I have a friend who has recently married and just purchased a new home with her husband. She purchased a small house 3 years ago and now has 50% equity. Would it be better for her to sell her own house which was her PPOR at cost price (agents say price has not increased since 2008) now and then purchase a new IP later, or keep the 2 bedroom house and rent it out and sell when she can get some capital gains. I am not sure of how taxation would calculate the Capital gains on the house in 2 years time when she sells, when to date there is no (supposedly) gain.
Of course the 2 agents she has had through the house could be wrong. It is a semi-detached 1915 character house which she has done up a bit so I find it hard to believe that the price hasn't increased since 2008 when it is only 5 K from city. But if she tests the market and finds she can't get enough for it then what would be better - not paying any capital gains but only getting her equity out if she sells now versus getting some capitals gains later but having to negative gear etc. and then paying tax. I'd appreciate any advice re this as I have only ever dealt with IPs so I understand the tax implication when selling an IP - (rent out for one year and then pay CGs on 50% of profits.)
Of course the 2 agents she has had through the house could be wrong. It is a semi-detached 1915 character house which she has done up a bit so I find it hard to believe that the price hasn't increased since 2008 when it is only 5 K from city. But if she tests the market and finds she can't get enough for it then what would be better - not paying any capital gains but only getting her equity out if she sells now versus getting some capitals gains later but having to negative gear etc. and then paying tax. I'd appreciate any advice re this as I have only ever dealt with IPs so I understand the tax implication when selling an IP - (rent out for one year and then pay CGs on 50% of profits.)