Author Archive
Tax Newsletter – October 2013
September 25, 2013 | 
Author Beware of artificial trust arrangements to avoid tax
The ATO has issued an alert to warn taxpayers that it is aware of arrangements where a discretionary trust is used to effectively funnel large capital gains to a newly incorporated company that is then wound up to avoid paying taxes.
The ATO says these arrangements concern situations where a trust has generated a small amount of income and a large capital gain during the year. The trust then distributes funds generated by the capital gain, tax free, to one beneficiary, while the newly incorporated company receives the tax liability, but does not have the funds to pay the tax. A liquidator is then appointed to wind up the company.
The ATO says such arrangements may be shams and those involved could face serious consequences under the tax law.
Extra 15% super contributions tax for high income earners
The superannuation law has recently been amended so that the effective contributions tax for certain concessional contributions (up to the concessional cap) has been doubled from 15% to 30% for “very high income earners”, ie those with income (plus relevant concessional contributions) above a $300,000 threshold.
The ATO has recently advised that it will start issuing the first assessments for the new tax in January 2014 for individuals who were above the $300,000 high income threshold for the 2012–2013 income year.
TIP: Taxpayers who exceed the $300,000 high income threshold should consider reviewing their superannuation contributions and salary sacrificing arrangements to take into account any impact of the additional 15% tax.
Individual found to be an Australian tax resident
An individual has been unsuccessful before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in arguing that he was not a resident of Australia for tax purposes during the relevant years. The individual was a mechanical engineer and worked overseas in the 2007 and 2008 income years. The taxpayer argued that in mid-2006 he had formed an intention to live in the United Kingdom, but was ultimately unable to do so due to the failing health of his mother-in-law. The taxpayer eventually returned to Australia in 2009.
The AAT held that the taxpayer had maintained a strong and continuing residency connection with Australia. The AAT noted, among other things, that the taxpayer had maintained an Australian bank account. He had also identified himself as a resident in official immigration arrival and departure cards.
A share investor, not a share trader
The AAT has held that an individual was a share investor, and not a share trader as claimed, during the relevant years. The individual was a full-time council employee and claimed that he had an arrangement with his employer where he could trade during business hours and then make up the time after hours. The Tax Commissioner argued that the individual was not carrying on a business of share trading and therefore was not entitled to deductions he had claimed on the premise that a business existed.
The AAT held that, overall, the factors pointing against the existence of a share trading business outweighed the factors that were in the taxpayer’s favour. Among various things, the AAT found there was a lack of a regular routine with buying and selling shares in the individual’s case, which pointed towards the transactions being made on a speculative basis. The AAT was also of the view that full-time employment went against the conduct of a share trading business.
TIP: If a taxpayer is a share trader, losses may be deductible against other income. If the taxpayer is not a share trader, indexation or the capital gains tax (CGT) 50% discount may apply to reduce the capital gain.
GST bill following hotel apartment purchases
The AAT has confirmed a decision of the Tax Commissioner that a husband and wife partnership (which was registered for GST) had an increasing adjustment resulting in a GST payable amount following the purchase of two apartments in a hotel complex.
The original owner of the apartments had previously granted leases in respect of each apartment to a hotel management company that was obliged to operate a serviced apartment business. The partnership had also elected to participate in a scheme that allowed the hotel management company to let the apartments as part of its serviced apartment business in return for income generated by the business. The supply of each apartment was treated as GST-free under the “going concern” concessions in the GST law. Since their purchase, the apartments were operated as part of the serviced apartment business.
The AAT essentially agreed with the Commissioner that the partnership had an increasing adjustment because of continuing input taxed supplies made in relation to the apartments.
No relief from excess super contributions tax bill
The AAT has affirmed the Tax Commissioner’s decision to impose excess non-concessional contributions tax on an individual in relation to excess super contributions he had made in September 2009.
Essentially, the taxpayer had withdrawn and redeposited his superannuation monies in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the global financial crisis. The Commissioner claimed the individual had breached the so-called “bring forward rule”, which provides a $450,000 cap on non-concessional contributions for every three-year period for people under age 65.
The AAT did not accept the individual’s argument that his super fund should have warned him of the danger of breaching the $450,000 limit. The AAT also did not expect the individual to necessarily understand the law himself; however, it did expect that the individual “might have asked for some advice”.
