SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Rate Grand Central Park!!

  • 9.5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8.5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7.5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6.5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5.5

    Votes: 0 0.0%

GRAND CENTRAL PARK | Central Park West | 33 fl

307K views 1K replies 108 participants last post by  NickNYC 
#1 ·
On behalf of Federal Land Inc., Metrobank and Grand Hyatt Corporation we would like you to be part of the first privileged few to know about the launching of the second residential low dense condominium.

The Central Park West will have the breath taking view of the Central Park and part of a large scale mixed-use 11 hectare Grand Hyatt complex in the northeastern part of Bonifacio Global City .





This looks like One Mckinley!
 
See less See more
2
#68 ·
^^ Dang P900 Thousand a slot? Is that for a one car parking slot or a 2 car tandem parking slot? Wow if this price is only for a 1 car parking slot, then parking slots are really getting ridiculously expensive now. Wonder if the parking slot to unit ratio in this project is in the low side which makes parking slots in this project a very limited commodity; thus dictating this high/expensive asking price for these said parking slots...
 
#69 ·
The broker just mentioned it off-hand, because I inquired for a unit without a parking slot.

the parking is podium parking (not underground), but if I understood correctly, 900k is for just one slot.

Is this normal for fort parking? or is this high? the broker commented that their parking is "medyo mahal"
 
#70 ·
^^ Yup it's really on the high side as far as Fort is concerned though I've heard of parking slot prices as high as P1M/slot in Eastwood though that area/township is so much smaller a footprint than Fort Bonifacio which also still has lots of open spaces which makes it all the more surprising why so high. Normally parking slot price also goes higher when there is not enough parking slots in a given project because it creates an artificial demand brought about by the limited number of parking slots visavis the number of units in a given project. I'm not sure though if such is the case in Central Park West or if they are just selling it at these high prices because they can. Just that before parking slots were around P500 thousand per (single car) slot and now it seems it's going for almost double now. Amazing!
 
#73 ·
Just to add support to your statement, I reserved my parking slot at 8 Forbestown 7 months ago for 750k. Considering that Burgos Circle is already a developed area & with 8 Forbestown being the last condo constructed in that area, I figured parking will be acute by the time we take possession in a couple of years, so we reserved a second slot 3 months ago and they were still selling it for the same price of 750k. Both slots are above ground.

I think 900k for a parking slot is a bit much in this area. Unfortunately if you bought a unit here & you have a car, you don't have a choice but to buy at least 1 parking slot, but may deter you from getting a second slot.
 
#74 ·
I have been observing the matter concerning parking slots for some time. There are more people owning cars than before. Generally condo buyers are hesitant in buying parking slots because of the costs. But the scarcity of such slots will make them worthy investment. When I bought a parking slot at Sea Residences people then were saying that I shouldn't since there are plenty of slots in the Bay. I went ahead and bought a premium slot at 750k. Now the residents there are looking for slots. They are renting slots at 7k per month. In time to come this 900k that we are now complaining may yield a return of 9k per month.
 
#76 ·
the 1br units in cpw pala are vat free. i reserved 1 unit today 14JK. my first condo investment. mixed feeling, excited yet anxious of the long payment term. lol hopefully i made the right decision :) but the project looks very promising
^^ Congratulations! Hope you don't mind me asking would you care to share how much your unit purchase came out and the size of the unit so that we can get an idea how much the Vat free unit price come out to? Thank You! :)
 
#237 · (Edited)
all 1br (38 and 40sqm) have 2 titles, so technically each unit is 2.05M-ish. that's why it's vat free
technically yes. it's a combined unit. but you can't just buy one, you have to buy two. so really it's not . .. but it is . .. .magulo :bash: hehehe
I don't know if it's allowed, but it is skirting the vat law. but for me, I'm happy bec i'm the beneficiary of a vat free property, and in the future with selling the property, it has 2 titles, so i guess if I end up selling it for less than 3.2 per title, then it would also be vat free?
I have already moved on from the big apple park issue. If there will be no park, small park, or even a pocket park what have you then i guess i can live with that. What bothers me more now is the scheme that federal land has done to escape vat.

