Stamp Duty, please help - dazed and confused..

LandyAndy

My wife and I did this a few years ago (except she was the new joint owner) and although the mortgage was over the SDLT limit, 50% of it wasn't and so no SDLT to pay.

Richard_Webster

My wife and I did this a few years ago (except she was the new joint owner) and although the mortgage was over the SDLT limit, 50% of it wasn't and so no SDLT to pay.

That's right.

Frank_Spencer_2

Thanks very much Richard, muchos appreciated!!

Frank_Spencer_2

Thanks Andy, nice to hear from someone who's done it already!

LandyAndy

Frank_Spencer wrote: »

Thanks Andy, nice to hear from someone who's done it already!

As far as I remember (it was about 8 years ago) it was very simple and quick.

PasturesNew

LandyAndy wrote: »

As far as I remember (it was about 8 years ago) it was very simple and quick.

She said the same of you

blackshirtuk

Hi

If you remortgaged couldn't your share of the mortgage be equal to or just below stamp duty threshold? could the deeds still be 50/50 as liability to stamp duty occurs through the debt?

Cheers

David

LandyAndy

PasturesNew wrote: »

She said the same of you

Jokes don't suit you:p.

Richard_Webster

If you remortgaged couldn't your share of the mortgage be equal to or just below stamp duty threshold? could the deeds still be 50/50 as liability to stamp duty occurs through the debt?

Re-mortgaging on its own does not incur SDLT liability at all - it is the deemed transfer of debt that does it.

It is normally assumed that there will be 50% liability for the debt but there could be cases where it can be shown that the acquiring person is only taking on a lower debt liability but they would have be prepared to prove this if queried by HMRC by producing an agreement between the parties as to payment of the mortgage and bank statements showing they were only paying say a third of the regular mortgage payments.

I can't be sure this would work. The whole thing is a bit illogical anyway. As liability on a joint mortgage is joint and several it could be argued that the original borrower retained liability for the whole amount or alternatively that the acquiring party had liability for the whole amount transferred to him/her - but the Revenue don't seem to take this point!