Departure from private ruling results in FBT assessments
The AAT has held that the Tax Commissioner was no longer bound by a private binding ruling that he had issued to a taxpayer company, because the taxpayer had implemented the scheme differently to the private ruling. As a result that the Commissioner was authorised to issue the taxpayer with fringe benefits tax (FBT) assessments for the relevant years.
Broadly, the private ruling provided that there would be no housing fringe benefit in relation to a home that was half-owned by the company (with the other half owned by a couple, who were also the directors of the company) on the basis that the business use of the home was 50%. However, the AAT considered that, in fact, less than 50% of the home had a “business use”, and therefore the private ruling was not longer binding.
Tax man’s refusal of tax debt compromise deal
An individual has been unsuccessful before the Federal Circuit Court in seeking a review of the Tax Commissioner’s decision to refuse a tax compromise deal. The individual had taken over his father’s jewellery business, but said he was not aware of the financial mismanagement of the business until unpaid creditors began calling. The taxpayer argued that the Commissioner had not taken into account the ill-health of his father and the effect the global financial crisis had on the business.
However, Court said there was no reason to believe that they were not taken into account by the Commissioner. Further, it held it could not review the Commissioner’s decision as it was not a decision made “under an enactment”.
GST and adjustment notes
The ATO has issued a GST ruling that sets out the requirements for adjustment notes under the GST law. An adjustment note reflects the adjustment to the amount of GST charged on a taxable supply as a result of an adjustment event. An adjustment event will result in the original tax invoice issued by the supplier being incorrect. A supplier is required to issue an adjustment note for a taxable supply unless the supply was issued under a recipient created tax invoice. In that case, the recipient of the supply must issue the adjustment note.
The GST ruling outlines when a document is in the approved form for an adjustment note, the information requirements determined by the Tax Commissioner, and when the Commissioner will treat a particular document as an adjustment note even though that document does not meet all of the requirements.
Posted in 
Property Newsletter – October 2013
A Tale of Two Investors
It’s not often in life you get such a stark demonstration of how different decisions can lead to vastly different outcomes. But this was definitely one of those times, involving two property investors.
A client – let’s call him Andy – had entrusted Momentum Wealth to assist in the purchase of an investment property around two years ago. All up he paid $458,000 for the property, which was located in an established area of Perth. I was very pleased to discover that a bank had just recently ordered a valuation on this property and it came in at $585,000.
What made that moment particularly memorable, however, wasn’t learning about a client’s success but rather a sad email that I received. The email was from a financial advisor who was seeking some property-related advice regarding an investor – let’s call him Paul – who found himself in a rather difficult financial position.
Paul was sold an investment property by a well known ‘investment group’. The property, located in an outer-Brisbane suburb, was purchased sight unseen for $428,000 around the same time that Andy had purchased his property.
The shock came when I read the email further, which explained that based on recent sales evidence the property was now worth around $300,000. Paul was now in a difficult predicament, unsure whether to hang on to the property in the hope it will recover its value or cut his losses and sell.
While I hate to see anyone suffer such a loss (albeit on paper), it’s made worse when you think about the success Paul could of had if he had sought proper advice. In fact, if Paul had achieved similar returns to Andy, he would be somewhere in the region of $250,000 better off.
These companies typically operate with a very slick sales process with the ultimate goal of you buying a new property off the plan, sometimes in a distant location which you have been told is a “good investment”. The consultations and service is “free” as a hefty commission is loaded into the purchase price.
These companies spend a lot of time talking to builders and developers from around the country, trying to negotiate deals that involve high rates of commissions in exchange for providing an effective channel for flogging hard-to-sell property.
Investment groups only get paid when they sell you a property, so it’s not uncommon to experience high pressure sales tactics.
Many investors fall for this firstly because there is an assumption the purchase is free. Plus, it is very easy to get caught up in the excitement of buying a new property because it looks so good and offers benefits such as depreciation, low maintenance, and strong demand from tenants.
There are a few reasons why investments made through these companies often don’t live up to the promises that were made, particularly in terms of capital growth.
As with Paul’s case, not only did the property fail to increase in value but worryingly it is now worth around $130,000 less.
