged far too much in the past, to the detriment of society as it contributes to lower home ownership and higher property prices. Time for a rebalance. Agree that immigration should be reduced to take off some of the pressure and I'll be writing to the responsible MP to ensure this isn't forgotten.

" The government is going to build a whole bunch of new houses, the private sector will continue to build houses regardless of whether it's investors or homeowners who end up buying them. "

You missed the point, should investors stop / discouraged from buying then there will be less building , no matter how you slice it, it will result in less rental stock - that is the issue and one of the unintended consequences.

the issue is not only general immigration as you think of it, it is Quotas, refugees, and family reunion categories that are also wide open - the Gov cannot close the immigration tap, they are dead silent about that for the last 6 months for good reasons.

Disagree. The intention is to increase home ownership, which will by definition reduce rental stock, certainly proportionally if not in absolute terms. This is an intended consequence. The fewer rental properties will be shared between fewer renters as more are able to buy their own homes. Happy days. Not saying it'll be easy, but at least the government is finally getting stuck in after years of ignoring the growing problems.

Actually it will be Sad Days ... Not only it is difficult, but it will take decades to balance part of the deficit of home ownership.

We are at -40,000 homes now , some say -70,000 homes and we grow about 35000 young adults organically every year ( in need of flats or leave the nest for study etc) and bring in thousands between PIs, refugees, and family reunion cases ...let alone immigration ... With the best of intentions, the Gov alone will not be able to cover all this demand.

My point is : Exclude and discourage the private sector and you shoot yourself in the foot with a shotgun. Not only you will increase the deficit but you will burden all the current tenants with higher rents for years until you get somewhere ( or get kicked out of power and leave a mess).

But of course PT can brush this one away too like he did with fuel increase advice from the ministry of transport. She'll be alright attitude!

It is not difficult to understand that Landlords will eventually have to pass whatever new taxes, expenses, and charges this Gov creates to the tenants.

Except its not the only possibility.. the other option is landlords find their yields squeezed by a market that won't pay an extra $20 a week for a below average house/unit. Some will exit, pushing prices down and enabling some tenants to buy that 2 bedroom starter unit they dreamed of (okay, so not really dreamed of.. more settled for)

Echobird, being a gloomy Landlord yourself, you are at risk of coming across as precious. New Zealand will survive this transition to increased home ownership so don't be so negative. Good heavens man, we survived more than nine years of falling home ownership rates under the leadership of your comrades. Fear not, rents have not risen in price like houses so there is ample evidence tenants are tapped out - rents are maxed out.

Kiwibuild is designed to bring more affordable housing on tap. I feel your pain in every comment you post. I am impressed with how rigidly the Coalition have kept to their election promises.

Don't worry Echobird, this Government won't make you poor unless you are in it over your head to start with.

lol, I feel for you too RP, your delusional hopes are becoming alamingly impressive.

the TD returns your are getting are indeed eye watering too... keep a Kleenex tissue box handy, you will be weeping a lot in the next few years.

Echobird, my conservative (tax paid) gains are already banked and reinvested. All the while, you feverishly dream of one day banking yours. It's all a bit of a joke really.

This serves as a timely reminder that where FHB's are concerned, the buying power of hard earned cash savings (Interest bearing TD's) will increase significantly under a best outcome scenario of stagnant house prices year after year.

That's why there is no hurry to buy!

@Echobird. "You missed the point, should investors stop / discouraged from buying then there will be less building , no matter how you slice it, it will result in less rental stock - that is the issue and one of the unintended consequences". It is utter codswallop such as this which is why I very rarely bother to read your tripe.

Great, because my "Tripe" is not written for super clever people like yourself.

I wish property investors could be banned from the existing market so that if they want to build an investment portfolio then they need to do exactly that, build it. Should have happened years ago. Only exemption would be if they were buying a property that they were increasing the number of dwellings on, either by demolishing an old existing house and replacing it with at least 2 new, or adding at least one more dwelling onto a section.

The best way to drive this is to have DTIs implemented on existing properties, and keep the current system in place for new builds. Those that want to have debt will build, those comfortable on an equity cushion have options.

I can't see why there should be any time limit. It is like saying that if you have a deal with your employer whereby they pay you 5 years in arrears it will be free of income tax. - Pure bollocks.

Bilbo,,great to hear that the young ones are heading to theBanks and are getting into their first homes.
I did tell you all that. ChCh is the place to buy, the young ones are obviously listening to “The Man”
The rental market is also great for us as all properties are full and tenants love our service.

I see a 50 unit "affordable" housing development has been pulled in queenstown by a foreign investor. Tip of the iceberg.

Omg ... this is sad !

"Government is setting out to assist with affordable housing but at the same time they are pushing forward legislation that is actually harming our ability to do something about affordable housing.
"It is a classic case of introducing legislation that has a double-edged sword.
"We had a group of foreign investors ... willing to put in a significant sum into an affordable housing solution, to the order of $30 million, and because of the possible changes to the Act, they have got nervous and pulled out of it.''
He did not share Ms Scott's optimism in finding alternative funding.
"At this time, this opportunity to house something like 40-odd families is gone.'' "
https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstown/housing-investor-discouraged

Well? ..any more examples folks?

