Meet the Wilsons Part 3 - The TV bonkers debate

Yoshua

The question is can they really sell all or most of their 900 houses without affecting prices in that area?

They are against the clock to sell as many as quickly as they can before the big falls in house prices.

After they pay off the mortgages whatever profit they have left they will be paying up to 40% cap gains on.

Any houses they dont sell will go to their kids when they die then inheritance tax is even more than cap gains.


The stress of being so indebted to the bank and so many tenants who are losing jobs and having wages going down in real terms.

Buy to let is not a good place to be the next few years. That was the case before all the pain and cuts.

Thrugelmir

Yoshua wrote: »

I only just thought of the Wilsons and the new cap gains changes coming in.

Are they still going to try sell their 900 houses before the price comes down, and have to pay 40% cap gains?

More than likely they'll overload properties to create losses to negate any tax liability even if higher rates of CGT are intoduced.

If taper relief is reintroduced that will help them. As they've held a fair number of properties for many years as well.

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

the underlying point was that they don't pay CGT on any value increases on any sold property, ever. however much the property value increases by.

all proceeds from sales would not be liable to CGT and are filtered back into the company to pay Corporation Tax on profit minus deductions and expenses.

they don't pay CGT, correct. but the chargeable gain is calculated in the same way (although you do get indexation relief in a company so the gain itself can be smaller if you have held for long enough for the indexation relief to be larger than the CGT personal allowance). The gain is then subject to CT at a higher rate than CGT, and that is before you have extracted the profit from the company and potentially been taxed on it again.

also, if you hold the property yourself, you get an annual allowance of £10,100 to deduct from the gain before CGT is charged (can double up if jointly owned).

running the business out of a Ltd Co is much more tax efficient than running the business as an individual. that was my point.

no, it isn't. it is, sometimes, but not always.

in particular, if you are a higher rate tax payer, it is not more tax efficient to hold the property yourself than to put it in a company, as you'll pay 25% tax on the dividend you receive when you distribute the profits out of the company. you would only pay 18% CGT (at the moment).

the minimum a higher rate tax payer could pay in such a situation would be 25% tax, and that would only apply if the company had accumulated or current year losses which meant it didn't pay any CT on the gain.

the maximum tax rate you could pay in a company would be 46% (28% CT + 25% income tax on the dividend after CT). (in reality that would only happy if you bought and sold in the same month and got no indexation relief).

c.f. with a higher rate tax payer owning personally- 18% tax after deducting £10,100.

Yoshua

Any updates? How many have they sold so far?

Not many I imagine. The longer they hold out the less profit they can be taxed on. Maybe thats the plan.

brit1234

Not new but see if I can find anything else.

~~Flashback~~



Fergus & Judith Wilson: The £75m outsiders

By MARCUS TOWNEND, Daily Mail
Last updated at 14:35 04 April 2005

Were it not for Judith Wilson's distinctive green suit, she and husband Fergus could pass quite anonymously as they move through crowds at Aintree.

Judith Wilson Aintree

But don't be fooled. They are living proof that appearances can be deceptive. Looking like Mr and Mrs Average, the Wilsons' story is far from ordinary.

With a personal wealth estimated at £75million, they sit alongside the Beckhams at equal 654th in The Times 2005 Rich List.

The rise of the former maths teachers had its unlikely beginnings in pigeon racing, which produced the initial nest egg.

Rather than conservatively incubating it successfully in a savings account, Judith Wilson, 54, used the money to fuel a business plan which made her the queen of buy-to-let, spending a remarkable £6.9m one day on property in her carefully hatched plan.

At the last count the pair owned 659 houses. Their financial rise has both amazed and impressed.

But the racing industry doesn't take them seriously. In the closeted world of the thoroughbred, many see them as the eccentric Kent couple who like to run no-hopers in the top races.

Going racing just three times a year, they want to be in the midst of the action. The latest came when they ran the Michael Scudamore-trained pair Astonville and Turnium in the Champion Hurdle at last month's Cheltenham Festival. Both started at 500-1 and some questioned their right to take part arguing that they may get in the way of the fancied contenders.

It never happened, although the pair filled the last two places. Three days later Astonville ran again in the Cheltenham Gold Cup. Once more he was the final horse to cross the finishing line but five of the starting 15 failed to get that far.

Some asked why bother? But the Wilsons were delighted, feeling it was a perfect clean jumping trial for Astonville to run in Saturday's John Smith's Grand National. They shrug off criticism of their ploy as the musings of those who fail to understand their motives.

Fergus, 56, said: "We are used to people telling us how we should spend our money so it's no great surprise that some of the racing fraternity should offer their advice whether it is requested or not.

"Astonville finished 10th in the Gold Cup. There were 15 in the race so, if my arithmetic is correct, he's beaten something. Many expected him to be 16th, so they may have been pleasantly surprised. My no-hoper was not as much as a no-hoper as the five who finished behind him."

The placings, they argue, are irrelevant. In a philosophy which may seem at odds with someone so used to winning in business, the Wilsons just love taking part.

Fergus scoured the French sales for horses with high enough handicap marks to ensure a place in the National line-up. He bought five geldings this season, Astonville, Turnium, Present Bleu, Wild Tempo and Solarius. His "lottery tickets". All were good horses once.

