Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Most of those items referenced could have been done with computer systems in the past 15-20 years, without any use or need for AI. Indeed they still could now.
The facial recognition scenario could be done, as identification either linked to a key fob or token on a phone with the face recognition verifying that it is indeed the rightful owner linked to the token, or as recognition, where the face is assessed as allowed to enter as part of the set of approved faces.
And such access could be linked to the strata finance systems. Say you could have a bylaw saying only financial owners could access facilities like the pool or gym.
And as now, with any computer system, there could be errors, or the people managing the system could make mistakes(eg not removing as valid a face when a person sells their lot to a new owner.) And their is probably lots of potential there for admin overheads as tenants change in a rented lot. On the plus side it could be used as a dis-enabler of airbnb/STHL – if the short term renters needed to go thru a process to get their facial image registered, rather than just collecting a key and fob from a lockbox.
There could be some use of AI, or more correctly Large language Models (LLM) in strata. For example you could translate your bylaws and meeting minutes for owners or residents who don’t have english as a primary language.
Its been coming for a while, and a recently (June) announced Govt Policy. See
https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/modernising-payments-infrastructure-phasing-out-chequesReported widely at the time – eg see the ABC
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-07/australian-government-to-phase-out-cheques-by-2030/102449560I wonder if those USA statistics are transferable/relevant for Australia
I think there are a number of questions and items here.
1. What are you wanting from the insurance/OC? Medical costs? Pain and suffering compensation? Income replacement for time off work?
Is it more a matter of OC liability, that the OC may then be able to claim back from their insurer? Was there anything that could have been negligence from the OC – eg Trench/hole not covered or marked that caused the arm break.
2. What constitutes volunteering? Did you unilaterally decide to pull up a few weeds in common property, or was it in response to a SC/OC request along the line of “We are having a working bee Saturday morning to cleanup and weed the CP garden. All owners/residents are invited to attend and help in a voluntary capacity.”
3. What would you have done had it been the same in your own Garden? Can you use your own medical/income protection etc insurance to cover
I understood that an OC is able to offer discounts to encourage early or on time levy payments. I wonder of it would be possible to somehow construct a levy payment process such that the total cost plus interest is calculated, and then those who want to pay up front get a “discount” for that, that equals the interest they are not paying. Owners not paying in full could then go on an OC approved payment plan, and would be paying the amounts as specified that covered interest, as they are not getting the early payment discount.
I wonder how many properties on short term rental platforms are negatively geared, vs those that are positively geared? The increased income from short term let rather than long term would actually make it less likely that the property is negatively geared.
The suggestion would also not have any effect on those who are renting a property (or properties) on the long term lets market, and then placing them full time or part time on short term letting platforms.
They include … a refusal to re-calculate the schedule of unit entitlements despite being presented with evidence that many units here have had major extensions that substantially increase their internal living areas and that are, in aggregate, likely to significantly affect relative market values of units.I am also living in a Class B complex in the ACT. I fail to see how an owner making internal improvements to their lot would lead to a need to recalculate unit entitlements (UEs). In our 19 unit 40+ year old complex, many unit owners have modified the units (all with approval) by adding Solar Panels, AC units, gas connections, kitchen and bathroom renos. Some have even added en-suites, or additional rooms, and outside decks . None of these have changed the units footprint, so I cannot see how that would need a change to unit entitlements.
If units had obtained exclusive use of areas of common property, then there may be a case for changing UEs. But I think there are better ways to account for that via payment (annual or one off) from the lot owner to the corporation for the exclusive use.
I think some more information on the actual issues or problems would be good. I am also in ACT, and the Unit Titles Act is I think pretty clear. What management and maintenance issues are you having? And what legislative reform would you like to see.
Under the Act you are required to have Maintenance plan, reviewed periodically and approved at the AGM.
If you are not happy with the committee, nominate for election at the next AGM, following Jimmy’s often recommended approach of having your supporters and voters organised before the AGM.
As has often been said on this forum, the Manager follows the commitees direction, not the other way around. Perhaps with a new committee providing direction they would appear more competent.
Note also if a person has an ABN they have to charge GST.