Perhaps this is a mistake on my end for not checking this earlier but i really didnt pay much attention when they were discussing the combined units before. And they really made sure it appears as 2 separate units. 2 cts for 19sqm each, 2 payment receipts for both so-called combined units which is actually just one single unit.

I just hope we dont suffer the same fate as BTO investors.
I got a unit in MPW, same with CPW, they have combined 2-19sqm to become1BR unit. I raised this concern before reserving the unit and my agent told me that the total contract price is already VAT inclusive, which is true because it is reflected in the computation attached in my CTS. So i think we no longer need to worry about this.
http://www.punongbayan-araullo.com/pnawebsite/pnahome.nsf/section_docs/QU551M_6-11-12

RR 13-2012 now states that: "...sale, transfer or disposal within a 12-month period of two or more adjacent residential lots, house and lots or other residential dwellings in favor of one buyer from the same seller, for the purpose of utilizing the lots, house and lots or other residential dwellings as one residential area wherein the aggregate value of the adjacent properties exceeds P1,919,500 for residential lots and P3,199,200 for residential house and lots or other residential dwellings" shall be subject to the 12% VAT.

The relevant BIR circular came into effect Nov 1, 2012. I don't think it can be applied retroactively to units already sold. If your contract or computation sheet has a VAT breakdown, then there is nothing to worry about.
Hmmm... Interesting! And thanks for sharing this cocopops! My CTS for both 19sqm units do state "RVAT EXEMPT" in section 2 of the CTS i.e. "2. Purchase Price and Terms of Payment".

But... Both the CTS also show notarised date as October 30, 2012. So technically, I got away with the supposed new VAT Ruling, yea? And this is where my worry lies. Will the BIR eventually chase after me having escaped paying the VAT for a single unit that had been sold separately as 2 units?

^^ Mmm... Does that mean Nov 1, 2012 is the cut off set by the BIR and any CTS dated previously can no longer be investigated even if found there was actual intent to go around the VAT Tax Law at the time of sale?

Just find it really interesting the way Federal Land had approached going about making those said dual/combined 19 SQM VAT Free units especially given that there's actually a minimum unit size requirement in Fort Bonifacio. Basically what the developer has done here is require buyer(s) to actually get 2 smaller sized units (dual/combined 19 SQM units) to deliver what basically would normally be your VATable 38 SQM unit in order to be able to circumvent the VAT FREE rule (a 38 SQM unit with 2 titles is basically (2) 19 SQM units that would then fall under the P3.2 and under VAT FREE requirement).

Compared to other developers, the difference here is that buyers are forced to buy these two units in order to basically sell you a 38 sqm (combined) unit without VAT but you can't just buy one 19 SQM unit if you want to like in other developers' projects. And there is really no 19 SQM floor plan in the building plan either. Now if they do sell these 19 SQM units individually outright then it's a different matter. The fact that there are really no 19 SQM units available makes it quite obvious, to me at least, that such combined unit scheme in Central Park West is really more just to circumvent and go around this VAT FREE requirement parameters.

Federal Land is really pushing the envelope in the way they are going around the VAT FREE rule. It really raises a Red Flag. I'm just worried for the buyers who bought under this scheme with the understanding they're buying VAT FREE units. What if the BIR go after them later down the line? I do sincerely hope it does not boomerang back to the buyers if the BIR finds this illegal a practice later down the line. Now if Federal Land will end up paying for the VAT tax then all well and good!
 
#83 ·
I don't know if it's allowed, but it is skirting the vat law. but for me, I'm happy bec i'm the beneficiary of a vat free property, and in the future with selling the property, it has 2 titles, so i guess if I end up selling it for less than 3.2 per title, then it would also be vat free?
 
