We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Higher rate stamp duty
k1ngston
Posts: 14 Forumite
Hoping someone might be able to confirm/reject our interpretation of the higher rate stamp duty rules:
My partner and I live in a house that is owned solely by me. He owns one BTL flat and a 50% share of two others, none of which he has ever lived in. We are now selling my house and buying a new house jointly.
As I understand it, we will be subject to higher rate stamp duty on our new house because he is not disposing of a residence.
We're not thrilled about this but understand that these are the rules.
My question is, if we were married, would the higher rate stamp duty still apply?
Para 3.17 of the HMRC rules state that there must be two parts to the replacement of a purchaser's main residence:
1) there must be a disposal of the purchaser's or their spouse or civil partner's previous main residence, and
2) the dwelling acquired must be intended to be occupied as the individual's only or main residence.
2) is a definite but at the moment 1) does not apply. To me, if we were married then we would meet the criteria and pay only standard stamp duty.
I know it sounds horribly cynical to consider getting married to save tax but it's a lot of money, and we were planning to get married next year anyway.
Any thoughts? Thank you
My partner and I live in a house that is owned solely by me. He owns one BTL flat and a 50% share of two others, none of which he has ever lived in. We are now selling my house and buying a new house jointly.
As I understand it, we will be subject to higher rate stamp duty on our new house because he is not disposing of a residence.
We're not thrilled about this but understand that these are the rules.
My question is, if we were married, would the higher rate stamp duty still apply?
Para 3.17 of the HMRC rules state that there must be two parts to the replacement of a purchaser's main residence:
1) there must be a disposal of the purchaser's or their spouse or civil partner's previous main residence, and
2) the dwelling acquired must be intended to be occupied as the individual's only or main residence.
2) is a definite but at the moment 1) does not apply. To me, if we were married then we would meet the criteria and pay only standard stamp duty.
I know it sounds horribly cynical to consider getting married to save tax but it's a lot of money, and we were planning to get married next year anyway.
Any thoughts? Thank you
0
Comments
-
Yes.
Marriage can actually work against you here - if you were buying the new place in just your name, the 3% SDLT would not be charged. If you were married, it would be.0 -
Might be worth holding off for a month or so until Hammonds first Autumn statement.
There is a good chance that he will see sense and reverse some of Osborne's punitive taxes on secondition property owners.0 -
Might be worth holding off for a month or so until Hammonds first Autumn statement.
There is a good chance that he will see sense and reverse some of Osborne's punitive taxes on secondition property owners.
Somehow, I doubt this one will be reversed. Aside from the cost to the treasury, it was actually quite popular with the public."Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" - Confucius0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards