Does anyone know much about stamp duty?

The timing couldn't be worse. I've just reached settlement on my first property and did intend on making it an investment. I've paid stamp duty but due to corona everyone's spooked and I can't find someone to rent it. I'm thinking of I might as well just move in myself. Does this mean I get a refund on stamp duty as I would then meet the criteria for the first home buyers assistance scheme?

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • don't know about that but if you move in and make it your primary place of residence for more than 6 months then even if you then rent it out and claim negative gearing you may not have to pay capital gains if you sell - used to be that way - you would need to get proper advice

    • Thanks mate.

       

  • I know that itis the duty of a stamp to see your mail arrives safely at it's destination.

     

     

  • OK so you are playing the tax game to the max.

    Buy and own property for investment but rent elsewhere.

    In the current environment you have certainly landed in a shit heap.

    If it was me and living in the house for next 12 months or so was not too difficult then do it.

    Vacant for more than 60 days and any insurance you have on the investment/rental property is non existent (uninsured)

    Here's the next scenario - IF you are umlucky enough to find a tennant to move in, in the near future, after a week or so they claim NO RENT because of employment due to Corrona virus and you cop it up the arse.

    As for stamp duty I have NFI.

  • First Home Owner Grant should apply to you. There are a couple so check your eligibility.  Visit Revenue NSW website and go to Grants.  Assuming you are eligible, you must live in the home within 12 months of settlement for a period of 6 months minimum. If land only, you need to build a house ( I think within 2 years of settlement). Of course, if you keep as an investment then your are not entitled to any exemption nor concession.  Best bet, check the Revenue NSW website 

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Alarms going off you reckon?"
12 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Maybe I didn't phrase my comment well post 2026. To be honest I'm not getting too hung up on the storm and what may or may not happen. I'd take Harry Grant or Cameron Munster off their hands, but we all know realistically that ain't happening. If…"
15 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Absolutely, all that stuff that's gone on goes in our favour with the judge in making his determination.
I don't think we're being vindictive at all towards Lomax. We just want to be adequately compensated for our loss which is a fair enough…"
23 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"You could potentially ban him from playing against the eels for the term of his contract but how is that fair on the other clubs who have to face Storm who get an origin winger for a 200k transfer. If Lomax really wants to play nrl then open it up…"
28 minutes ago
Hell On Eels replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Adam, that would be some meeting behind closed doors: us, the NRL, the Storm, some who-me-yes-you poker faces, and enough blowtorches to keep the fire exits relevant."
32 minutes ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Storm either get him this year or not at all, so player swap next year is quite impossible. But I agree I think a swap is hard as Melbourne are that proud in what they are doing they won't have a sense of losing by caving in.
Yeah he ain't sitting…"
47 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"I don't think the eels want to keep Lomax out of the game they are open to sending him to any club who wants him. But the way the storm and Lomax acted trying to sneak around it, I doubt eels want to deal with Melbourne. Ryles seems like a man of…"
47 minutes ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Denan Kemp said, and he is right, Melbourne cannot say no to a player of theirs asking for a release again.
The main thing out of this is Melbourne do not give a flying you know what how people see them in this. If they win the comp this year all…"
52 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"As much as I'd like Lomax to sit out from the nrl for the next 3 years (and he should) realistically that isn't happening. It isn't fair.
That is what this court case is all about, to determine what is fair. So it isn't 100% right or 100% wrong (or…"
1 hour ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"He was provided all the legal advice before signing the release and understood the stipulations. Just because R360 didn't eventuate doesn't mean he can force his way out of it lol. Spoilt brat defence is not going to work for Lomax or the storm 🤣 "
1 hour ago
Hell On Eels replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"LB, Eli, good stuff gents. We've acted in good-faith. By the book. With clean hands. Lomax appears not to. Still, equity is not unlikely to view an NRL-wide 3-year restraint until 31Oct 28' as overly-punitive and read it down.
We'd still win,…"
3 hours ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"The best thing for the Eels is if we say nothing our position is clear we only have to come back to the table if Melbourne come with something we see as advantageous for us that really is the bottom line.
Best thing about this there the ones doing…"
4 hours ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"If you look at it from a player for player deal, would you rather Lomax or Howarth if you are the Storm but ? I just don't see any way legally the storm can force the eels to hand them Lomax 🤣 either way don't really care what storm end up doing but…"
9 hours ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"I know i have said it before but Storm fans say we are being unreasonable and see no outcome in which we win this case. Despite all the released, that is still the belief. I believe in bias and backing your team but come on.
But i do not think they…"
10 hours ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Wouldn't shock me if storm come to the table at the 11th hour with Howarth and the transfer fee. No way in hell they win this in court "
10 hours ago
Hell On Eels replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Same, Kurupt. Whatever the outcome, Jim, Beach, Ryles and the club stood united and stood their ground when they were meant to roll over for the Storm and PLV, discreetly. Moses SC has also been brilliant."
11 hours ago
More…

Keaon done deal

As of Thursday, December 11, 2025, South Sydney Rabbitohs forwardKeaon Koloamatangi has reportedly agreed to a deal with the Parramatta Eels, but it is not yet officially announced by the clubs.  Soon to be announced.

Read more…
14 Replies · Reply by Poppa Jan 9
Views: 2092

 

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>