#90 ·
Is the layout for 1 38 sqm unit or are there layouts for 18 sqm? Hmmmm its obviously for the advantage of the buyer however its basically going around the VAT Law. Just wondering if this rule is not violating anything. I hope it should be fine just make sure to read everything in the contract as these practices are not normal :)
 
#94 ·
If North Boni does not have a min. unit size requirement like BGC, then that's the loophole Federal Land is using to be able to sell 2 19 SQM combined units to fall under the 3.2 Vat free limit. I don't remember seeing 19sqm units in the building floorplan posted here so it looks like Federal Land is doing it (need to buy 2 units that are then combined into one) just to go around the Vat free parameters. Federal land is really pushing the envelope in the way they are going around the VAT rule. I do sincerely hope it does not boomerang back to the buyers if such is found illegal a practice later down the line.
 
#95 ·
Correct me if I'm wrong but the practice of combining units to go around the vat law is also done in entry level condo properties like SMDC's my place and ayala's amaia skies. Agents would usually recommend combining two or three units for buyers wanting of a bigger unit without them paying vat. Isn't there a law prohibiting this? Though it's the first time that I've heard that a developer such as Federal imposing on a buy 2 units as 1. Could they do this? To just impose?
 
#96 ·
^^ Yup the difference here is that you are forced to buy the two units in order to sell you a 38 sqm (combined) unit without Vat and you can't just buy 1 19sqm unit if you want to. And there is no 19sqm floor plan in the building plan either so one is really forced to buy 2 units (at a time) to buy the 38sqm unit they are selling Vat free. If they do sell the small size units individually then it's a different matter. The fact that there are really no 19 sqm units available clearly shows they are simply doing this to go around the Vat rules. As I've said before, Federal Land is pushing the envelope in the way they are going around the VAT rule with this. I'm no legal expert so I'm not about to say such practice is illegal. However I do sincerely hope it does not boomerang back to the buyers if such is found illegal a practice later down the line.
 
#97 ·
Yeah, Developer is getting away with doing this scheme for now, but there is always a possibility that BIR may come up with a directive in the future to plug this loophole. If and when they do, previous buyers will be assessed of VAT not paid, plus penalties and interest. Lagot na kayo. Check your contracts. I suspect Developer has placed a clause there for such eventuality, so they are rendering themselves free of any future liabilities, and buyers will have to pay missed VAT.
 
#98 ·
I thought that this practice of combining smaller units to circumvent the VAT requirements had already been outlawed. Perhaps I'm wrong but I do know that some developers no longer provide for this - thus, there's presumably a very real risk that this type of combined unit will become subject to VAT.
 
#99 ·
^^ Yes that's actually a real possibility indeed. BIR can go after these Vat amounts including penalties and other charges later down the line if ever they deem such a scheme is indeed illegal. Sometimes good deals can be too good to be true so all the more buyers need to be very vigilant if buying under such conditions and be very careful reading the fine prints in the sales contract. Buyers need to protect one's self that if ever the BIR will go after the Vat amount and penalties later down the line that you don't end up having to pay for it. Better if during the signing of a purchase contract for such a unit, one can secure an official letter/doc (w/company logo) saying that it's Federal Land that will be responsible for paying any VAT, penalties and other related costs in case the BIR decides what Federal did is illegal and goes after these unit buyers. Better protect one's self now kesa maghabol sa Federal Land later down the line. Anyway my opinion only so kindly take it with a grain of salt.
 
#102 ·
What if magkaiba yung ilalagay na owners sa title? Like yung isang title sa mother, yung isa sa anak? Or the titles are spread over sa magkakapatid? Will this be better? Marami talagang loopholes yung Vat law, I just hope that this will be addressed soon so that future buyers would know the consequences in the long run if ever they decide to purchase combined units.
 
#104 ·
It's quite obvious, to me atleast, the combined unit scheme in Central Park West is not really following the Non Vat rule in good faith and really just a way to go around this Non Vat rule parameters. Federal Land is really pushing the envelope in the way they are going around the VAT rule. That's why I'm worried for the buyers who bought under this scheme to avoid paying Vat because there is a real possibility the BIR can go after them later down the line. I do sincerely hope it does not boomerang back to the buyers if such is found illegal a practice later down the line.Buyers should secure something official in writing that it will be Federal Land and not them who should pay if it does happen unless the buyers are willing to pay for it themselves.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top