hi everybody, currently i am deciding for my next residential investment property for rent to tenants but am in a bit of a fix as to which choice is a better one, alot of the figures shown are assumed and that to some the gross percentages may be different from what an investor may want, also the cocr is ignored for the moment...
choice 1
kl area, not my hometown, have to fly over, a bit of hassle
decide to stamp thus declare to tax for ability to sue tenants if anything goes wrong as i am not always there.
apartment price 150k
rental = 1000/month 8%gross
= 12000
maintenance = 125/month = 1500
interest paid to bank = 0 because using flexi and maxed it out
tax declaration = 12000-1500 = 10500 (i know there are other costs that can deduct but lets assume...)
assume tax bracket 24% = pay extra 2520
overall result = 12000-1500-2520 = 7980 cashflow
choice 2
hometown area, can drive over easily
decide not to stamp/declare tax because can fix myself easily if anything goes wrong
apartment price 150k
rental = 790/month 6.32%gross (rental not so good as compared to kl)
= 9480
maintenance = 125/month = 1500
interest paid to bank = 0
tax dont declare
overall result = 9480-1500 = 7980 cashflow
Assuming that the availability of tenants are the same for both cases would you choose to have a legal rental but the location is very far (choice 1) or would you rather have a property that is near (choice 2) but decide not to declare tax for it so that the cashflow could be the same? your comments will be appreciated.
better to rent out legal or near
Feb 3 2009, 11:48 AM, updated 17y ago
Quote
0.0136sec
0.55
5 queries
GZIP Disabled