Buy-To-Let Investors To Challenge Tax Hike In Court --- Merged Threads

[65243]

Do you have this on any authority other than yourself?

Hi Si,

See my previous posts. You'd need to have some understanding of ECHR law. Their main argument would be that a charge to tax based on turnover and not profit is a <i>disproportionate</i> interference with their properrty rights under Art 1, Protocol 1. There is no direct case law on this point, because I don't think it has been tried before. However, there is some Strasbourg case law suggesting that very high rates of tax are disproportionate. I don't believe that any other country which is signed up to the Convention has such a punitive tax regime.

[billybong]

How quickly will a decision be made - when her husband was PM and there were pension disputes (because of the pension funds endemic fiddling) they managed to string it all out for the best part of a decade. When they left power in 2010 the EL saga still hadn't been resolved. The eu courts were even involved but typically that was one of the times when eu law didn't take priority over British (rigged) law.

Of course BtL is so special. Let them waste their time.

Edited December 27, 2015 by billybong

[Si1]

Hi Si,

See my previous posts. You'd need to have some understanding of ECHR law. Their main argument would be that a charge to tax based on turnover and not profit is a <i>disproportionate</i> interference with their properrty rights under Art 1, Protocol 1. There is no direct case law on this point, because I don't think it has been tried before. However, there is some Strasbourg case law suggesting that very high rates of tax are disproportionate. I don't believe that any other country which is signed up to the Convention has such a punitive tax regime.

So that's a no then. See Venger's previous posts on the subject of disproportionate tax (I think) from they mouths of legal types. It isn't, to summarise.

And anyway this wouldn't be covered by a judicial review, as far as my layman's understanding goes.

[Lavalas]

Hi Si,

See my previous posts. You'd need to have some understanding of ECHR law. Their main argument would be that a charge to tax based on turnover and not profit is a <i>disproportionate</i> interference with their properrty rights under Art 1, Protocol 1. There is no direct case law on this point, because I don't think it has been tried before. However, there is some Strasbourg case law suggesting that very high rates of tax are disproportionate. I don't believe that any other country which is signed up to the Convention has such a punitive tax regime.

Never mind the fact that a Judicial Review rules on the process not the content, unless I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to see them argue their way round point (2).

Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

[Bland Unsight]

Hi Si,

See my previous posts. You'd need to have some understanding of ECHR law. Their main argument would be that a charge to tax based on turnover and not profit is a <i>disproportionate</i> interference with their properrty rights under Art 1, Protocol 1. There is no direct case law on this point, because I don't think it has been tried before. However, there is some Strasbourg case law suggesting that very high rates of tax are disproportionate. I don't believe that any other country which is signed up to the Convention has such a punitive tax regime.

Punitive? Are you serious? Merely restricting the relief to the basic rate of tax, beginning implementation more than 18 months from the announcement of the measures and tapering in the restriction over three years.

The fact that the consequences are severe for some of the PovertyLater herberts like Busta are a consequence of their absolutely batshit mental 'strategy'.

Busta has indicated that by 2020 the portfolios of some of the PovertyLater bozos will be haemorrhaging cash, forcing them to sell or be made insolvent by their income tax bill, however, if they do sell the equity in their portfolios will not be sufficient to pay both the Capital Gains Tax they owe and the early redemption charges on the 10-year fixed rate mortgages that just they took out to capture current low rates.

These measures are not "punitive". The supertax rate is only 45% and it only kicks in at £150,000. With rents at £800 pcm you need fifteen investment properties to generate that much rent.

Is anyone seriously entertaining the laughable idea that even if the interest charge was not allowed at all when calculating income for the purposes of calculating income tax that a 45% tax rate is punitive.

It is so ugly for these cretins because of the ludicrous way in which they've set up their finances, and whether they did it knowingly or not, the entire purpose of the arrangement they've favoured is to reduce their tax expense to virtually nothing.

These morons are throwing good money after bad. Get real, or get bled out. If you've kippered yourself, I guess waiting for a miracle has a certain appeal.

Still, this is how that crowd funded money must look to their legal team...

[Bland Unsight]

Never mind the fact that a Judicial Review rules on the process not the content, unless I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to see them argue their way round point (2).

Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Busta's legal team: Look, I see why you're looking for some kind of hope, but putting it generously your chances of getting anything out of the only legal route open to you are perhaps marginally less than the chances of us discovering in the fullness of time that Jimmy Saville was in point of fact a good egg and that all the groping was a series of accidents with innocent explanations.