The poor capital growth performance of these investments is primarily due to the fact the properties are not what I would call ‘investment-grade’. They are in areas with massive supply potential, typically on the outskirts of major cities or in speculative locations. Additionally, the properties, which are almost always new or off-the-plan, have a high proportion of their value in the building which depreciates over time, limiting the opportunity for growth.
Making the situation even worse, properties sold through investment groups typically have inflated prices to cover the commission that will be paid by the developer or builder.
Clearly, the cost of ‘free advice’ offered by investment groups can end up with a rather hefty price tag. Consultants who represent these companies may say they are helping you but they are just helping themselves.
Any business of course needs to make money but there is a monumental difference between what an advisor does and what these investment groups do. A property investment advisor should offer simply that; advice on where and what to invest in and remain independent from any property sellers. There should be no financial incentive to push you towards one property over another and a buyer’s agent or advisor that you engage ensures this by charging you a fee for service plus there is a legal obligation to act within the best interests of their clients.
The other major difference is to do with transparency. Although employing a buyer’s agent involves a fee for the service clients are completely aware of this fee when they engage the service. Plus, when you consider the scale of the returns that a great investment can generate, as it did with Andy, it certainly highlights the true value of employing a professional who is working within your interests and providing sound property advice.
Finance: Exiting a Loan Can Still Be Extremely Costly
You’re probably aware of the fact that since the first of July 2011, lenders cannot charge “early exit fees” on variable rate home loans. But what some borrowers have forgotten is that the legislation doesn’t apply to fixed rate loans, which are growing in popularity due to the extremely low interest rates being offered.
Taking out a fixed rate loan can be a relatively easy process and deliver significant benefits to certain borrowers. However, breaking such a loan can still be very expensive.
How do you ‘break’ a loan?
There are a few scenarios that could trigger the hefty break costs associated with fixed rate loans. Repaying the loan before the end of the fixed rate period or switching to a different product within this time are the more obvious ones.
But even just making extra repayments on a fixed rate loan can cause some lenders to charge you penalties. While most lenders will allow you to pay a small amount off your loan each year without being charged, going above the accepted tolerance could prove costly.
Why are lenders allowed to charge for this?
A fixed rate loan is a legal contract guaranteeing that you’ll pay a fixed amount of interest on a loan for a certain period of time. Breaking this contract means your lender is entitled to be compensated for any losses incurred.
How much will you pay?
Calculating the costs involved with breaking a fixed rate loan can be quite complex. A key factor is how the interest rate on the fixed loan compares to current interest rates being offered. If interest rates are currently lower that the rate on your fixed rate loan, then the costs could be significant as the lender won’t be able to make as much money from re-lending the money.
On the other hand, if interest rates are higher, then there may be no costs involved with breaking the fixed rate loan. But borrowers don’t often exit a loan if they are paying lower than the prevailing rate.
The amount owing on the loan will also impact on the calculation of break costs, generally the more owed the higher the costs. Similarly, more time there is left in the fixed term of the loan the bigger the costs. Breaking a 10-year fixed rate loan therefore could be extremely expensive, which is why most borrowers typically choose terms of 2-5 years.
Here’s what to do
If you currently have a fixed rate loan and need to break it, before you do anything ask your finance broker to obtain a quote from the relevant lender regarding all break costs. From there you can make an informed decision about whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
If you are considering choosing a fixed rate loan for a new purchase or to refinance, think sensibly about the flexibility you’ll need in future and the potential costs you could face by locking in a fixed interest rate. Again, your finance broker will prove invaluable in helping you to make this important assessment.
Property Management: Is Now a Good Or Bad Time to Increase the Rent?
The rental market in Perth has changed considerably over the past 12 months. An extremely tight market, where rents increased more than 10 percent annually, has now been replaced by a far more balanced one.
One of the biggest changes has been the fact that the number of properties available for rent has been steadily increasing, with the Perth vacancy rate sitting just over 3 percent.
Why the slowdown? There are a few reasons. With historically low interest rates, many renters have decided to buy rather than rent, reducing the pool of potential tenants. The slowdown in mining investment has also had a flow-on effect on the rental market, but predominately at the upper end.
With more properties available for rent, tenants now have a greater choice than before and landlords must react accordingly. If you have a vacant property, you must be careful not to make your property uncompetitive in the marketplace. Your Property Manager should provide you with a plan outlining what the competition is, what the market rent is and what improvements and or lease conditions can be offered to minimise the vacancy period.
