Corporate Golf Day 2007
Proceeds aid the Starlight Foundation
You are invited to the 3rd Annual
Raine & Horne – Charity Golf Day
To be held at
Collier Park Golf Course, Como, WA
On
Friday, October 5th, 2007.
(11.30 registration lunch for 12.30 shotgun start)
Entry Fee $140.00 per player
Incl lunch, 18 holes, motorised cart, dinner, prizes, auction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have included a cheque for $560 made payable to Raine & Horne WA for player payment at $140 eachTeam : ____________________________________
Captain : ____________________________________
Contact No : ____________________________________
Email : ____________________________________
Name of Players Handicap
1 _________________________________________________ ________
2 _________________________________________________ ________
3 _________________________________________________ ________
4 _________________________________________________ ________
Glenn Grantham 0418 803 222 ggrantham@rhwa.com.au
Suite 1 / 990 Albany Hwy, East Victoria Park WA 6101
Registrations close on the 7th September.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Changes to Nominees
CIRCULAR 91 STAMP ACT 1921
TRANSFER UNDER AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP WHERE THE TRANSFEREE ON SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER DIFFERS FROM THE PURCHASER NAMED ON A CONTRACT
Revenue Ruling SD 36.0 (“the ruling”) has been issued to clarify the requirements necessary to satisfy the Commissioner of State Revenue, that a purchaser was acting as an agent for a principal in accordance with section 74(3) of the Stamp Act 1921 (“the Act”) when entering into a contract to purchase property.
The ruling applies to all transfer instruments subsequent to a contract or agreement executed on or after 1 October 2007, and replaces Commissioner’s Practice SD 1.3 (Stamp Duty – Assessment of Contracts or Agreements Involving Substituted Purchasers and/or Nominee Clauses). The ruling has been issued prior to it becoming effective, to allow the real estate and conveyancing industries to become familiar with the changes it introduces.
Under the ruling, transfers of land subsequent to contracts entered into with a nominee clause, will be charged with full ad valorem duty where the person named in the subsequent transfer of land, as transferee, differs from the person named as the purchaser in the contract, unless the parties can satisfy the Commissioner that the purchaser was acting as the agent of the person named in the subsequent transfer at the time when the contract was first executed.
In anticipation of the ruling coming into effect, buyers and real estate agents are urged not to use nominee or similar clauses, which do not clearly indicate the existence of an agency relationship when entering into contracts on behalf of another person.
Failure to clearly identify the actual purchaser on the contract may result in full ad valorem duty being charged on the subsequent transfer instrument as a separate conveyance where the agency relationship is not proven.
The evidence required to satisfy the Commissioner that an agency relationship existed is set out in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the ruling.
Please refer to the attached examples showing the duty chargeable on a transfer of land pursuant to an agency arrangement.
For a copy of Revenue Ruling SD 36.0, the latest tax information and links to legislation, please visit the website at www.osr.wa.gov.au.
Page 1 of 3
Extensive public education on the new ruling will be provided in the metropolitan area and regional centres across the State, by the Education and Training Branch.
For information about customer education, visit the Office of State Revenue’s website at www.osr.wa.gov.au and go to the Public Education link. Contact can also be made with the Customer Education and Information Coordinator on (08) 9262 1389 or by email to customereducation@dtf.wa.gov.au.
July 2007
Purchaser Named in Contract
Transferee on Transfer of Land
Is Evidence Required Under Paragraphs 20 & 21 of Revenue Ruling SD 36.0 to Prove Agency?
Duty On Transfer Of Land
• Sue Green as agent for John Brown
• Sue Green on behalf of John Brown
John Brown
No. As the agency relationship is clearly shown in the contract the agency / principal relationship will be accepted
No duty payable on transfer - Sec 74(4)
• Sue Green as agent for John Brown and Joe Black
John Brown and Joe Black
No. As the agency relationship is clearly shown in the contract the agency / principal relationship will be accepted
No duty payable on transfer - Sec 74(4)
• Sue Green as agent
(Agent disclosed but principal not clearly identified)
John Brown
Yes.
