Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
WSG

Telegraph - Landlords Should Be Squealing Says Treasury Minister

Recommended Posts

Alan Ward, chairman of the Residential Landlord's Association, said he did not want to name the minister to spare him "embarrassment".

He said: "We went last week to raise landlord's concerns with specific reference to the mortgage interest relief and the Government's taxation policies towards private landlords.

I guess that means that the meeting didn't result in the policy being dropped, then :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really believe it was about 1st time buyers.

That said the comments by the 1922's et al are hilariously VI and at best hopelessly ignorant about the state of housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the second home definition includes those with homes overseas?

If not, massive loophole.

If so, what is the penalty for not declaring your overseas home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Ward, chairman of the Residential Landlord's Association, said he did not want to name the minister to spare him "embarrassment".

I personally doubt it happened but hope it did.

Perhaps one of the younger sharp accountant Treasury Officials who works top level for a living - having studied and qualified to get to that point, rents from a BTLer, kicking up and expecting to be grateful to be housed by a BTLers debt claim on another home.

And if it did happen, then perhaps only because a renter themselves, or just plain had enough of the squeals being directed Treasury/Gov.

Get into the real world you BTLing 'providing homes' bad-jokers.

The NLA are seriously smooth operators. Just look at the way that Alan Ward's cinematographer set up this shot to help viewers see the NLA's members as "the little guy"

8 March 2016

Other + probably more. Squeal. 'Unfair' - 'You know who to blame'. Housing as the big issue (?) ------ The big issue is the invasive leveraged BTLers.

16 March 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the ironies of UK politics is that the various parties tend to pursue policies and create conditions that encourages people to vote for their opponents. Labour did it immediately after the Second World War when it improved the educational and living standards of many workers thus turning them into potential Conservative voters. The Tories are now realising that this situation can go into reverse. Take away peoples security of employment and the opportunity to own their own home and the more likely they are to vote for anyone but the Conservative party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city and the banksters are the No.1 priority

Landlords are further down the list. If a large section of the public are landlords, then they must have made a calculation that hurting landlords, will not affect the city or the bankers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some all of life Tory votors will now avoid voting for them, see London mayor outcome..... When growing numbers of resident working people are seeing the system is working for others and not where the priorities should be....the lies, the obfuscation and the greed.... What can people do?......sometimes you are forced to make hard choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they are "squealing' why the rush to beat the stamp duty deadline? If their claims are correct and sixty percent of LL could be forced out why?

Then I looked at the BTLers I know and the penny dropped, HPI mindset plus the economic sense of a child. In the next few years there's going to be carnage in the PRS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they are "squealing' why the rush to beat the stamp duty deadline? If their claims are correct and sixty percent of LL could be forced out why?

Then I looked at the BTLers I know and the penny dropped, HPI mindset plus the economic sense of a child. In the next few years there's going to be carnage in the PRS.

The tw@ts at PovertyLater are the canary in the coal mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know more than a few BTLers who are part-time public sector workers, claiming taxcredits and voting Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the second home definition includes those with homes overseas?

If not, massive loophole.

If so, what is the penalty for not declaring your overseas home

According to Zoopla Q&A, yes you will pay the 3% surcharge if you already own a home overseas. Listed under "Who has to pay it?"

"The surcharge applies even if the home you already own (or part-own) is overseas. So, if you have a ski chalet in Bulgaria and are buying your first home in the UK, you’ll still be stung with the extra tax"

I really hope there are no crafty loopholes to this, because it's otherwise terrific news and stops investors owning an extra but "first" home in the UK and getting away with the 3% surcharge.

No idea on the penalty and I'd also like to know how easy it is to check whether someone has a Ski Chalet in Bulgaria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Zoopla Q&A, yes you will pay the 3% surcharge if you already own a home overseas. Listed under "Who has to pay it?"

"The surcharge applies even if the home you already own (or part-own) is overseas. So, if you have a ski chalet in Bulgaria and are buying your first home in the UK, you’ll still be stung with the extra tax"

I really hope there are no crafty loopholes to this, because it's otherwise terrific news and stops investors owning an extra but "first" home in the UK and getting away with the 3% surcharge.

No idea on the penalty and I'd also like to know how easy it is to check whether someone has a Ski Chalet in Bulgaria?