What about if you are renegotiating a new lease with an existing tenant? Again, if you price the property too much above the market rate then you risk the tenant deciding to leave. A vacant property can be costly, so you’ll need to consider the current market conditions to see if an increase is warranted.
The market is constantly changing and conditions can vary dramatically from area to area, so it’s best to rely on the advice of your property manager to set the correct market rent. A good property manager will always be able to show you evidence of whether or not an increase is supported by the market and what can be done to the property to make it competitive and appealing to tenants.
Understanding Motivation is the Key
It’s often said that most of the profit in property is made when a purchaser buys the property. While that isn’t always the case, being able to negotiate property deals is crucial to making a lot of money in property investment.
Most people go wrong in property negotiations by not understanding that the person you are dealing with on the other side is human just like you, who has needs and emotions. You will be a far more successful property negotiator if you understand the underlying positions of the other party.
To understand the other parties’ position, you have to ask questions. If the seller is using a real estate agent then you can ask the agent those questions.
There are 7 important questions you must ask a seller. One of those questions is simply “why are they selling”. You want to ask this question for two reasons. Firstly you want to find out the other parties’ level of motivation. How desperately do they need to sell their property? Secondly you ask this question because you want to see if you can structure a deal that meets their needs and at the same time gets you a great deal as well.
Next time you go to a home open, ask the agent this question. Often you will get lots of information that can greatly help you get the best property deal.
An important area to property success is using contract clauses to protect your interests when buying. In some states, a standard contract is used in most property purchases. In other states, the contract is drawn up by the seller’s solicitor. Usually these contracts have one thing in common. They aren’t particularly friendly to buyers.
You need to insert your own clauses to protect yourself when placing offers. They are what I call are “get-out” clauses.
You also should be very wary of accepting real estate agents clauses for building inspections and other contract clauses. Don’t forget the real estate agent is representing the seller, not the buyer. Only a Buyer’s Agent truly represents you.
Property Tax Tips: Types of Investment Structures – Individual / Joint Names
Continuing on from our July edition regarding the factors to consider when choosing an investment structure, this month we’ll focus on the first type of structure – investing in your own name or in a joint name with a spouse or partner.
For most people the easiest way to acquire property is to purchase it in your own name or joint name with a spouse or partner. This is one of the most common structures and also one of the most simple.
Advantages
One of the biggest advantages is its simplicity and thus low cost. There is no actual structure to set up and no fees or compliance costs that other structures incur. You don’t need to take any specific action in order to purchase a property in this manner, you are ready to act immediately.
If you choose to sell your property, you are also able to utilise the full 50% capital gains tax discount (if you hold the property for more than 12 months). When you invest in your own name, you can take advantage of negative gearing by offsetting any losses against income such as salary or wages. Depreciation on your property also acts as a tax free ‘cash back’ each year. And lastly, you can pre-pay interest for up to 12 months and get an interest deduction.
Disadvantages
This type of structure has two main disadvantages, both of which can have long-term effects on your wealth. The first is that there is no asset protection. If you or your spouse or partner were to be successfully sued, your property may be taken to pay off your debts.
Secondly, it is quite an inflexible structure when it comes to distribution of income or capital gains which can have big tax implications. To minimise your tax, if a property was producing an income even after interest expenses on the loan, you would ideally distribute income to the person with the lowest taxable income. Likewise when you sell a property, you would also want the capital gains distributed to the lowest income earner as they will pay the lowest amount of tax. If you are making an income loss each year on your property, then you would want that loss to be in the name of the highest income earner to offset their income.
Unfortunately investing using this structure can only allocate the gain or loss to the named individual (or shared equally amongst the joint owners). It does not provide the flexibility to make any decisions about income allocation as your circumstances change with time (such as when a negatively geared property becomes positive or a partner leaves work to raise children).
With all structures there are always positives and negatives that need to be considered when assessing the right structure for you.
Finance Newsletter September 2013
Reading the business press and thinking of fixing your home or investment loan? You are not alone. Around 50% of new loans are set up as fixed.
There are some great variable and fixed rates available.
4.99% variable is now available with no monthly or annual fees. Check your current rate and see you much you could save in interest.