If Agency Not Proven:
Ad valorem duty under section 74(2).
or
If Agency Proven:
Nominal duty $20 under section 74(3).
• Sue Green
(Undisclosed agency relationship)
John Brown
Yes.
If Agency Not Proven:
Ad valorem duty under section 74(2).
or
If Agency Proven:
Nominal duty $20 under section 74(3).
TRANSFER UNDER AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP WHERE THE TRANSFEREE ON SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER DIFFERS FROM THE PURCHASER NAMED ON A CONTRACT
Revenue Ruling SD 36.0 (“the ruling”) has been issued to clarify the requirements necessary to satisfy the Commissioner of State Revenue, that a purchaser was acting as an agent for a principal in accordance with section 74(3) of the Stamp Act 1921 (“the Act”) when entering into a contract to purchase property.
The ruling applies to all transfer instruments subsequent to a contract or agreement executed on or after 1 October 2007, and replaces Commissioner’s Practice SD 1.3 (Stamp Duty – Assessment of Contracts or Agreements Involving Substituted Purchasers and/or Nominee Clauses). The ruling has been issued prior to it becoming effective, to allow the real estate and conveyancing industries to become familiar with the changes it introduces.
Under the ruling, transfers of land subsequent to contracts entered into with a nominee clause, will be charged with full ad valorem duty where the person named in the subsequent transfer of land, as transferee, differs from the person named as the purchaser in the contract, unless the parties can satisfy the Commissioner that the purchaser was acting as the agent of the person named in the subsequent transfer at the time when the contract was first executed.
In anticipation of the ruling coming into effect, buyers and real estate agents are urged not to use nominee or similar clauses, which do not clearly indicate the existence of an agency relationship when entering into contracts on behalf of another person.
Failure to clearly identify the actual purchaser on the contract may result in full ad valorem duty being charged on the subsequent transfer instrument as a separate conveyance where the agency relationship is not proven.
The evidence required to satisfy the Commissioner that an agency relationship existed is set out in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the ruling.
Please refer to the attached examples showing the duty chargeable on a transfer of land pursuant to an agency arrangement.
For a copy of Revenue Ruling SD 36.0, the latest tax information and links to legislation, please visit the website at www.osr.wa.gov.au.
Page 1 of 3
Extensive public education on the new ruling will be provided in the metropolitan area and regional centres across the State, by the Education and Training Branch.
For information about customer education, visit the Office of State Revenue’s website at www.osr.wa.gov.au and go to the Public Education link. Contact can also be made with the Customer Education and Information Coordinator on (08) 9262 1389 or by email to customereducation@dtf.wa.gov.au.
July 2007
Purchaser Named in Contract
Transferee on Transfer of Land
Is Evidence Required Under Paragraphs 20 & 21 of Revenue Ruling SD 36.0 to Prove Agency?
Duty On Transfer Of Land
• Sue Green as agent for John Brown
• Sue Green on behalf of John Brown
John Brown
No. As the agency relationship is clearly shown in the contract the agency / principal relationship will be accepted
No duty payable on transfer - Sec 74(4)
• Sue Green as agent for John Brown and Joe Black
John Brown and Joe Black
No. As the agency relationship is clearly shown in the contract the agency / principal relationship will be accepted
No duty payable on transfer - Sec 74(4)
• Sue Green as agent
(Agent disclosed but principal not clearly identified)
John Brown
Yes.
If Agency Not Proven:
Ad valorem duty under section 74(2).
or
If Agency Proven:
Nominal duty $20 under section 74(3).
• Sue Green
(Undisclosed agency relationship)
John Brown
Yes.
If Agency Not Proven:
Ad valorem duty under section 74(2).
or
If Agency Proven:
Nominal duty $20 under section 74(3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
