Stamp Duty Explanation

AdrianC

james_37 wrote: »

I'm not saying I don't now understand the wording or application of the duty! It has been carefully explained by other replies in this thread. I'm not disputing it.

I was replying to Kynthia who suggested the rationale was to tax those increasing their number of properties (when this isn't universally the case).

Indeed. Kynthia was wrong.

I was also interested in opening a discussion regarding the rationale behind the tax given the two examples where both aren't increasing their portfolio, and the one liable for the additional duty is buying their first residence. That's all. I thought this would probably be a reasonable forum to see what people thought about this.

Yeh, you'll be wanting to talk to Phil Hammond about that if you want to get anywhere...

Look, it's really very simple.
Your partner owns properties. She doesn't want to live in those properties - she wants to buy another property. She pays the extra SDLT.

If she sells another property that she doesn't live in, then that's merely fiddling around with the edges of her BtL business, and nothing to do with changing her primary residence.

The exemption is a simple one, intended for one purpose only. People who have BtL properties would otherwise find themselves penalised when they come to moving their personal residence. That's not the situation your partner is in.

james_37

AdrianC wrote: »

Yeh, you'll be wanting to talk to Phil Hammond about that if you want to get anywhere...

Look, it's really very simple.
Your partner owns properties. She doesn't want to live in those properties - she wants to buy another property. She pays the extra SDLT.

If she sells another property that she doesn't live in, then that's merely fiddling around with the edges of her BtL business, and nothing to do with changing her primary residence.

The exemption is a simple one, intended for one purpose only. People who have BtL properties would otherwise find themselves penalised when they come to moving their personal residence. That's not the situation your partner is in.

Actually I don't want to 'get anywhere' - I think extra taxes on all additional properties are about as justifiable a tax as you can come up with! Especially in this country where the housing situation is such a mess for so many. Thanks for your reply.

Typhoon2000

The taxes are about revenue raising, nothing else.
If you can buy in your own name then you should do just that, and then add your partner later. There will be no additional tax to pay.

Lioness_Twinkletoes

james_37 wrote: »

Unfortunately her properties are in a completely different part of the country from where she works so have never been suitable for her to live in, and that she now owns two is down to unfortunate circumstances.

If the circumstances are so 'unfortunate' that your wife will own three properties I suggest she sells two of them.

james_37

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

If the circumstances are so 'unfortunate' that your wife will own three properties I suggest she sells two of them.

Confrontational, uninformed and unhelpful. That's a bingo!

sgun

OP I can see where you are coming from but if you look at it from another angle it makes more sense.


Myself and my husband own a house that we live in and a flat that we rent out. When we buy a new house we are replacing our main residence and so will not pay the extra stamp duty as we are releasing a house onto the market for someone else to buy as well as taking one off the market. They cancel each other out.


In your situation you are not releasing a property for someone to buy and so have to pay the additional tax.


I expect there are many people in the same situation as you, is it fair or not? I don't know.

fivesmaster

Isn't everyone missing the point here? The OP is suggesting there is an unfair situation here in that, even if his partner was to sell one of their BTL's within the time limit of buying somewhere, they will still be charged the 3% due to the fact his partner has never lived in the property that is sold.....I think they do have a point.


Overall, it is as though the Gov are introducing a policy that hits the end user, due to the incompetency's of Gov to create a stable housing market through the years....seems the wrong way to do it though....

Doozergirl

fivesmaster wrote: »

Isn't everyone missing the point here? The OP is suggesting there is an unfair situation here in that, even if his partner was to sell one of their BTL's within the time limit of buying somewhere, they will still be charged the 3% due to the fact his partner has never lived in the property that is sold.....I think they do have a point.


Overall, it is as though the Gov are introducing a policy that hits the end user, due to the incompetency's of Gov to create a stable housing market through the years....seems the wrong way to do it though....

No, not missing the point at all. The OP's partner owns more property than they need. The government thinks that if you are wealthy enough to own more than one property you can afford the extra stamp duty. I'm sure they considered this sort of scenario and thought that people like the OP's can't exactly plead poverty if they can raise the funds for another purchase.

By buying before, the OP's partner avoided any additional SDLT on their BTLs. The charge on the new house is almost like a retrospective charge on the BTLs.

Not many people, statistically, are in the situation that the OP is in. If the OP's partner is comfortable with their BTLs, they can pay the charge. If they aren't,they can sell up and avoid the charge. It's about priorities. The new increased SDLT is a bit of a deterrent. They can decide if they are deterred or not.

booksurr

Doozergirl wrote: »

Not many people, statistically, are in the situation that the OP is in. If the OP's partner is comfortable with their BTLs, they can pay the charge. If they aren't,they can sell up and avoid the charge. It's about priorities. The new increased SDLT is a bit of a deterrent. They can decide if they are deterred or not.

what an excellent summary, fully agree