Stamp duty

slightlychilled

There is no additional stamp duty due when buying a house as a residence. Is there a minimum amount of time the owner has to occupy the house himself before he can rent it out without being accused of having bought a buy-to-let ?
Asked from a perspective of genuine changes in life circumstances rather than tax avoidance. If stamp duty is retrospectively collected then resale is possibly a cheaper option.

00ec25

slightlychilled wrote: »

There is no additional stamp duty due when buying a house as a residence. Is there a minimum amount of time the owner has to occupy the house himself before he can rent it out without being accused of having bought a buy-to-let ?
Asked from a perspective of genuine changes in life circumstances rather than tax avoidance. If stamp duty is retrospectively collected then resale is possibly a cheaper option.

your comment is so wrong it is hard to know where to start. The additional ("higher") rate SDLT applies to the purchase of any and every ADDITIONAL property you purchase whether you use it as a residence, a second home, a BTL or a brothel

there is tons of info on the internet explaining such basic facts, how can you be so wrong if you have read it?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property

there are circumstances where it is not charged, or it can be refunded, if the purchase is the REPLACEMENT of a main home. Explain your life changing circumstances and we can explain to you if such rules would apply in your case.

kinger101

Like 00ec25 suggests, do some basic fact checking first. Then at least you do have any questions, you can at least frame your question in a sensible way. We don't even know if this is your first property.

slightlychilled

Did I say this was an additional property ? because it isn't.
Just interested in any time-frame that exists.

davidmcn

slightlychilled wrote: »

Did I say this was an additional property ? because it isn't.

In which case there's no additional rate due on it, and never will be. You'll pay the additional rate for any subsequent purchases (even if you do live in them).

Mojisola

slightlychilled wrote: »

There is no additional stamp duty due when buying a house as a residence. Is there a minimum amount of time the owner has to occupy the house himself before he can rent it out without being accused of having bought a buy-to-let ?

You don't have to worry about stamp duty but whether your mortgage lender will give you permission to rent the property out.

00ec25

slightlychilled wrote: »

Did I say this was an additional property ? because it isn't.
Just interested in any time-frame that exists.

you only pay SDLT on purchase, so if you change the use of the property once you own it that is irrelevant. As I said above, if you read the higher rate guidance you would understand it is not a tax on BTL use, it is a tax on the purchase of an additional property.

You say this is not an additional property, but your OP uses the word additional stamp duty, and that only applies for additional properties. Why you think "purchase as a residence" exempts you from SDLT is a mystery. Read the basic guide as well then, it even use the words " residential property rates".... you will pay normal rate SDLT if you buy any property above the normal threshold
https://www.gov.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax/overview

What may be more relevant given you ask about minimum occupation periods so it implies you have recently purchased, is what will be the attitude of your mortgage lender if you switch from residential use to letting use, yet purchased using a residential, not BTL, mortgage?

Pixie5740

This thread has a few crossed wires. The higher rate of SDLT, as has been pointed out, is for the purchase of additional properties but you are not buying an additional property.

The OP is a cash buyer (see previous thread) so no permission is required from a mortgage lender. However, if this is a leasehold purchase (and who knows since information is coming in dribs and drabs) permission for letting may have to b sought from the freeholder.

patel007

Freeholders, management agents have conditions. We have an apartment in Londo bought for cash. The reason we bought this particular one was that the lease stated not to be rented out to those out of work and they enforce to the letter which imo makes a better apartment block. If one is subsequently unemployed, that is a different story.

slightlychilled

Correct, I'm not purchasing an additional property but purchase and ownership start to become confusing. I own another property but didn't purchase it, I inherited it several years ago.

My main residence in the UK was sold some time ago when I moved abroad where I rented. Purchasing a property now in the UK as my main residence replaces the property I sold previously and so does not attract the additional SDLT. If however, as seems now a possibility, I may be posted abroad again I have the dilemma of my OP.

kingstreet

If you currently own 0 properties and will, after completion, own 1, no surcharge is payable.

If at some point your property ownership increases from 1 to 2, or more, the surcharge will then apply.

If you purchase a new main residence before selling your current main residence, the surcharge will apply but a refund can be requested if the original main residence is sold within three years.