Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

miro2021

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About miro2021

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. You are not claiming it as your PPR for those 36 months, you are simply claiming exemption from CGT for the final 36 months of ownership of a property which was once your PPR.
  2. See IR helpsheet 283 - example 4 confirms the last 36 months of ownership are exempt on a property which was once your PPR.
  3. I think you are right about this. Unless things have changed recently... http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/art...mp;in_page_id=8 I think you also get up to 40K gain tax free on top of the 36 months if the property was let out. e.g "For example, Marianne is planning to sell her flat, which she purchased five years ago for £130,000. She lived in it for a year, before moving in with her partner and letting the property. Marianne and her partner are getting married and she aims to sell the flat for £230,000 to finance a move after the big day. Mr Ford explains that the first year is exempt from capital gains, as it was her main residence, the final three years are also exempt, as the home was once her main residence, leaving only one year exposed. If it is assumed that capital gain is spread equally over the five years, the exposed sum is £20,000 and because this is lower than the £40,000 letting relief, no tax should be payable."
  4. You don't say why his parents wanted him to move - maybe it was necessary for some private reason or they really wanted some time on their own as a couple after the long joy/slog of bringing up children.. Presumably he could have chosen instead to move into a shared rented place. Personally I'd prefer to be the owner in a shared flat as he is. No need for niggles with bills if there's proper discussion about what everyone expects/is fair. If the lodgers move out he will presumably have specified a months notice giving him time to advertise and find a replacement - it seems likely his parents would be willing/able to assist him financially if there's a gap.. Friends being asked to leave because of a life change - well that's...life. As long as it's done considerately his friends will cope. I think he's pretty lucky - if he was convinced it's a bad time to buy he should have looked for a shared property instead.
  5. I think she's very switched on - even when in the older shows people were smug because they'd made a good profit despite ballsing up she still used to point out that it was due to HPI rather that to their developing antics and that they would have made as much money by doing nothing to the property..
  6. I tend to agree - I think I just have a bit of a suspicious nature when it comes to rich landowners and all the tax breaks they seem to get and non-transparency eg: http://www.sundayherald.com/37275 "The £72m in taxes is lost each year through non-payment of inheritance tax, stamp duty and capital gains tax that ordinary householders have to pay on their properties. But these losses are only the tip of a tax-avoidance iceberg. If urban Scotland and the rest of the UK is taken into account, then billions of pounds are lost to the Treasury each year." "While these estates avoid paying millions in tax, they also apply for public grants and subsidies for housing improvements, forestry, agricultural and environmental schemes" "Professor Christine Cooper, head of Accountancy at Strathclyde University, described some of the practices by the land owners as “deliberately artistic” and called for transparency in the accounting of estates that are in receipt of public funding."
  7. I suppose they could argue that a portion of their yearly payments should have been set aside by the Duke to cover this expense after all he could be making up to 26K gross a year from his spring (130*200). I suppose it depends whether you think he should be able to profit from this natural resource that happens to be on his land or whether you think the payments made by the locals should reflect the cost of maintaining the infrastructure only.. edit: personally if i could make an investment of 90K bringing in 26K per year I'd probably go for it - better than BTL!!
  8. Why don't the homeowners cover the 90,000 grant that got turned down under a contract that ensures their bills are frozen or reduced for x years or some such deal. There are 130 households so this averages £692 per household - surely most could mew that much!!
  9. I didn't suggest any legal arrangement relating to anything so trivial as taking out the rubbish so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up? It seems to be more and more the case that the 'one size fits all' marriage contract is unacceptable for some people particulary where there is a large disparity of wealth. Because a wealthy person may not want to 'risk' their wealth (unlike yourself and Paul McCartney) in marriage which I think is fair enough - in my opinion there is a place for an alternative - a customised 'marriage' contract that is fair to both partners. I disagree that such an arrangement is setting a relationship up for failure.
  10. I tend to agree with this. If you are in a relationship you consider to be for life, and you are in the position where you are sacrificing your own career prospects for the sake of 'the relationship' - this is most likely when there is a child and/or when one partner's career requires frequent moves and the other 'follows' them and limits their own job to whatever can be found in whatever location is best for the 'career partner' this is the point where you should be considering your financial future should the relationship end. You should either: a) get married as this entitles you to compensation for your loss in earning power. OR (and I think this will become more and more popular) b ) draw up a pre-nup (I call it a pre-nup but obviously it's not as you don't get married - it is just a contract saying what will happen financially if/when you split up) I tend to think option b is becoming more and more valid as people settle down later in life when there may be a greater disparity in wealth accumulated before the relationship and people don't want to rely on the divorce court to divide assets fairly. I think maybe instead of bringing new laws like this we should at least try educating people about their rights (a lot of peolpe living with their long-term partner think they have rights to equity etc that they don't) •Make people aware of the big difference between breaking up with a long term partner and breaking up with a long term spouse. Make them aware that though their long-term living together relationship looks and feels like being married - financially it is completely different. •Tell them if they don't want to get married they can draw up a legal agreement stating what will happen if they split up. I would hope the result would be that the partner who realises he/she is becoming financially (losing earning-power due to the relationship) dependant will bring up the subject of either getting married or drawing up a legal agreement and will then find out exactly how committed/fair-minded their partner is. My advice to a person in this position is: If he/she doesn't recognise the need of some sort of legal standing - leave them and find someone who loves you.
  11. Isn't the one bedroom big enough for a double bed or do you want to sleep in separate rooms????? I can understand why you will need more space to have kids and your frustration that you can't afford it... but you can still move in together now surely?
  12. I think it's unbelievable people do that. When I moved here I was greeted with a nice clean place complete to lightbulbs and loo paper and a welcome card under a nice bottle of champagne!
  13. I doubt any of those Applecross luxury flats will be bought by Scots! Don't assume none of us can afford them though - we are just not daft enough to pay 1.5M for a 3-bed flat.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.