Can I pay vendors solicitors fees ???

neverdespairgirl

bris wrote: »

It's not tax fraud, buying the vendors fixtures and fitting is perfectly legal and is done all the time.

And the grand in used tenners?

martindow

bris wrote: »

Just looked back at the post, didn't see that at first, yes this is illegal. Don't see why they didn't just make it 3 grand for the moveables as they call them.

Probably because it was hard enough to justify two thousand on second hand values of curtains and a washing machine.

sunshinetours

As others have said do ask your solicitor rather than relying on information on here is the first and most important lesson!

SDLT like most taxes these days is a self assessment based tax and as such you would have to justify the tax paid if challenged by HMRC.
My (non legal based) personal opinion is that if you offered £250k on a house and agree, as part of the contract that you will be liable for all legal and professional fees associated with the sale and purchase I am struggling to see how HMRC could successfully challenge that. If there is case law showing this to be incorrect in the eyes of tax law I will happily amend this post.
The key fact in my eyes is that mortgage companies/estate agencies can offer to pay your legal fees as part of a deal, why can a purchaser not do the same?

If you simply pay an amount to the vendor over £250k (which you are not doing above) I can easily see how they would challenge it as an associated transaction. Its attention to detail and ensuring the paperwork does correctly follow the nature of the transactions that is always key when trying to arrange your tax affairs.

As I posted above its about dealing with a solicitor that is confident and understands the nuances of tax law.

Number 1 option still would be to negotiate harder and try and get the house within a £250k budget. Depends on whether you are prepared to lose the house I guess as £280k to £250k is a large jump currently and depends how long vendor is prepared and needs to hold out.

rhodod

bris wrote: »

Just looked back at the post, didn't see that at first, yes this is illegal. Don't see why they didn't just make it 3 grand for the moveables as they call them.

The £1000 we paid was for their fees.

Wasnt just a lump some of £100 notes we gave them.

I really doubt the solicitor of the biggest agency up here would actually do anything like that and risk his firm for a measly £1000.

timmyt

sunshinetours wrote: »

As others have said do ask your solicitor rather than relying on information on here is the first and most important lesson!

SDLT like most taxes these days is a self assessment based tax and as such you would have to justify the tax paid if challenged by HMRC.
My (non legal based) personal opinion is that if you offered £250k on a house and agree, as part of the contract that you will be liable for all legal and professional fees associated with the sale and purchase I am struggling to see how HMRC could successfully challenge that. Wrong wrong wrong, so good you directed OP to a solicitor If there is case law showing this to be incorrect in the eyes of tax law I will happily amend this post. There is, even Inland Revenue website.
The key fact in my eyes is that mortgage companies/estate agencies can offer to pay your legal fees as part of a deal, why can a purchaser not do the same? - they are reducing their fee

If you simply pay an amount to the vendor over £250k (which you are not doing above) I can easily see how they would challenge it as an associated transaction. Its attention to detail and ensuring the paperwork does correctly follow the nature of the transactions that is always key when trying to arrange your tax affairs.

As I posted above its about dealing with a solicitor that is confident and understands the nuances of tax law.

Number 1 option still would be to negotiate harder and try and get the house within a £250k budget. Depends on whether you are prepared to lose the house I guess as £280k to £250k is a large jump currently and depends how long vendor is prepared and needs to hold out.

see in red above

sunshinetours

Timmy your brief reply does not show relevant case law I am afraid. Happy to look at any links because I cannot find any. Be interested in Richard Webster or Neverdespairgirls opinions aswell.

www.taxationweb.co.uk is also a useful site for OP to ask the question and search for "vendor paying agents fees". There is certainly a mixed opinion as to what constitutes indirect consideration but contract law cannot be ignored, and if a purchaser enters into a contract with the Estate Agent and removals company for instance, would be interested in anyone who has has to argue this (unlikely on here I appreciate)

Also to add if the surveyors only value the house at around £250k this changes the argument above aswell

timmyt

sunshinetours wrote: »

Timmy your brief reply does not show relevant case law I am afraid. Happy to look at any links because I cannot find any. Be interested in Richard Webster or Neverdespairgirls opinions aswell.

www.taxationweb.co.uk is also a useful site for OP to ask the question and search for "vendor paying agents fees". There is certainly a mixed opinion as to what constitutes indirect consideration but contract law cannot be ignored, and if a purchaser enters into a contract with the Estate Agent and removals company for instance, would be interested in anyone who has has to argue this (unlikely on here I appreciate)

Also to add if the surveyors only value the house at around £250k this changes the argument above aswell

'case law'? this isn't Boston Legal or LA Law. It isn't about decided cases, I state the legal position as set our on the Inland Revenue website, or anyone can call anonymously and ask the Stamp Duty helpline - 0845 603 0135

I just tell you the legal position. Any payment you give to the Seller for his house (less allowable deductions for certain contents i.e things most people would normally consider could be taken out of a property on a sale) whether you pay him direct or he directs you to pay someone else the money, is chargeable to SDLT...obviously.
If only OP had thought of something the Inland Revenue hadn't closed years and years ago....that thousands and thousands of people before have already asked.