Crack down on accidental landlords

Prothet_of_Doom

Whilst working away from home for my ltd company it was agreed that I could rent a room in a shared house, as the cost of that was less that staying in a hotel, and I'd eat better.

I insisted on paying by BACS, to the landlord, who had taken a promotion abroad, for the same company.
She couldn't sell the house due to negative equity, but instead rented 3 rooms separately, which more that paid her first time buyer mortgage.
I did point out to her that the HMRC could easily look at the payments into her personal account, and start demanding back tax, but she didn't seem to think the risk was valid.
Same with T&C's on the mortgage and insurance I guess.
She did seem to have a, "it'll be fine" attitude that I despise.

Prothet_of_Doom

Thrugelmir wrote: »

HMRC announced their intentions back in September. Believe they intend using the Land Registry data base to identify multiple property ownership.

And what happens if the landlord is renting in Germany?

Thrugelmir

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

And what happens if the landlord is renting in Germany?

There's plenty of ways of skinning a cat. No doubt there'll be different directions of attack. Such as asking lenders for lists of borrowers who have either CTL or BTL mortgage. Technology makes cross referencing of data relatively easy.

With the potential claw back in unpaid tax, late tax penalties, interest and self assessment declaration penalties. Going to be highly lucrative for the HMRC. Not least for those who are beyond the 6 year time limit. As there's no right of appeal.

antrobus

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

And what happens if the landlord is renting in Germany?

Why, what difference do you think that would make?

Conrad

I meet a lot of people that do not declare their B2L's, so this is long overdue.

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's plenty of ways of skinning a cat. No doubt there'll be different directions of attack. Such as asking lenders for lists of borrowers who have either CTL or BTL mortgage. Technology makes cross referencing of data relatively easy.

With the potential claw back in unpaid tax, late tax penalties, interest and self assessment declaration penalties. Going to be highly lucrative for the HMRC. Not least for those who are beyond the 6 year time limit. As there's no right of appeal.

Possibly even some stamp duty as well

Some of these abuses like the HMO mentioned above and failing to properly register deposits are now also criminal offences?

BobQ

BobQ wrote: »

I agree, although it would be really helpful if they concentrated on those aggressive tax avoidance schemes that enable the likes of Google, Vodaphone and Starbucks to legally avoid tax, with the same vigour as overstretched homebuyers doing the best that they can to avoid re-possession.

antrobus wrote: »

You're suggesting that HMRC should ignore cases of outright tax evasion i.e. potentially criminal acts of fraud, and rather concentrate on countering apparently perfectly legal business arrangements ?!?

antrobus wrote: »

Quite possibly, but BobQ wanted HMRC to "concentrate" on one not the other.

Personally I think that targeting out-and-out tax evasion should be HMRC's first priority, irrespective of whether the evasion is being conducted by Joe Smith or Smith Global Industries plc.

Did I say what you are claiming I did?

I said they should do both with the same vigour

One as you say is clearly breaking the letter of the law (albeit on a small scale), the other is morally wrong (on a large scale) but technically legal.

I am not defending either, but there is a fine dividing line between legally avoiding tax though creative methods and tax evasion and I suspect that most people find the legal creativity of the tax avoiders more reprehensible than those trying to avoid some interest on a small scale.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

Did I say what you are claiming I did?

You did say that;

BobQ wrote: »

I agree, although it would be really helpful if they concentrated on those aggressive tax avoidance schemes that enable the likes of Google, Vodaphone and Starbucks to legally avoid tax...

You did add that;

BobQ wrote: »

...with the same vigour as overstretched homebuyers doing the best that they can to avoid re-possession.

But one, "overstretched homebuyers" are not the subject of this thread, and two, I don't believe that HMRC has shown any particular interest in them. (It's not really their department.:))

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

You did say that;



You did add that;



.:))

Where I can't see it.

Percy1983

The way I see it is I work hard to make money on the businesses I own and I then pay tax where I should, so why should somebody who does no work for there 'business' not pay tax?

The sooner the better I say.