Tax planning that ignores borrowing capacity leaves money on the table. Lending applications written without proper financial structuring are routinely under-approved. We address both at once, in-house, with the same team handling tax structuring and the lending application.
Lending written in-house. Residential and investment lending is written by the same team handling the accounting work, accredited through a major lending aggregator. There is no referral to a third-party broker, no handover of files, and no information lost between the accountant and the lender.
Servicing calculations vary materially between lenders. The bank a borrower has dealt with for ten years is rarely the lender that will offer the highest capacity. A proper review compares the file against the appropriate panel.
Add-backs, distributions, retained earnings, trust income and dividend stripping are routinely misread or under-applied. Lenders accept significantly more income than most applications present.
Buying in the incorrect entity, trust loans without sufficient servicing, and cross-collateralisation that restricts future borrowing. These problems are typically locked in at settlement and expensive to unwind.
The standard process applied to every borrowing engagement.
We review current structure, income, existing debt and serviceability in one consolidated picture. The information is typically already available; what is missing is the integrated view across tax, structure and lending.
Personal name, trust, company, SMSF or hybrid ownership is modelled against tax outcome, asset protection and serviceability impact. Recommendations are documented in writing.
The application is prepared and submitted in-house. The same accountant who structures the tax position presents the file to the lender.
From the second purchase onwards. Borrowers who have hit a serviceability ceiling, are about to, or want the next purchase structured so it does not trigger one.
Self-employed borrowers whose tax returns deliberately minimise income. We present the underlying business cash flow that lenders are willing to credit.
Specialist medical, legal and consulting income, including bonus, commission, RSU and partnership distributions. Income components routinely discounted by 50 per cent are usually accepted in full when presented correctly.
Four patterns observed routinely when reviewing existing borrower positions.
Negative gearing, depreciation and salary sacrifice are sensible in isolation but routinely damage serviceability when applied without consideration of upcoming borrowing. The annual tax saving frequently costs more than it saves once borrowing capacity falls.
External brokers are typically not trained to interpret company tax returns, trust distributions or Division 7A loan accounts. Gross figures are taken at face value, legitimate add-backs are missed, and serviceability is submitted well below what the borrower can support.
Ownership structure is typically discussed in the week of settlement, by which point options have closed. The correct time is the year before, when restructure costs are low and the structure has time to season for serviceability purposes.
Most borrowers default to their existing bank because it is convenient. Servicing calculations vary by tens of percent across the lender panel; staying with a familiar lender routinely costs borrowers their next purchase.
Current borrowing capacity modelled against three or four lender servicing calculators, not just one.
Optimal ownership for the next acquisition: personal, trust, company, SMSF or hybrid. Modelled for tax, serviceability and asset protection.
Clear actions to take in the next 6 to 12 months to lift serviceability ahead of the next purchase.
The loan is written in-house by the same team that structured the position.
A 30-minute review with a senior accountant. We'll assess current borrowing capacity, identify where structure is restricting serviceability, and outline the position for the next purchase. Initial review is no charge.