Busta:

[65243]

Never mind the fact that a Judicial Review rules on the process not the content, unless I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to see them argue their way round point (2).

Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Hi all,

Art 1 is a qualified right. The state's interference under para 2 must be proportionate. There is an enormous body of caselaw on this, across the entire catalogue of Convention rights. None of it is directly relevant to the landlords' case. Some of it does rule that excessive taxation is unlawful. Their case is undoubtedly arguable. If I was Mark Alexander I would certainly be paying someone to argue it for me, as I suggested back in August.

Judicial review is the correct procedure for challenging the validity of primary legislation under s.4 of the HRA. A court of High Court level or above can make a declaration of incompatibility under that section.

Even if the landlords won in the High Court that would not be the end of it. The Treasury would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

It will be an interesting case, whatever happens.

[Si1]

Busta's legal team: Look, I see why you're looking for some kind of hope, but putting it generously your chances of getting anything out of the only legal route open to you are perhaps marginally less than the chances of us discovering in the fullness of time that Jimmy Saville was in point of fact a good egg and that all the groping was a series of accidents with innocent explanations.

Busta:

The Jimmy Saville connection could inform ARLA's bizarre medals worn by their senior officers.

Maybe they are a cargo cult who think that jim'l'fixit badges will mean Jim WILL fix it for them to overturn sovereign legislative processes, perhaps coming back from the dead in a Range Rover Sport SE to do the honours.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Si1

[Bland Unsight]

Worth noting that all the detail Busta provided to HMRC and the Treasury will be very helpful to the government legal team should this nonsense get to a point where the government need to respond.

Mark Alexander - Property118 says: 20/08/2015 at 12:27

Meeting at The Treasury just concluded, hence the update much earlier than expected.

The reason they changed the meeting is that they wanted to meet me personally.

The only attendees were me, Megan Shaw (HMRC), her boss and Sean Rath, Policy Adviser to The Treasury.

I did 80% of the talking, because all they were doing is justifying their own impact assessment. They still believe the OBR impact assessment, but admitted that many of our FoI requests are causing them problems.

In fairness they did listen intently and made copious notes. Nevertheless, I felt like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.

Poor ignorant Busta, he does realise that Canute failed to stop the tide coming in and that Canute knew he couldn't stop the tide coming in? It's a story about humility and the recognition of actual impotence. Canute is rebuking his courtiers. (Historical sources do not make clear whether Canute was pan-handling for legal fees four months later, but if we was at least Busta and Canute have that in common).

[Bland Unsight]

Art 1 is a qualified right. The state's interference under para 2 must be proportionate.

Don't you suspect that perhaps a notionally independent central bank screaming "Fire! Fire! Massive f**king fire!" would make a modest tax tweak proportionate? If only we had a year or so of that before the introduction of the new statute law...

Let me check some dates...

Oh, how convenient.

Interesting that the lenders didn't explore this avenue, but that they left it to the mug money.

[Bland Unsight]

Maybe they are a cargo cult who think that jim'l'fixit badges will mean Jim WILL fix it for them to overturn sovereign legislative processes, perhaps coming back from the dead in a Range Rover Sport SE to do the honours.

Both and then after further thought

"Now then, .."

[jaw drops away from decomposing face, then continues with the Now Thens]

" ...ow eh, ow eh"

[MARTINX9]

Never mind the fact that a Judicial Review rules on the process not the content, unless I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to see them argue their way round point (2).

Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Didn't seem to stop Cyprus robbing people of their savings to bailout the banking system. And of course now such bail in rules apply right across the EU.

The thought that BTLs could successfully challenge the elected Governments tax policies on human rights grounds sucks!

[dances with sheeple]

I'm not sure there's a big enough bucket of popcorn for this one.

[billybong]

Didn't seem to stop Cyprus robbing people of their savings to bailout the banking system. And of course now such bail in rules apply right across the EU.

The thought that BTLs could successfully challenge the elected Governments tax policies on human rights grounds sucks!

It's sort of NOT "We're all in this together" - and they threaten they're going to compensate themselves for their loss of human rights (financial loss) by putting up rents by 25%.

Edited December 27, 2015 by billybong

[Venger]

Punitive? Are you serious? Merely restricting the relief to the basic rate of tax, beginning implementation more than 18 months from the announcement of the measures and tapering in the restriction over three years.

