2nd Property -SDLT Changes - Have Your Say

Jhoney_2

carpediemspirit wrote: »

This is the problem and inconsistency in the law here, a person who owns a buy to let and their own main home is free of the 3% surcharge when they replace their primary residence.

Yet me who owns a buy to let, lives with parents and wants to buy a property to live in is not exempt from the surcharge.

You could go and buy a residential place to live now before it kicks in? Then you will benefit in just the same way as those you were referring to.

If that's not possible or convenient for you, you will have to suck it up i'm afraid.

It's a nice dilemma to have when so many do not have the basics or cannot buy a home of their own, never mind two properties. I understand your frustration, but it's just bad luck on the timing.

jennifernil

Daniel54 wrote: »

Booksurr's caveat in post 6 applies

However,from the consultation document the only applicable transaction in your example post 31.3.16 is that a married couple sell their primary residence and buy a replacement primary residence

Replacing your primary residence is free of the 3% surcharge

If you sell the flats you don't live in and rent ,not sell ,your current home, then you will pay the surcharge because you have not sold and replaced your primary residence

It is not apparent from your post why you find this unclear

A married couple can only have one primary residence

It is unclear because only one of the couple has ownership of the primary residence, so for the other it could be thought of as buying an additional property.

booksurr

jennifernil wrote: »

It is unclear because only one of the couple has ownership of the primary residence, so for the other it could be thought of as buying an additional property.

so post #6 applies, or do you think UK legislation is now decided on the pages of MSE?

jennifernil

No, I thought we were just discussing scenarios and options on here. Is that not part of what a forum is for?

carpediemspirit

At present the threshold for the additional 3% Stamp Duty kicks on the acquisition of a 2nd property. Maybe the government should consider increasing this threshold to a 3rd property ? The rationale being that in the UK there is a large proportion of accidental landlords, many of whom who took out 95 to 100% mortgages. These individuals are either living in rented accommodation or with family who's rental income is just about covering their mortgage.

Should they wish to buy a property to live in as their main residence, they are hit with the extra 3% stamp duty. This is in contrast to the individual who not only has a buy to let but their main home. If they buy a new main home. They are exempt from the 3% stamp duty but still maintain ownership of two properties as the legislation does not apply retrospectively.

Thus in order to bring equality to the legislation, the extra 3% should kick in on acquisition of a 3rd property. Another reason for this is that for years previous governments have been encouraging people to save for their retirement and young people have chosen to do this though the acquisition of 1 modest BTL to compliment where they live. The more serious landlords can and should pay 3% on acquisition of a 3rd property and this is where the government can have more success with this policy.

Jhoney_2

Excuse me if I do not understand the issue.I again refer you to my post #22.

There are many who do not now have the opportunity to get on the property ladder via a 100% mortgage, and criteria introduced in April 2104 have made affordability a factor and all is much stricter - perhaps rightly, perhaps not.

The people you refer to above were benefactors of that - so not much complaint from anyone there, however this time probably not... so they complain of unfair treatment.

If you have any equity in the BTL, see if you can get it out and buy something (anything?)as your main home before the new rule kicks in and voila - an even playing field for you. You can then replace it without penalty along with everyone else exempt.

Why 3? why not 5, or 10? To capture more revenue for the Governments coffers.They cannot do so retrospectively, so success regardless of reason or political agenda will be measured by that and more successful than your proposed starting point.

Just to be clear, I have no BTLs - just my main home so no personal interest in this either way.

booksurr

jennifernil wrote: »

No, I thought we were just discussing scenarios and options on here. Is that not part of what a forum is for?

since no one posting on a forum has any decision making power feel free to create hot air if that is what excites you. You may rest assured it will not impact GB Plc unless you respond to the consultation and draw attention to scenarios which appear to have been overlooked.

jennifernil

I have responded.

Daniel54

jennifernil wrote: »

It is unclear because only one of the couple has ownership of the primary residence, so for the other it could be thought of as buying an additional property.

Example 19 is the closest to your situation,substituting that it will be B's "replacement primary residence" for "first property"

This is the question raised in the consultation following that example to which I guess you have now responded

" Question 2:
Do you agree that, where property is purchased jointly, if any of the purchasers in a transaction are purchasing an additional residential property and not replacing a main residence, the higher rates should apply to the whole transaction value? If not, how would you suggest the government treats joint purchasers?"

carpediemspirit

Somebody has created a petition:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114140

But given the level of responses, it clearly is not garnering enough attention as the tax credits.