But that was then. Now they struggle to justify their handicap ratings and, such is the increased quality of the race, only Astonville is guaranteed a place in the line-up.

But all horses in a handicap theoretically start on equal terms and the Wilsons and their supporters will be there to cheer him on to see if he can better Back Bar in 1999, who carried their silks into 14th place.
Mugs bearing their colours have been handed out with rosettes to the local children who venture an interest, while members of Maidstone rugby club, wearing the red, black and white of Astonville's silks will be in the entourage. The team tie is obligatory.

"This is fun with a capital F," added Fergus, who insists almost all his fellow owners have voiced their support of his running policy. It's one that some can't grasp.

Judith said: "They think the only people who take part want to go out and win. It's all money orientated. But the participation is just as enjoyable.

"We are putting in a horse with a hint of a chance. Look at the 100-1 winners like Foinavon (1967 National winner)and Norton's Coin (1990 Gold Cup victor). At those odds, they should presumably win once a century."

Statistics over logic from the maths masters perhaps. Such arguments will fail to convince the purists who argue that a championship should constitute a line-up which lives up to the name.

But Fergus believes that their intolerance to outsiders and their attitudes stems from not seeing beyond their noses, or at least past the boundaries of the sport. He says it is why racing fails to reach out to the masses and is happy to serve its own shrinking world.

It is the same view which sent the racing world into shock when triple Gold Cup winner Best Mate broke a blood vessel.
Fergus said: "I was more concerned with fluctuations of the interest rate which can cost us millions. Racing should get into the real world. Most people weren't concerned about a horse's nosebleed."

He delivers his views with conviction, belief, confidence and painstaking detail. One suspects he secretly loves the spotlight.
If more of his horses than the Tom Scudamore-ridden Astonville make the line-up, he'll offer the rides on his other geldings to girl jockeys Nina Carberry and French-based Nathalie Desoutter.

It will add to the enjoyment for the man who once spent £110,000 on a pigeon.:eek:
"If I had to choose between horses and pigeons I'd choose pigeons every time. With them I'm the jockey, the trainer, I'm everything. With horses, I'm just the mug who supplies the money for everyone to enjoy themselves."

But he does not intend to be a mug much longer. With additional horses in training in France and with Martin Pipe, he is building a stud from where he plans to breed French-bred chasers. He also hopes to create a European Equestrian Centre in Kent and set up a sale centre to trade imported jumpers from the continent.
Fergus Wilson has big ideas that he thinks everyone should share in. Whether Astonville, a 200-1 shot with the bookies, can match them is doubtful. Doubtful but possible.

But, whatever the result, the Wilsons will greet the outcome with a smile.

Fergus said: "I understand from Peter Scudamore that Astonville has been swimming for the last week. If the Grand National was in a swimming pool, he'd probably win."

Which will be ironic if he falls at the water jump.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-343646/Fergus-amp-Judith-Wilson-The-pound-75m-outsiders.html

PasturesNew

No need for the big posting Brit .. we're all awake already.

brit1234

PasturesNew wrote: »

No need for the big posting Brit .. we're all awake already.

Sorry its my computer settings, it looks small here due to resolution

John_Pierpoint

chewmylegoff wrote: »

they don't pay CGT, correct. but the chargeable gain is calculated in the same way (although you do get indexation relief in a company so the gain itself can be smaller if you have held for long enough for the indexation relief to be larger than the CGT personal allowance). The gain is then subject to CT at a higher rate than CGT, and that is before you have extracted the profit from the company and potentially been taxed on it again.

also, if you hold the property yourself, you get an annual allowance of £10,100 to deduct from the gain before CGT is charged (can double up if jointly owned).

no, it isn't. it is, sometimes, but not always.

in particular, if you are a higher rate tax payer, it is not more tax efficient to hold the property yourself than to put it in a company, as you'll pay 25% tax on the dividend you receive when you distribute the profits out of the company. you would only pay 18% CGT (at the moment).

the minimum a higher rate tax payer could pay in such a situation would be 25% tax, and that would only apply if the company had accumulated or current year losses which meant it didn't pay any CT on the gain.

the maximum tax rate you could pay in a company would be 46% (28% CT + 25% income tax on the dividend after CT). (in reality that would only happy if you bought and sold in the same month and got no indexation relief).

c.f. with a higher rate tax payer owning personally- 18% tax after deducting £10,100.

Is it not 28% for the individual, since the budget, as the gain gets lumped on top of your income and taxed at 28%, when that makes you higher paid?

Mind you nobody ever went bust by taking a profit (unless they had a 130% mortgage).

If they are selling their first "investments" and swallowing their tail they will eventually implode BUT in the long run we are all dead anyway.

Llubrevlis

I wonder how many of the Wilsons properties are rented out to people on low earnings or not working and getting HBenefit?

When this starts falling every year are they going to evict them or drop the rents? If they do kick them out can they find new tenants who will pay out of their own pockets? Or will they keep them in and drop the rents to a 30th percentile of the average rents? If they do his will it be enough to keep up with the interest payments on their huge mortgages?

Harry_Powell

The wilsons have their property empire held within a limited company framework, so there is no Capital Gains tax to worry about when they sell any houses. Sorry if this information stops the frothers dead in their tracks.