The fact that the consequences are severe for some of the PovertyLater herberts like Busta are a consequence of their absolutely batshit mental 'strategy'.

Exactly that.

Got claims on loads of houses, doubling down on the current advantageous conditions for equity releasing, setting aside mortgage as a cost, offsetting high rates of tax... huge advantage over FTBs (imo). If they've done it to extremes, with claims on lots of properties via massive debt, they've put themselves in this position.

And some of them have the nerve to not only compare themselves to OO, but overlook their advantage to FTBs. And many of them now point to landlords who have chosen to pay down their debt and own outright, who won't be affected. Well, if some wiser BTL head has paid down 1 or 2 properties, rather expand for another 50 properties in 2009-2011, that's their own decision. They didn't take the extra risks that come with debt. Things can change. Individuals have to look at themselves for the investment risks they've taken. Property property property, debt debt debt.

Robert Mellors 24/11/2015 at 11:53

I also got the same standard pre-prepared statement in reply from Campbell Robb.

As the legislation would in effect take away a landlord’s income, and in many cases impose a tax burden far in excess of the landlord’s income, surely this could perhaps be in breach of the landlord’s human rights. I wonder if the Property118 sponsor, Cotswold Barristers (or other legally trained subscribers), have an opinion on this?

Gareth Wilson 24/11/2015 at 12:10

Reply to the comment left by “Robert Mellors” at “24/11/2015 – 11:53“:

I’m wondering as well if there is a technical legal definition of a sole trader or a sole trader’s tax liability that our activity complies with and that Clause 24 is in breach of.

Also, whether there is a remote article EU competition law that we could argue the government is breaching by forcing individual landlords to pay tax on mortgage interest, while companies do not.

Luke P 24/11/2015 at 12:28

I’ve been mulling over action via the EU for a while…I was thinking that surely Clause 24 is against all that is ‘natural’ about business and as such shouldn’t be allowed.

As pointed out, it could create uneven competition across Europe…

Robert Mellors 24/11/2015 at 13:08

I’m sure one of the articles in human rights legislation is about the protection of personal possessions, and that income (and/or the right to earn an income), has been deemed to be within that definition. I presume that the property itself would also fall within the definition of a personal possession, so again should have legal protection from unjustified state interference. Thus, both the property itself, and the right to earn an income from the property, may fall within human rights protection.

Plus, as others have pointed out, there may be other legal breaches in relation to competition, and in company law (and perhaps in Public Law).

Mark Shine 24/11/2015 at 19:03

As others have indicated, I too would be very keen to hear if any legally qualified members of this forum are prepared to share any informal views on a possible legal challenge whether via UK or EU courts.

If that’s not possible, and I understand why it may not be, does anyone have any thoughts on getting a ‘paid for’ legal opinion?

Despite Osborne’s rhetoric, C24 will give the wealthiest players in the PRS a huge and unfair advantage, which they will almost certainly exploit.

Ros 24/11/2015 at 19:50

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Shine” at “24/11/2015 – 19:03“:

Many of us on the forum have been keen on taking legal action, but no one person wants to take it on. We have even had a price from a barrister to take an initial look at it – I think is was £6,000, and a few of us were willing to put in £500 each. However, the RLA and NLA don’t believe it is a good move and finding that out has put rather a dampener on it.

One of the issues is that if we were unsuccessful we would be liable for the other side’s costs….

Robert Mellors 24/11/2015 at 20:08

Reply to the comment left by “Ros .” at “24/11/2015 – 19:50“:

Perhaps if it was done in just one person’s name, someone who will definitely be bankrupt if Clause 24 proceeds, then they would have nothing to lose.

If they lost the case then they would just declare bankruptcy and thus avoid paying the other side’s costs, as clause 24 would leave them no other option anyway! (and perhaps some other landlords could rally around and help them back on their feet afterwards?).

If they win the case, then the other side would pay their costs and clause 24 would be defeated and they (and many other landlords) would not have to become bankrupt.

Gareth Wilson 24/11/2015 at 20:23

Reply to the comment left by “Ros .” at “24/11/2015 – 19:50“:

Hi Ros,

What if we approached it the other way around? If we started with a donations page for people to voluntarily contribute £10 or whatever they wish above that amount towards Property118’s campaign against the buy-to-let tax.