And 4.89% fixed for 2 years with citibank. This includes a free 60 day rate lock. A historical low for fixed rates.
An experienced broker can explain the difference between fixed vs variable, and show you how you may be able to benefit from our market knowledge.
If you are not sure you have the best loan, we can help you look at your options and may be able to help you get a better rate by comparing all that’s available.
Remember that Mercia finance brokers can assist you with car loans, home loans, Lo-Doc home loans for the self employed, construction loans and any other type of mortgage or loan. Our service is free of charge to you the borrower and we have access to all the major lenders in WA.
A Mercia Mortgage broker can give you independent advice and comparisons between all the major lenders.
All these services are provided by our friendly and professional mortgage brokers at no cost to you – so you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
If you would like to speak to a broker, call Dan Goodridge on 0414 423 340 or e-mail dg@iinet.net.au .
Tax Newsletter – September 2013
Federal Election tax announcements
The next Federal Election will be held on 7 September 2013. Both sides of politics have made various announcements and promises. Some of the key announcements to keep in mind include the following:
- Company tax rate cut – On 7 August 2013, the Coalition announced that, if elected, it would cut the company tax rate by 1.5% with effect from 1 July 2015. It said the proposed new company tax rate of 28.5% is part of its “significant tax reform agenda to be delivered within the first term”. Note that the Coalition has also previously proposed a levy on large companies to fund its proposed paid parental leave scheme.
- GST and tax reform – On 7 August 2013, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey reaffirmed that the Coalition had “no plans whatsoever to change the GST”. “We are prepared to have a debate about tax reform but any changes arising out of the white paper process would first be put to the Australian people at the next election,” Mr Hockey said.
ATO compliance target areas
The ATO has released its compliance program for 2013–2014, setting out key activities and focus areas for the coming year. Some key points include the following:
- The ATO says it will pay particular attention to large work-related expense claims made by: (i) building and construction labourers, construction supervisors and project managers; and (ii) sales and marketing managers.
- This year, the ATO will use new information sources to check correct reporting of: (i) private health insurance rebate claims; (ii) flood levy exemptions; and (iii) taxable government grants and payments.
- The ATO has set up a new taskforce to deal with promoters, individuals and businesses that seek to misuse trusts. The ATO plans to conduct 5,000 data-matching cases and around 700 income tax reviews and audits over the next four years.
CGT small business concessions denied
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has held that the exclusion in the tax law from the capital gains tax (CGT) small business concessions for assets used “mainly to derive rent” applies even if the assets are used in “carrying on a business” of deriving rent.
In this case, the taxpayer argued that in interpreting the rules, it was necessary to distinguish between those assets used to derive passive investment income such as rental income, and those actively used in carrying on a business. Essentially, the taxpayer argued that the strict view that all properties that are used mainly to derive rent are automatically excluded from the concessions unfairly discriminates against small leasing businesses.
However, the AAT considered that the words in the law must be considered first and that it was not “unduly pedantic to begin with the assumption that words mean what they say”.
TIP: This case demonstrates the need to be aware of the various conditions required to be satisfied in order to claim the CGT concessions for small businesses. In this case, the key issue was whether three commercial properties that the taxpayer used in carrying on a business of deriving rent qualified as “active assets” and were therefore potentially eligible for the concessions. However, the AAT found that a specific exclusion under the tax law for assets used mainly to derive rent applied. Please contact our office if you would like further information.
Deductions for accommodation and food refused
An individual employed by a mining company at Port Hedland on a “fly-in fly-out” basis has been unsuccessful before the Federal Court in appealing an earlier decision that refused his deduction claim of $36,000 for accommodation and food against an allowance.
In the earlier decision, it was held that the allowance was properly characterised as a living-away-from-home allowance (LAFHA) under the fringe benefits tax (FBT) rules. As a result, it was subject to FBT in the hands of the taxpayer’s employer, and travel expenses could not therefore be claimed in relation to it. In affirming the earlier decision, the Court said the expenses in relation to accommodation, food and travel were not incurred by the taxpayer in the course of gaining or producing his assessable income. Rather, the expenditure arose from the taxpayer’s decision not live in Port Hedland and to instead travel to Port Hedland on a fly-in fly-out basis.
