Stamp duty on remortgage

getmore4less wrote: »

I read it that if the OP(as spouse) was buying part of the house they already owned part of it would NOT be a higher rate transaction.

That's the bit the wife is buying. Not a high rate transaction

What you're saying is that the wife would avoid additional rate stamp duty if what she buys would not be an additional rate transaction if it had been done by the husband (which is what Kinger's extract says).

But is it certain that if the husband had done it, it would not be an additional rate transaction? Purchasing additional interests in your own home, when you already have a home and another property, can be an additional rate transaction, can't it?

E.g. if personal owns 50% of their residence that they have owned for years and 50% of a BTL that they have owned for years. Then they have some spare money so decide to buy another 50% stake in one of them. I assumed whichever one they decided to buy the 50% in, it would be an additional rate transaction. If they get their spouse to do the purchase instead, it would still be an additional rate transaction.

So, just because you own part of a home and want to add a bit, or want your wife to add a bit, doesn't mean it wouldn't be a higher rate transaction.

The nuance here is that the person already owns 100% of their residence and is not trying to add another 50%. If the OP sold his main residence completely and then bought 100% of it back again the next day, it wouldn't be a high rate transaction, because you are allowed to replace your main residence without paying higher rate stamp. So, you would hope it would stand to reason in the spirit of the rules that if the OP sells just 50% of is main residence and then he (or his wife) buys it again, you would not expect it to be a higher rate transaction.

Effectively the 'family unit' of husband and wife have simply disposed of a part of their main residence (husband selling it) and rebought the exact same part of the main residence (wife buying it). If you can get a 'relief' or 'exception' by disposing of the entire main residence and then buying a new main residence while keeping the BTL untouched, one would hope you could get the same treatment on selling a bit of you main residence and then re-buying it again; you are still left with 1 main residence and 1 BTL.

booksurr wrote: »

Given that, the rest of Bowlhead's post is pure speculation as "the spirit" of the law is not "the law" and therefore whatever anything thinks is in keeping with the spirit does not make it lawful

Yes, it was speculation, as in, "based on this you'd think there are various angles which could be helpful in determining how this should work to support what you're trying to achieve", if you are looking to get a solicitor to see things your way. And thanks for the excerpt.

My post was really supposed to be to the effect of -maybe not well communicated- that, as you say, the HMRC guidance doesn't give this case as an explicit example, so you'd have to follow all the various rules and exceptions to come to a logical conclusion. And so, it might not be as simple as the person to whom I was replying had done which was simply stating: "Not a high rate transaction".

With the excerpt you quoted that buying a piece of a property when you already own a "major" part of it is not liable for extra rate, it would seem you shouldn't get a worse result than that in the case where your spouse buys it instead of you. Especially if the husband and wife spousal unit, via the wife, is just buying back a piece of their main residence which had been sold same day by the husband, and we know you are allowed to sell a main residence and buy another without paying higher rate on that.

So, my guess (which of course isn't definitive) is that you are ok with standard rate applying here. But for clarity, OP can ask a solicitor to send a carefully worded question to HMRC in advance of the transaction to clarify understanding. Or gamble on putting the forms in at basic rate and hoping HMRC don't view it differently.