I don’t think that is strictly correct. You need to have an ABN to be registered for GST, but I think the current ATO requirement is that you need to have turnover of $75,000 per year before you need to be GST registered. If you are registered you need to charge GST
I’m happy to go with what strata lawyers and tax expert Tony Cordato said in that article:
“Apartment owners are ‘mutual owners’ of the strata title body and own the common property mutually. As a result, strata levies are not treated as assessable income of the strata title body for income tax purposes.
“However, income from common property is treated, not as mutual income of the strata title body, but as assessable income of the individual owners.”
Agreed – that is income from common property. But as far as I can see he did not say anything about interest income from owners corp funds .
I see there is a long ATO Ruling on taxation of Strata Schemes. From my amateur reading it seems to suggest that interest income is OK to treat this way, but if the scheme makes income from common property (eg renting the roof space for a mobile phone tower) then that needs to be distributed to owners.
Income is income (interest counts but levies don’t). Have a look here.
By the way, your link to a Google search didn’t work and was removed. You have to post the web address of the page you found, not the address of the Google search that found it.
Sorry about the link – but its the same ruling as in your post. And there are some interesting quirks in it. eg Paragraph 31 – fees for strata role inspections are not income when done by an owner, but are if by a non-owner. And 37 on Strata scheme owned items. Seems to say that if the scheme has say a shared laundry, with scheme owned coin operated machines, then when owners use them, the money paid is not income, but when others (eg renters) do then it is. Would be an interesting exercise allocating that income out.
Further I am not sure I agree with your “Income is Income” In para 36 the ruling says “…Any interest, dividends or interest income derived by the strata title body from the investment of moneys held in its fund represents assessable income of the strata title body …”. Then in paragraphs 39-45 in talks about income from common property, and gives the phone tower example.
So to me the the upshot is “its complex” – and that is I suppose why tax accountants and lawyers exist and are paid for their services and advice.
If the $180 is tax at 30%, that suggests your gross income should be something like $850 – $250 (Tax agent fee) = Net income $600 – Tax $180, for a net benefit to the scheme of $420.
At the risk of being pedantic, the net benefit is to the owners, distributed for tax declaration purposes according to unit entitlements. That’s why many schemes, for so many years, have put their money in non-interest bearing accounts.
Would that only occur if it was actually distributed – and if it was it would be like a franked dividend, with franking credits for the tax already paid available as well. CAn’t the scheme just keep the dividend, and use it for general expenses
I see there is a long ATO Ruling on taxation of Strata Schemes. From my amateur reading it seems to suggest that interest income is OK to treat this way, but if the scheme makes income from common property (eg renting the roof space for a mobile phone tower) then that needs to be distributed to owners. Are there any tax accountants or lawyers out there in flatchat land who can comment? Or Jimmy maybe it could be a topic with the right guest for a future podcast?
We had a similar situation in our ACT Strata Plan. If the interest earned – Account fees – Tax is not positive there is not point in having an investment account.
From the simple numbers you have presented you should be marginally positive. If the $180 is tax at 30%, that suggests your gross income should be something like $850 – $250 (Tax agent fee) = Net income $600 – Tax $180, for a net benefit to the scheme of $420.
The other item I have tried unsuccessfully to do in our scheme is to have our committee self prepare our simple tax return using the ATO short form for Strata Schemes as on the ATO website here.
https://www.ato.gov.au/Forms/Strata-title-body-corporate-tax-return-and-instructions-2021/
But I have not managed to convince them. Note using this would depend on the size and complexity of your scheme. I think it works for small schemes with interest only income. If you have other income sources, employees/building managers or are GST registered you would I think need an account.
What about a Bylaw requiring Pet owners to register the animals DNA with the body corporate. Then the committee and cleaners could collect and send for analysis any uncollected droppings left on common property. If that then matches back to registered pet, the owner is responsible for the cost of analysis, and cleaning, and can be issued a NTC for not cleaning up after their animal .
Might be a bit of a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” solution though.
While every owner can be on the committee in the ACT, there are downsides. In our complex of 19 townhouses, owners thought it was a good idea for everyone to be on the committee. This led to it being almost impossible to actually have a committee meeting, as a quorum (10 people) was hard to achieve. And there are no provisions for proxies or reduced quorum committee meetings .