Redundancy payment for overseas work assessable
The AAT has ruled that a taxpayer who was the managing director of a company in various countries from 2002 to 2007, and who was paid an employment termination payment (ETP) when he returned to Australia, was not assessable on the part of the annual and long service leave component of the ETP that was attributable to his foreign service (in view of the exemption in the tax law at the time).
However, the AAT confirmed that he was assessable on the taxable component of the ETP, despite its foreign source, on the basis that he was a tax resident of Australia when the ETP was paid to him.
ATO telephone advice does not excuse wrong GST claim
In a recent decision, the AAT has affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to impose on a taxpayer an administrative penalty at the rate of 50% for “recklessness” in relation to incorrectly claimed input tax credits (ITCs). The taxpayer had lodged a claim in the relevant business activity statement (BAS) for almost $72,000 in ITCs in relation goods said to be from Hong Kong. This was despite the goods never having left the country or having been manufactured.
The taxpayer’s representative claimed that he had relied on telephone conversations with the ATO in which the ATO had allegedly advised to the effect that the taxpayer could claim ITCs. However, the AAT did not accept the taxpayer’s arguments in that regard and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The AAT noted, among other things, that the discussions post-dated the filing of the BAS and, accordingly, any advice received at that time could not have influenced the making of a false or misleading statement.
TIP: Most taxpayers will, often or not, rely on spoken advice. They may contact one of the many enquiry lines that have been set up by various governmental departments, which provide callers with free and quick advice on not only the operation of the law, but also how it is being put into practice within those departments. However, taxpayers need to be cautious about relying on such advice. As the AAT said in this case, given the size of the taxpayer’s claim, “a private taxation ruling, or at least informed professional advice, could and should have been sought”.
Money from ex-husband’s company assessable
A taxpayer has been unsuccessful before the AAT in arguing that $1.6 million she received from a company run by her (then) husband was provided to her as part of a domestic arrangement with her husband and was not therefore assessable in her hands.
Broadly, the taxpayer contended that she had agreed to finance her then husband’s purchase of shares in the company and that she was behaving as a “good” wife who deployed the resources at her disposal in support of her husband, and that she was not an independent investor in her husband’s business. The AAT did not accept that the taxpayer was simply acting as a supportive spouse who passively received benefits provided to her by her husband under a matrimonial arrangement. The AAT essentially agreed with the Commissioner that the taxpayer was an investor in the business and found that the payments were “income” assessable to her under the tax law.
Poor recordkeeping, so fuel tax credit claims refused
A trustee of a family trust that operated a construction and earthmoving equipment business has been unsuccessful before the AAT in its claim for fuel tax credits. Following an audit of the business in 2010, the Commissioner refused the credits, citing that records maintained by the taxpayer did not accurately describe the amount of fuel acquired or used, or adequately describe the purpose for which the fuel was used.
The taxpayer acknowledged that there were problems with its recordkeeping but said the difficulties were caused by employee delinquency. Further, it said its true entitlements were actually much greater than the amount claimed. However, the AAT was not satisfied with estimates provided by the taxpayer. It was also critical of the taxpayer’s records, saying they “were a mess”. The AAT affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, as well as the imposition of penalties at 25%.
Finance Newsletter August 2013
Reading the business press and thinking of fixing your home or investment loan? You are not alone. Around 50% of new loans are set up as fixed.
There are some great variable and fixed rates available.
4.99% variable is now available with no monthly or annual fees. Check your current rate and see you much you could save in interest.
And 4.89% fixed for 2 years with citibank. This includes a free 60 day rate lock. A historical low for fixed rates.
An experienced broker can explain the difference between fixed vs variable, and show you how you may be able to benefit from our market knowledge.
If you are not sure you have the best loan, we can help you look at your options and may be able to help you get a better rate by comparing all that’s available.
Remember that Mercia finance brokers can assist you with car loans, home loans, Lo-Doc home loans for the self employed, construction loans and any other type of mortgage or loan. Our service is free of charge to you the borrower and we have access to all the major lenders in WA.
A Mercia Mortgage broker can give you independent advice and comparisons between all the major lenders.
All these services are provided by our friendly and professional mortgage brokers at no cost to you – so you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
If you would like to speak to a broker, call Dan Goodridge on 0414 423 340 or e-mail dg@iinet.net.au .