118 Landlords Panic and try lobbying MP's yet again

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Can they do that.

AIUI it's not the property that the loan is secured on that matters but what the money was borrowed for.

In this case you'd want to be able to demonstrate to HMRC that the money borrowed was spent on a BTL.

I don't know enough to properly comment. It made me wonder if just having a loan secured on a BTL would satisfy HMRC. I mean what if I had a BTL that went up in value and I borrowed more money against it to fund a cruise - could I claim against the interest?

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

AIUI it's not the property that the loan is secured on that matters but what the money was borrowed for.

In this case you'd want to be able to demonstrate to HMRC that the money borrowed was spent on a BTL.

I don't know enough to properly comment. It made me wonder if just having a loan secured on a BTL would satisfy HMRC. I mean what if I had a BTL that went up in value and I borrowed more money against it to fund a cruise - could I claim against the interest?

the rules are
-the money must have have been used to fund the property although not necessarily directly
-the amount can't exceed the property value when you started letting

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

AIUI it's not the property that the loan is secured on that matters but what the money was borrowed for.

In this case you'd want to be able to demonstrate to HMRC that the money borrowed was spent on a BTL.

I don't know enough to properly comment. It made me wonder if just having a loan secured on a BTL would satisfy HMRC. I mean what if I had a BTL that went up in value and I borrowed more money against it to fund a cruise - could I claim against the interest?

No you could not do that, it would have to be money spent on the property (i.e. original purchase or a loan for repair/improvement works).

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

People feel that they understand houses. They're safe as bricks and mortar. I think a lot of BTL investors will suck up the loss and keep their money in the market, basically because if they're going to lose money at least they're not paying some City !!!! to lose it for them.

It has taken me years to build up to the point of selling, which is now approaching (maybe as soon as a 2 years). Please don't post arguments against it, I want to be free (of sorting out plumbing leaks etc.). I'm almost wishing interest rates to go back up to justify selling.

It is strange how putting the equity in the stock market is slightly off putting (to me) because it might (will) fall in a crash, yet I don't mind seeing the same thing happen with property. I guess I just need to mentally adjust, maybe it is because property is illiquid and you are 'trapped in' anyway.

wolfplayer

chucknorris wrote: »

It has taken me years to build up to the point of selling, which is now approaching (maybe as soon as a 2 years). Please don't post arguments against it, I want to be free (of sorting out plumbing leaks etc.). I'm almost wishing interest rates to go back up to justify selling.

It is strange how putting the equity in the stock market is slightly off putting (to me) because it might (will) fall in a crash, yet I don't mind seeing the same thing happen with property. I guess I just need to mentally adjust, maybe it is because property is illiquid and you are 'trapped in' anyway.

You should be content enough to bank millions of pounds, if you manage to sell out at a near peak price with all your properties. Why are you so concerned about getting 6% yield on millions of pounds each year? Take some time off, instead of trying to compound your fortune? A huge sum into Gilts/NS&I perhaps. Wealth preservation is likely to be difficult enough into the next few years. Or a choose a balanced mix of investments.

chucknorris

wolfplayer wrote: »

You should be content enough to bank millions of pounds, if you manage to sell out at a near peak price with all your properties. Why are you so concerned about getting 6% yield on millions of pounds each year? Take some time off, instead of trying to compound your fortune? A huge sum into Gilts/NS&I perhaps. Wealth preservation is likely to be difficult enough into the next few years. Or a choose a balanced mix of investments.

I am way past 'content enough', as I said on another thread I am probably going to start selling next year (if the tenants in the property that I have elected to sell first gave me notice now, I would actually put it straight on the market).

I am taking time off, I am retiring next summer. I am not trying to compound a fortune, there is already one there, but obviously some thought and an exit plan is required to dispose of the properties, you don't just blunder through it. I am not trying to get 6%, I am happy with the (approx) 3.6% that is available from dividend income, and I will probably invest in corporate bonds too.

lukeh23

chucknorris wrote: »

I am way past 'content enough', as I said on another thread I am probably going to start selling next year (if the tenants in the property that I have elected to sell first gave me notice now, I would actually put it straight on the market).

I am taking time off, I am retiring next summer. I am not trying to compound a fortune, there is already one there, but obviously some thought and an exit plan is required to dispose of the properties, you don't just blunder through it. I am not trying to get 6%, I am happy with the (approx) 3.6% that is available from dividend income, and I will probably invest in corporate bonds too.

Near in every thread in in this forum has a chucknorris post telling us how sorted he is. I mean good for you, but why the need to convince others all the time?

tkane

cells wrote: »

it makes no sense to just arbitrarily state one cost is no longer to be considered a cost

its worse in that, at least this is what it seems, interest is to be not a cost for only one sector (residential lettings) and only if done so by an individual

At least he should have tried to keep within logic and just put a residential property licence fee or some such. Charge £1k a BTL for a "fee" or whatever if you think you need to charge the BTL industry more. Why go to the steps of arbitrarily deciding one cost is no longer a cost if that one cost is a cost to a individual letting houses


also whats to happen for commercial lettings
and lettings within companies
can they still use interest as a cost?

Exactly, if he wanted to tax BTL, he should have just implemented a BTL levy.

I run a limited company and am able to offset the interest I pay on any loans and overdrafts I have. Why should BTL be any different?

antrobus

tkane wrote: »

Exactly, if he wanted to tax BTL, he should have just implemented a BTL levy....

How would that work?

chucknorris

lukeh23 wrote: »

Near in every thread in in this forum has a chucknorris post telling us how sorted he is. I mean good for you, but why the need to convince others all the time?

Nearly every thread? Oh dear, sounds like envy is creeping in to me. As far as the post that you responded to on this thread, absolutely everything that I wrote was in direct response to the issues that the poster that I was responding to, raised with me. I certainly don't feel the need to convince you of anything, but if you have ago at me, I'll certainly come back with a response. But if you have any problems with any other posts, flag them up, and I am quite sure that there will be a logical explanation of why I said what I did.