Buying house (no mgage) 'renting' to son questions

seven-day-weekend

00ec25 wrote: »

if he was your son's lodger then you did not need to declare the rent as he was nothing to do with you. your SON should have declare the rent he received from his lodger. Congratulations for having got away with it

that's probably because you are not as up to speed as you might be and you never got caught?????????????????

The lodger's rent came to me and the Inland Revenue knew this. My son never received a penny. Maybe I have used the wrong word and he was a tenant not a lodger. He lodged with my son and was my son's friend but was my tenant. I sent in accounts to the HMRC for every year he was there and have never hidden anything from them.

BurnleyBob

observations_from_a_hill wrote: »

I don't understand. Why not buy the new house/flat in the name of your son, & leave him to get on with his life. With your good income, why would you want to charge him notional interest - sorry, but it sounds like you want rid of him at no expense to yourself.

You beat me to it. I'm also struggling to understand why they don't simply buy it for him in his name rather than all this convoluted rigmarole. Doing so would be akin to giving him some or all of his inheritance some years or decades earlier than is usually the case.

Haven't they the necessary faith in him?

art_for_arts_sake

observations_from_a_hill wrote: »

I don't understand. Why not buy the new house/flat in the name of your son, & leave him to get on with his life.

Alternatively you could have the property in all three names, we've been told it's a possibility by solicitors. We've looked at buying a place for my son but letting it out for a few years first to generate some income. By splitting ownership 3 ways it would reduce the effect of any rental income on income tax. If your son eventually decides living there isn't for him you could choose to either share the rental income or the profits from selling the property.

I think the warnings from some posters are fair, and particularly where anything that can be seen see as deprivation of assets or notional income is concerned I'd tread very carefully. None of us know what the future holds but trying to convince the relevant authorities that financial decisions have been made with the best of intentions could prove very difficult. Unfortunately HMRC and the DWP don't cut individuals as much slack as they do large corporations.

00ec25

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Maybe I have used the wrong word and he was a tenant not a lodger. .

OK, you should always be exact when referring to either a tenant or a lodger especially if posting on here to give advice.

The distinction has huge implications especially where the rent a room scheme is concerned as that's for lodgers only not tenants