The page would explain that the aim is to employ a barrister to fight the imposition of Clause 24 in Court. Then we could share and promote the link throughout the landlord forums and everywhere that the petition link was distributed to. The real plunge would be taken as and when we feel there is a sufficient buffer to cover a loss in Court, but the barrister could first be brought on board when the first 6k is gathered. If we were to get 600 to contribute to it at £10 each that would make £6000, though I’m sure because of the potential financial implications of Clause 24 some landlords will want to go significantly above that.

Robert Mellors 24/11/2015 at 21:51

Reply to the comment left by “Ros .” at “24/11/2015 – 20:22“:

The problem is that most landlords still don’t think it will happen, or if it does then they are unsure how much it will affect them, so nobody is likely to offer to be the volunteer for this. Also, they will not do it unless they can be certain that they have nothing to lose and will be supported through it. Thus, perhaps instead of raising money for the exorbitant barristers fees, we could raise funds to use as a “re-start fund” for any landlord that is willing to be the volunteer for this. Then, and only then, will we be in a position to start raising funds for legal fees.

Just a thought, but as Clause 24 will ultimately affect tenants by forcing homelessness upon them, maybe a case could also be brought by a tenant. (They would get much more sympathy, and may be more likely to get free legal assistance).

In terms of legal fees, there is a “Bar Pro Bono” unit, that offers (mainly junior) barristers free of charge to good causes, so they may be able to help? There could be an up and coming young barrister that wants to make a name for themselves? Then of course there is the possibility of someone taking the case on a no win no fee type arrangement (though I believe the government has tightened the rules on when this can type of arrangement can be used).

If you want to copy this (or any of my other comments) onto a different thread, you are welcome to do so.

I do so hope they try!

Turns out Mark has already poured cold water on the idea and spoiled all the fun!

Mark Alexander 24/11/2015 at 21:53

Reply to the comment left by “NW Landlord” at “24/11/2015 – 21:35“:

I have many barrister friends. They all concur that Government is perfectly within its rights not to accept certain expenses to be offset against tax. An example they game me is that a business cannot set off entertaining expenses against profit.

Sorry!

Si1 it must have been some other hpcer you were thinking of re disproportionate tax. I have little knowledge in that area, although I do have access to com-lit legal advice on family level (although they wouldn't take instructions to act on any matter for free even from me - they're all under pressure to 'fee-earn' to hit their targets).

There is much evidence that human expectations tend to be linear. Most of the time, most people expect current conditions to continue for the indefinite future. Wherever prosperity exists, it is natural for people to expect prosperity to continue. For this reason, much of the history of human society is a record of astonishment.

Time and again, people have marginalised their affairs, rendering themselves increasingly crisis-prone. They have gone into debt, extending claims on resources to an extreme that could be supported only if current conditions were sustained uninterrupted into the future. Time and again these hopes have been disappointed.

[Nabby81]

Personal possession's ?

Is it really a possession if you owe money ie a mortgage on it ?

Also even if they were to win , wouldn't the government a) Appeal and just find another way to tax them ?

[Bland Unsight]

Personal possession's ?

Is it really a possession if you owe money ie a mortgage on it ?

Also even if they were to win , wouldn't the government a) Appeal and just find another way to tax them ?

I think there's another bit of fun and games involved here, which is that it starts to get expensive and you could end up on the hook for the oppos legal costs if you lose. How are you going to crowdfund that?

The evidence does support the suggestion that you have a selection effect working here. You'd only get into BTL if you couldn't do second order thinking. Somebody says, "Buy property with an interest-only mortgage, you'll be minted". You do some first order thinking, comparing the costs of finance etc to the rent, and then you buy. What you don't think is "Why doesn't everybody do this? What happens when lots of people do this?"

Hence its the same thing all over. Somebody says "If we win, it's all gravy, doubles all round, our troubles are over", so you pony up £100. What you don't think is "What do the government do if we win?"

Fools and their money. Same as it ever was.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Bland Unsight

[Venger]

Personal possession's ?

Is it really a possession if you owe money ie a mortgage on it ?

Also even if they were to win , wouldn't the government a) Appeal and b] just find another way to tax them ?

How can they win?

They've put themselves in this situation. Danced into it.

To read about BTLers who have bought another 50+ properties to add to their pre 2007 portfolios, many rented to LHA claimants, now whining that they've been 'prudent with their financing' and done it so they don't have to be a burden on the state.... their own fault if they didn't expect change. Many of them been mocking HPC for years. In fact Mark Alexander was very comfortable on HPC forum, just weeks before tax change. Now we're the... what was it.... can't recall what he called us... ? anarchists... ah yes, 'numbskull anarchists.'

Parting thoughts .....

If your landlord decides to sell up would you rather they serve you notice and sell their property with vacant possession or would you rather they look to sell the property to another landlord?

When you or somebody you know next rent a property would you recommend signing a six month tenancy or try to find a landlord who offers you a Deed of Assurance?

This is a very simple list of what good landlords want from their tenants:-

1) rent on time

2) respect the neighbours

3) respect the property

4) mutual respect and cooperation between landlord and tenant

5) a long term relationship

Please accept that both landlords and tenants are a representation of society as a whole, there are good and bad people in all walks of society.

If you or people close to you want/need to rent a property, what will you do to ensure that you end up in a relationship that both landlord and tenant deserve?

If you focus on what you do want then in my experience you are far more likely to find it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are more likely to find what you focus on the most. My advice, therefore, is that you focus on what you really want a lot more than you focus on what you really don't want.

If you really do want a House Price Crash then by all means focus on that. Be careful what you wish for those. I accept that there will be further house price crashes in my lifetime, my focus on on surviving them. So far I have survived two.

Good luck!

Mark Alexander - Property118 says:

08/07/2015 at 19:39

I can but wonder how this decision came about.

I reckon the political discussions went something along these lines ………

Chancellor – Where can we raise another £1 billion a year in tax?

MP – What about landlords, they are the biggest beneficiaries of the ultra low interest rates

Chancellor – But what about when rates go back up?

MP – Well let’s be honest with each other, that’s not likely for a very long time!

Chancellor – OK, fair enough, and the BoE are concerned that £200 billion has been lent to landlords too.

Many MP’s – Yes agreed, but we are a conservative government, surely we can’t tax the rich can we?

Chancellor – Ah but what about if we phase it in gradually by gently reducing the tax breaks in BTL mortgage interest like the loony lefties have been suggesting. The difference is that we will only go half way max, surely the landlords will still vote for us at the next election on that basis?

More MP’s – Yes that makes sense, they’d have been much worse off if the lefties had got in because they are nothing more that a puppet for the likes of Shelter and the House Price Crash idiots when it comes to landlords are they?

PM and Chancellor – OK, agreed?

Most MP’s who are not Landlords – Agreed!

http://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-5/#comment-57744

Mark Alexander - Property118 says:

24/07/2015 at 00:19

So we have cuts in social housing, taxation policies that will bankrupt much of the PRS and reduce the scale of new build development. The knock on effects of less new build development will be less development of social housing.

The biggest housing charities in the UK appear to be supportive of these measures despite the fact we already have a housing crisis. I suppose the best way to raise profile of a housing charity is for the housing crisis to escalate, or am I just being cynical?

We have a growing population and an open door policy on EU immigration.

Where is this growing population going to live?

Without wanting to sound melodramatic, this lunacy could result in civil unrest if it is allowed to continue.

As many as 5 million tenanted homes could be disrupted if the PRS is taxed as proposed.

Another collapse in property values will leave many more millions of homeowners trapped in negative equity.

No wonder the numbskull anarchists posting on the House Price Crash forum are celebrating! They seem not to have a care about the lives of their friends and families who could be affected? All they want is for house prices to crash to a point where they can buy a property which matches their ability to earn an appropriate wage for their Pea brain levels of intellect, or perhaps they even think they will be able to borrow three times their benefits to get a mortgage and buy one? It is incredibly hard to fathom the illogical motives of some people.

I don’t know whether to laugh at the HPC mentality or cry about the stupidity of the politicians who have fallen for this BS, the very politicians most landlords voted into power.

The politicians MUST be made to see sense.

Goodnight

http://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-112/#comment-59590

Sense that supports debt-loaded BTLers ? This CGT they claim BTLers pay.... well many a BTLer claimed they would never sell (so no CGT...) whilst happily expanding for 50+ properties on the BTL..... time for some CGT to be paid on the older homes mewed out to buy later homes.