It is interesting though - what about someone who has immigrated into the UK who owns a 'hovel' in the motherland (say, inherited a run-down place - plenty of such examples in eastern Europe) - would they have to pay the 3%? Every house in the UK is worth something, but there are plenty of places in the world where a property when run-down is pretty much worthless (as was the case in the UK only a generation or two ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoopla's advice is wrong. You don't pay the higher rate if its your main residence. If you own a property abroad and live and work in the UK then the foreign property isn't your main residence.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties/higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know more than a few BTLers who are part-time public sector workers, claiming taxcredits and voting Labour.

Lol !

On the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoopla's advice is wrong. You don't pay the higher rate if its your main residence. If you own a property abroad and live and work in the UK then the foreign property isn't your main residence.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties/higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties

You only don't pay it if you're replacing your main residence. From your link:

If the purchaser has sold a previous main residence within 18 months before the day of the transaction and the transaction is a purchase of a new main residence, the purchaser will be considered to be replacing a main residence. Where an individual is replacing a main residence the higher rates of SDLT will not apply.

However, if the purchaser is not replacing a main residence (either because they have not sold a previous main residence within the last 18 months or the property being acquired is not a new main residence), the higher rates will apply.

(IIRC the final rules allow for 36 months rather than 18.)

If someone already owns a residential property / properties and purchases an additional property then, unless they are replacing a main residence (as determined by fact not by election), they will have to pay the stamp duty surcharge regardless of whether that additional property is intended for use as a main residence or not.

If they own a residential property / properties abroad and fail to declare them then that would be straight up tax evasion and would likely carry all of the normal associated penalties for such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someonce came from abroad and was renting in the UK, the rental property would be their main residence, not any property abroad.

Similarly, if some owned a holiday home abroad but rented their main residence in the UK then they wouldn't be subjected to the higher rate.

Well, that one way to interpret it.

Instead, the government proposes that whether a property is a main residence will be based on fact.

HMRC will take into account a number of factors when considering whether a given property is an individual’s main residence. These will include:

  • where the individual and their family spends their time;
  • if the individual has children, where they go to school;
  • at which residence the individual is registered to vote;
  • where the individual works;
  • the location and degree of furnishing and location of moveable possessions; and
  • the correspondence and registration addresses given to various organisations.

In most cases the position will be clear and few factors will need to be considered. For example, where a married couple own two properties, one of which is convenient for their work and their children’s school and where they spend most of their time, and a holiday home which they visit occasionally, the former property would be their main residence.

The government proposes a two stage test to determine whether a purchase of a residential property is a replacement of a main residence or not. The first is whether, at the time of the transaction, a property sold in the last 18 months was the only or main residence of the individual. The second is whether the purchaser of the new property intends to occupy that property as their only or main residence.

When considering the first stage of the test, the property being sold must have been the only or main residence of the purchaser at some point in the 18 months before the purchase of the new property. In the majority of cases, an individual owns only one residence throughout a period, and it is this residence that will be their only or main residence.

Where an individual has more than one residence, which of these was their main residence will be a question of fact.

Seems quite clear, if you live, work from and are registered to vote from an address, then that is your main residence. You cannot do any of that in a property abroad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally clear that it's only if you are purchasing a main residence to replace a previously owned main residence that has been / will be sold within the alloted time period that you are exempt from the stamp duty surcharge.

You are not exempt from the stamp duty surcharge on purchasing a new main residence if you already own other residential property and you are not replacing a previous main residence.

That means that if residential property is already owned abroad, the previous main residence is a rental here and a new main residence is purchased here then the SDLT surcharge will be payable on the new main residence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll bet 500 quid that this rule will be abused in the thousands by people owning property aboard - both brits and immigrants - and there will be no investigations and no prosecutions.

Additionally, if the property is bought by a trust or holding company, it will not count against the other properties owned by an individual. There will be no investigations and no prosecutions of abuse.

Guaranteed.

100%.

So - effectively the law gives a DISCOUNT compared to natives for foreign buyers buying second homes and rich people who are able to use trusts and investment holding companies to manage their properties.

Well done Gordo!

Edited by wherebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intentionally engaging in tax evasion on the premise that both the current government and all future governments definitely won't investigate and definitely won't prosecute would be a very high risk strategy indeed, especially as in this case it would by definition involve having an immovable asset on hand for them to seize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   58 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.