Meet the Wilsons Part 3 - The TV bonkers debate

Thrugelmir

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.

So now we've ascertained that they'll still pay Corporation tax and as we both know not CGT. If they make a £3 million profit on disposal of assets what's the effective rate of CT?

Would they be better off as individuals rather than being a limited Company? How will they extract the net profit from the Company in a tax efficent manner?

What would you do in their position, Mr Guru.

Zandoni

Harry_Powell wrote: »

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.

What's the name of the company then, this has never been proved before.

I know someone who has spent the day in a courtroom with them and no company name was mentioned.

Housebear51

Zandoni wrote: »

What's the name of the company then, this has never been proved before.

I know someone who has spent the day in a courtroom with them and no company name was mentioned.

Harry can you tell where you heard this?

Or did you make it up that they have all their 900 odd houses in a LTD company?

There are advantages and disadvantages to doing this.

It would be easier for the bank to repossess when rents fall due to cuts in housing benefit, if they are in a LTD company.

chucky

people have been claiming that the Wilson's are going to go bankrupt for the past 3 years...

nothing has changed - they're still around and probably will be for a while still...

dopester

Yep, he's still around and "busy" offering his "wisdom" about the housing market.

A couple of years ago all the FTBs were only interested in flats apparently, leaving Fergus a clean run to continue buying up all the houses at ever higher prices. (?)

dopester

Kent Messenger
11 Jun 2010

Councillor quits over land buy
A FORMER parish council chairman said he quit his post after £182,000 of villagers’ money was used to buy land outside the parish. The cash, from an Amenity Trust fund run by Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council, was used to buy 32 acres of countryside.

Kent Messenger
Editors Blog
11 Jun 2010

Today’s KM has a fascinating story that will chime with anyone living in a village. One of the big fears of people who choose a rural life is about future development. They worry that as the pressure for house building grows will those rolling fields at the back of their houses eventually be home to a new estate. Those concerns have driven the parishioners of Boughton Monchelsea to buy 32 acres of land separating the village from Loose. But it has come at a price – a cool £182,000.

It has also led to the resignation of former chairman Robin Fuller who claims it was a waste of money. Property tycoon Fergus Wilson agrees saying planning permission would never have been given anyway. The council argues that it was the only way it could protect the village “in perpetuity”. We’d be interested if villagers agree that it was a sensible use of their money.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent_messenger/news/editors_blog/editors_blog_protecting_our.aspx

FATBALLZ

You know I wouldn't mind them so much if we didn't keep coming across quotes such as:

Property tycoon Fergus Wilson

If they changed every instance of this sort of thing to..

Lucky cretin Fergus Wilson

I wouldn't hate them quite so much - if there's one shining example of success despite idiocy, it's these two, it's just a shame the media don't acknowledge it.

chucky

dopester wrote: »

Yep, he's still around and "busy" offering his "wisdom" about the housing market.

so that means they're still around and still filling newspapers... they'll probably be around longer than me and you Mr D

chewmylegoff

it is more tax efficient, from the point of view of the tax levied on the gain arising on sale, to have property in your own name rather than in a company. even with the new 28% rate of CGT on the individual.

this is because the company will pay at least 21% CT on the gain, and then the individual (assuming higher rate tax payer) will pay at least 25% tax extracting the remaining profit from the company.

if you sell the company rather than the property, then things can be different, however.

Housebear51

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it is more tax efficient, from the point of view of the tax levied on the gain arising on sale, to have property in your own name rather than in a company. even with the new 28% rate of CGT on the individual.

this is because the company will pay at least 21% CT on the gain, and then the individual (assuming higher rate tax payer) will pay at least 25% tax extracting the remaining profit from the company.

if you sell the company rather than the property, then things can be different, however.

Yes but they are selling houses 1 at a time. They have sold a few already apparently.

Also a company has no allowance. The conlibs are making it what about 10K each so 20K for a couple. Thats a lot of money to pay tax on in a LTD company.

Im not so sure it was worth them having all their houses in a LMT company it would mean they would have to pay more for each mortgage. Banks hate LTD`s if they get too far in neg equity they can just walk away. The banks can`t case a company like they chase an individual, so they charge a lot more when dealing with a LTD.