Serpico was another one, caught out, life at the top, mansion, new Bentley and new car for the wife every 3 years, racehorses, own private plane, when Gov decided to up VAT on motorcycles (his trade.. and expanded to own 4 franchises no less)... 'Thatcher got in and increased vat from 8% to 17.5% in addition there was the 10% car tax slapped on motor cycles that had never existed before.' - Tough. Then he bled money from 4 franchises, overspend with lack of savings, and had to sell house and showrooms to other market participants at distressed prices. They've built their portfolios on debt, and there can be changes to relief.

If they did somehow get a result, it would be appealed. Drain them for more legal fees. This is going through imo.

[Bland Unsight]

If they did somehow get a result, it would be appealed. Drain them for more legal fees. This is going through imo.

Absolutely, but even if they could reverse it, they won't be there to derive any benefit.

I sincerely believe that the evidence supports the contention that these budget measures are merely political cover for changes that will actually follow from regulatory measures. Even if SVRs to owner-occupiers stay at present levels for ten years, BTL rates will not and when BTL rates rise, answering BCBS changes, BTL lending standards will be prevented from softening by FPC powers of direction. Prices will soften then fall. That'll trigger the margin call feedback loop wired into the BTL mortgage T&Cs and it will be over in a flash. None of these f**kers are making it to 2020.

"Be careful what you wish for those."

Edited December 27, 2015 by Bland Unsight

[porca misèria]

We don't know yet. Full details not announced. I suspect it won't affect insurance-companies who hold blocks of rental housing, Salvation Army with all their houses, or build to rent etc.

Of course it doesn't. They don't pay income tax in the first place, they pay corporation tax instead. Or in the case of a charity, avoid it altogether (I suspect).

[Pop321]

I know the debate whether they have a case/don't have one is bouncing round.....but I am confused.

Do they want to be taxed as a sole trader? NI contributions, VAT registered (not added to rent but in the massive expenses some declare), audited returns, schedule D's.?

They are taxed under a land a property regime, deliberately unique and currently advantageous. That will change and this is a tweak. The impact is massive if they have borrowed and leveraged....but no one would do that......surely. ?

Venger and Mr Unsight are correct. Their strategy has brought this change). Some discrete lending based on an income multiplier, repayment mortgages over 10 years and no Fergus ranting about benefits and immigrants....and this would not have happened.

I have sold more than I own and only a complete idiot would not have done so to manage debt levels. They are living on fairy dust and when interest rates hit 5% and Basel 3 kicks, these tax changes will be forgotten....much bigger things for them to be worrying about. BoE knows it, GO knows it and I know it.

But they won't see it till it coming because they have their heads up their back sides.

The best they can hope for from making more noise is NI payments....the worst will be a world of hurt. Don't they realise the direction of this change?

[Assume The Opposite]

I'm sure Osbourne can easily slap this appeal down, humiliate Blair, and come out with even more support.

[Bland Unsight]

I have sold more than I own

And that in a nutshell is the difference between a property developer providing a service and therefore contributing to the real economy and a fool with a mortgage broker on speed dial and nothing else to offer.

[Bland Unsight]

The fool with a mortgage broker on speed dial is in the process of realising that what they would say if they had the brains to work it out is "I have bought more than I should."

Edited December 27, 2015 by Bland Unsight

[Venger]

Pre-action protocol letter; know com-lit solicitors do that from the outset. (I don't know any solicitor who has actually been involved with a judicial review.)

To send one to Government.. the BTLers... wow.

I don't really know much about the barrister side of things....apart from knowing more chambers can be approached directly these days (since 2010 changes).

Com-lit solicitors I know do the cutting-work for their clients, and only take it to barristers/counsel for specialist advice/opinion where necessary in that (and with costs in mind). Only if settlement can't be reached, do com-lit solicitors take it once more to barrister/QC, for trial (with the solicitor having prepared all the bundles as required by court and in ways to give best support to the case). Don't know any solicitor who has instructed this chambers either - a name most of us have heard of - but again the few solicitors I know have never been involved in judicial reviews.

What are the steps and likely timings for a judicial review action?

Raising £15,000 of initial funding as soon as possible (and then the further £35,000 thereafter)

A “pre-action protocol letter” setting out our case to be sent to the Government in the first few weeks of January 2016;

An application for judicial review to be filed with the court in 2016;

The Government would then have 21 days to respond to the application by filing a defence;

If permission is granted by the court, a full day hearing (likely lasting one to three days) would then be scheduled by the court, after which a decision would be made.

I'll try and remember to look up what has recently made it through to Judicial Review, unless someone else wants to look into it.