Accidental landlord and new tax rules

FBaby

Guest101 wrote: »

Im sorry but 'by default' one isn't a landlord, one is a person with an empty house.

And I can think of a number of situations when people became landlord not by planning, nor by need. They become so because the alternatives are of no benefit or have proven impossible.

Crashy_Time

FBaby wrote: »

And I can think of a number of situations when people became landlord not by planning, nor by need. They become so because the alternatives are of no benefit or have proven impossible.

But they are making money from letting so need to be covered by lettings tax laws?

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

And I can think of a number of situations when people became landlord not by planning, nor by need. They become so because the alternatives are of no benefit or have proven impossible.

If the alternative is impossible, then by definition they need to become a landlord?

AdrianC

FBaby wrote: »

And I can think of a number of situations when people became landlord not by planning, nor by need. They become so because the alternatives are of no benefit or have proven impossible.

In other words: they choose to be, because they find that the preferable alternative.

silvercar

Guest101 wrote: »

Im sorry but 'by default' one isn't a landlord, one is a person with an empty house.

Rather someone be a landlord than have an empty house serving no purpose.

Pixie5740

You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off

Guest101

silvercar wrote: »

Rather someone be a landlord than have an empty house serving no purpose.

Yes that's fine, im not advocating people keeping homes empty, just do it properly.

FBaby

But they are making money from letting so need to be covered by lettings tax laws?

Except that not everyone is making money and some are set to actually be worse off on a monthly basis. This is the reason why OP posted, to ask for advice as to better understand the implication and whether they should consider selling if indeed, they are not set to break even, let alone make a profit after the change in law. Why do people always assume that landlord are left with a nice amount of disposable income each month?

In other words: they choose to be, because they find that the preferable alternative

Fine, of course any action is a choice, but is a poisoned choice really choice but in a semantic form?

Her's the scenario. Person A gets half a property through inheritance. They have no interest, and no benefit from becoming a LL, but their siblings do and don't want to sell. Your view will be that they do have the choice to prevent being a LL. They can take their sibling to court and force the sell. However, if doing so mean that they ruin their relationship with their sibling and end up with a £20K bill from solicitors when the sell only got them £10K, leaving them in debts they can't afford to repay, can you really call this a choice in true form?

Alternatively, in such view of what choice means, is it right to judge anyone so badly for being a LL for taking a choice that leaves them a reluctant LL rather than in debts?

AdrianC

FBaby wrote: »

Why do people always assume that landlord are left with a nice amount of disposable income each month?

Because it'd be a bloody strange hobby...

Her's the scenario. Person A gets half a property through inheritance. They have no interest, and no benefit from becoming a LL, but their siblings do and don't want to sell. Your view will be that they do have the choice to prevent being a LL. They can take their sibling to court and force the sell. However, if doing so mean that they ruin their relationship with their sibling and end up with a £20K bill from solicitors when the sell only got them £10K, leaving them in debts they can't afford to repay, can you really call this a choice in true form?

Can't the siblings raise the money to buy them out?

Alternatively, in such view of what choice means, is it right to judge anyone so badly for being a LL for taking a choice that leaves them a reluctant LL rather than in debts?

Nobody's making judgements on the choice. It's the use of the word "accidental" to describe something that was a deliberate choice, albeit perhaps simply the least-expensive one. It is quite simply impossible to become a landlord accidentally. It can ONLY be a deliberate act.

"Reluctant"? Sure - no problem with that. But if it's that reluctant, then you'll be looking for ways to get out as early as possible, not wondering if there are workarounds for tax changes that make it feasible to continue.

Marvel1

For me accidental landlord means they are amateur, leave everything to the agent without knowing the laws and tenant rights and assume it's just receive money.