Echobird, your link is a little rich considering Labour pledged to ban foreign buyers from buying (existing) houses. I suspect this developer is playing the precious one only because he is concerned about the potential of losses upon completion. Can't sell to foreigners at a profit - never mind, he will be sadly missed. Build more affordable houses for New Zealanders!

Coalition, keep up the good work!

Echobird, educate yourself, developers are in it to cream it. If there are political risks of course they won't commit funds. It's not exactly Government backed Kiwibuild is it? The Government is committed to turning this surplus of unaffordable houses to that which is affordable - stop worrying, it will happen :)

Yawn.....

yeah maybe they do, but then without them nothing will get off the ground.

can you stump up the 20% odd equity RP? So whats that on a $200m development

$40,000,000

as they say, how about "putting your money where your mouth is"

Bigger yawn......

Anecdotally I have plenty of examples Eco Bird. I am also aware of large sums moving to Australia to fund residential development there. Investors aren't stupid. Ardern and co may need to fund all this new activity off the crown balance sheet. Oh thats right they spent everything! Muppets haha

most of the investment apartments in queenstown are sold to foreign investors, this is the same town that has a high number of empty places as they are holiday homes and not enough affordable rentals for seasonal workers.
in short queenstown is broken due to catering for investors and forget about locals and workers.
personally i have no problem with foreign investors owning the apartments in the hospitality sector as the are adding not taking away, and the money paid for stays is clipped by the local management company before the net profit heads offshore,
as for owning existing housing where is the benefit to nz.

These policies will be of no consequence as far as affordable housing is concerned. Market forces that are starting to occur now will influence house prices more than 100 of these policies. Mortgage rates are likely to hit 8-10% in 2020, so that will tackle the shortage and affordability in one hit. Ironically, the govt (more out of self interest than anything else) will fight tooth and nail to stop this from happening. They WILL fail.

i can not see interest rates that high again, the world is awash with debt created to fight off GFC1 and too high interest rate will force GFC2

@strader: so what's the max interest rate raise u think can happen? Thanks

Curious to know, why do u think the interest rate going to be that high in 3years? Or why the interest rate need to be raised?

"Mortgage rates are likely to hit 8-10% in 2020"
... well, what can one say... I'll be polite and just say you're very far off the mark

I seriously hope that you're right, because the consequences are mind boggling. However, neither of us know what will happen with any certainty, and all I know is that I won't be basing my decisions going forward in the "hope" that interest rates stay relatively unchanged for the next 5-10yrs.

One thing that economic history proves is that the majority is always wrong, so the belief that interest rates “can’t go up” is pervasive.
The major issue at stake is imploding pension funds. The Fed is more worried about this than equities or asset prices. Why? With over USD30T at stake, this is a BIG problem. They need 8% yields to survive, period. Calpers was 7% and still insolvent. However, as Julius Caesar said, “man will believe what he wants to believe regardless of the facts”. And, nothing ever really changes...

Lets see what happen with regard to unintended Consequences.
More properties held longer = less stock in the market, which is already squeezed. Coupled with high net migration, high cost of building and a backlog/shortfall for the past few years a mile long. Rents will go up further and FHB will have less to choose from in an affordable range. With the demand in the immediate future, it will take years of development to get anywhere near enough to ease pressure based on current fundamentals. Planning with the GOVT is great but to have a finished product for people to buy will take an age! Meanwhile the the shortfall continues monthly.
I don't think CGT is going to make Property much less appealing as an asset class. It's been around for years in other countries and yet people still use it has a viable investment strategy.

Taxinda...

Marriage split ups will cause unfair problems and we will see the headlines soon enough: e.g
Say John acquires an investment property for $600k on 1 March 2018. On 1 January 2019, the investment property is transferred to Jane his ex partner, under a relationship property agreement. The bright-line test does not apply here. However, on 1 June 2019, Jane is forced to sell the property due to her changed and deteriorating personal circumstances. In this case, the sale is taxable under the bright-line as acquisition and disposal occurred within five years.

Although a primary residence (i.e. family home) would be excluded the bright-line test will still apply to any investment properties, holiday homes, or other rental properties.

Therefore, if you are selling the property that is not a family home within a short period of time, there could be tax implications.

..that's up to jane when she agrees to the relationship settlment. Get the valuation reduced to account for the potential tax laibility. Simply solved...Next.

.

IDIOTS ............. making drastic changes with far reaching consequences on the fly has become the hallmark of Ardenr's hapless administration .

So they clearly dont want any rental housing to be provided by the private sector in the NZ rental Market whatsoever ?

Interesting conversation today. Growing industry around rentiers and airbnb. Stories of tenants paying upwards of $1k week, placing it on arirbnb and not only covering the rent, but with profit to spare. Some even gearing up with more and more rentals, place a student in the sleepout or give them a cheap room on the basis they manage the ppty. Good profits to be had with no ownership or tenancy issues.

The landlord I spoke was thinking of booting out tenants and joining the party...

Ok so one guy buys shares with debt. I’m talking about the whole country collectively

House in Hamilton sold for 570k and demolished.
In its place are 4 houses each listed at 590k.
I am presuming that a portion of that asking price is to pay for the original purchase.That being the case then should the new valuations include that cost.Seems wrong to me if they do.

Yes of course the asking prices will be including the initial purchase cost as that is the land cost being approx 150k per section.

If buyers aren’t happy with the purchase price of 590k then they won’t pay that!