Australian real estate inheritance: what should we pay attention to besides not collecting inheritance tax?

1. If the deceased is married, although Australian law recognizes foreign-related marriages in Australia, the area where the parties got married no longer has jurisdiction. Any real estate inheritance dispute is usually decided by the relevant state court. Which court decides depends on the value of real estate, and different courts have different upper limits of the amount.

2. No reserved rights. According to Australian law, there is no "reservation right" and the inheritance must be inherited by someone. Everyone has the freedom to make a will. In Australia, most people will make a will; However, the parties have the right to object to the will on the grounds that the decedent has the moral obligation to support. The law does not stipulate what kind of people should be excluded from the testator. Make a will to dispose of assets in Australia.

You can apply for "re-stamping" the inspection probate obtained in the jurisdiction where the will is executed, but this process requires the original jurisdiction to grant a testamentary agent. Therefore, in order to reduce the delay and inconvenience overseas, non-local residents can make independent Australian wills for land titles mainly located in Australia.

3. The testator may specify that the will only apply to his assets located in Australia and make other arrangements for assets in other jurisdictions.

In the case of intestate, some fixed rules apply to the distribution of inheritance. It depends on whether the deceased left any descendants of his spouse (including common-law spouses and same-sex couples), and if not, whether there were any extended family members, including cousins, or even second cousins in some Australian states. If the decedent has no living relatives, he can meet the conditions of an intestate heir. The legacy will be owned by the state, relevant Australian state governments and funds.

Owners can give their property to others during their lifetime. The general rule of Australian law is that the parties have the right to dispose of their personal assets as they wish, whether they are alive or dead (according to their wills).

Extended data case:

The government collects inheritance tax, mostly under the signboard of "social fairness". In fact, like other taxes, governments all over the world levy inheritance tax for fiscal and taxation reasons. For example, both Australia and the United States levied inheritance tax during World War I to supplement wartime expenses.

However, today, the enthusiasm of governments to levy inheritance tax is fading. Since Australia became the first rich country to abolish inheritance tax in 1978, many countries and regions have followed suit under the pressure of tax competition. Over the past 30 years, more than 20 countries and regions have abolished inheritance tax.

Israel 198 1 abolished inheritance tax, New Zealand 1992 abolished inheritance tax, Sweden abolished inheritance tax in 2005, Hong Kong abolished inheritance tax in 2006, and Austria and Singapore abolished inheritance tax in 2008. The United States, which is often quoted as saying things, began to reduce the inheritance tax rate in 2003 and implemented a one-year zero tax rate at 20 10. In Britain, where inheritance tax has a long history and is strictly enforced, this tax is being strongly criticized, and many parties are also working hard to actually cancel this tax.

Just like levying inheritance tax, there are practical reasons for governments to actively abolish inheritance tax. Because the impact of inheritance tax on social economy is quite negative, it fails to play a role in "promoting social equity" or "adjusting the gap between the rich and the poor".

For example, Australia, the first country to eat crabs, abolished the inheritance tax, probably because the inheritance tax was not popular in Australia. Due to the appreciation of real estate brought by economic development, more and more middle class are included in the scope of inheritance tax collection. The rise of land price has also led to the high valuation of agricultural land. Many farmers have been levied inheritance tax, but the output value of agricultural land is relatively low. The rich can evade inheritance tax by employing lawyers and financial advisers through various financial arrangements. Therefore, the heirs of inheritance tax are mostly non-rich people whose property valuation exceeds expectations due to rising land prices and who cannot make financial arrangements in advance.

In other words, people who were originally neutral or even supportive of inheritance tax finally found that with inflation, socio-economic development and personal wealth growth, they became the undertakers of this originally unreachable tax, and the real super-rich actually had a way to avoid it. In addition, if the inheritance tax is levied on the owners of small and medium-sized enterprises, it will often affect their business operations and be quite unfavorable to economic development. Therefore, it is natural that society is dissatisfied with this tax. Since 1960, the Australian public has called for the government to cancel the inheritance tax very strongly.

The Australian government finally abolished the inheritance tax on 1978. In addition to political pressure, it also hopes to reduce taxes and complexity of the tax system to encourage entrepreneurship and personal initiative. When the Australian Parliament debated whether to abolish the inheritance tax, the opposing party thought that abolishing this tax would make Australia's tax system look different among countries. On the other hand, supporters see no reason to hate personal efforts and financial success. Some supporters said: "If only Australia adopts this tax policy (abolishing the inheritance tax), then only Australia is working hard in the direction of supporting citizens' individual enterprising, and this, in my opinion, is the real progress. "(If Australia is unique in tax policy, then only this country is moving in the direction of improving the personal status of its citizens. In my opinion, this is real progress. )

Facts have proved that Australia is not a maverick. As mentioned above, after Australia abolished the inheritance tax, various countries and regions followed suit. This is no accident. It is human nature that the abolition of inheritance tax is obviously beneficial to the investment environment. People with money and ability are more inclined to emigrate to countries without inheritance tax, so that their wealth can be passed on to future generations, which stimulates the competition of tax systems in various countries.

After New Zealand 1992 abolished the inheritance tax, the foreign direct investment increased by 103% in the following year, and it also maintained a growth rate of 20% in the following two years. The demonstration effect is outstanding. So far, in the first article introducing its tax system in official website, the New Zealand Immigration Bureau put "We have no inheritance tax".

The abolition of inheritance tax in Hong Kong in 2006 also took into account the negative impact of inheritance tax on social economy. After the abolition of inheritance tax, although it has a slight impact on government tax temporarily (inheritance tax generally accounts for a very small proportion of individual tax revenue), the inflow of overseas investment has increased the value of Hong Kong stocks, land and real estate. At the same time, Hong Kong has gradually become an asset management center in Asia, and related industries such as finance, accounting and law have become more prosperous, bringing more business and employment opportunities to Hong Kong people. Singapore subsequently abolished the inheritance tax in 2008, which is a bit different from Hong Kong.

Perhaps there is public opinion that the abolition of inheritance tax is beneficial to the social economy, but it is suspected of "emphasizing efficiency over fairness". This statement is ridiculous. In order to fulfill various so-called obligations, the government levies taxes on almost all economic activities. It can be said that a person's various incomes, settled in a bag, have been taxed. In the end, he died, and all his property was heavily taxed. There is no doubt that this is double taxation, which in itself is difficult to be fair.

In addition, if someone thinks that everyone should be equal in intelligence, appearance, physical strength and so on. And no one should be too superior, it is likely to be regarded as a madman. Why are some people born richer than others, but they are considered unfair? Weakening the strong cannot help the weak. Ensuring a free competitive market environment and giving everyone a chance to succeed is the greatest fairness. Under this premise, it is not good for everyone to levy inheritance tax and reduce social capital investment, thus weakening economic prosperity. It is the general trend to stop collecting inheritance tax.

Phoenix Net-Australia opens the world trend of not collecting inheritance tax.