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
Avoid higher rate stamp duty on 2nd property
Comments
-
Mortgage_Adviser wrote: »The property may not be in the same geographical location to where the OP lived and works now.
Also what money would he offer to his business partner for the negative equity?
Eg we both own the house which is after the ,mortgage is taken in to consideration is worth - (minus) £20,000. So technically his business partner would need to pay the OP to get off the bad investment.
He could live in it and rent the partner's half from him.0 -
Watch out HPC are watching0
-
bob_bank_spanker wrote: »No, but they have a capital loss. On disposal, that loss can be relieved. Why not against SDLT? There is no logical reason why not - it was incurred in a residential property transaction - exactly like the next transaction. This was, like most recent tax changes, put through on the quick by an incompetent treasury.
well this really is nonsense.
There is no capital loss until the asset is disposed of.
And then there won't be any additional SDLT to pay.0 -
-
ScoTTyBEEE wrote: »Don't worry. You might wake up one day, and realise by complete accident you've become a landlord.
not really, sell it immediately, being a LL is more pain than pleasure tbh"It is prudent when shopping for something important, not to limit yourself to Pound land/Estate Agents"
G_M/ Bowlhead99 RIP0 -
Wow.. I thought this was a forum for those seeking advice, not abuse.
So thank you to those who posted helpful information, even if it was not what I wanted to hear.
If the SDLT is such that I must pay, then I shall. I was just wondering if my circumstances were cause for an exemption. I don't see the need for vitriol and ridicule.
I accept that there are many people less fortunate than I, however those quick comment done so without knowing my background or the full story.
You would have thought that I was some slumlord with streets of properties & the sole cause of the social housing crisis. I'm hardly Donald Trump!
I am just a man, that foolishly bought a small flat with his mate out or fear that we'd never get on the ladder. It was never our intention to become landlords.
The reason I don't live there now is because I had to move for work. Even if I did still live there, I do not have the cash to pay the negative equity/buy out my "business partner"
I'm guessing there are many people out there in similar circumstances, I hope they find you lot more sympathetic.0 -
Moderatelymod2 wrote: »Wow.. I thought this was a forum for those seeking advice, not abuse.
It is. Any abuse you have received is out of order, although I don't see any myself. I see some answers that aren't sugar-coated, but sugar-coating isn't particularly helpful anyway.
I can only speak for myself, but - my pleasure.So thank you to those who posted helpful information, even if it was not what I wanted to hear.
No, they are not.If the SDLT is such that I must pay, then I shall. I was just wondering if my circumstances were cause for an exemption.
You own one property now.
You will own two properties at the end of this.
SDLT +3%.
It's that easy.
No problem with that...I am just a man, that foolishly bought a small flat with his mate out or fear that we'd never get on the ladder.
Yet you did decide to become landlords... Didn't you?It was never our intention to become landlords.
You took the conscious decision to enter the residential property letting business.
You informed your mortgage lender, and obtained consent to let (you did, right?).
You found a tenant.
You signed a tenancy.
You took and protected a deposit (you did, right?).
You collected rent (no need to ask about that one...)
You maintained the property for the tenant (you did, right?).
You made sure all your other legal obligations were up to date (you did, right?)
You paid tax on that rent (you did, right?)...
Why the quote marks? He IS your partner in your residential property lettings business activities.Even if I did still live there, I do not have the cash to pay the negative equity/buy out my "business partner"
Yet you have the money for a deposit on the property you're buying now? This is another conscious decision you are making, to maintain your residential property letting while buying a second property as your main residence. You are trying to justify that decision with this claim - but, as justification, it holds no water.
You may feel it is better value for you to pay the 3% SDLT than it is to cut your losses on your poor investment, while it is still at least covering the ongoing costs and perhaps even bringing you some income. Great. That's a valid justification.
You would prefer to pay less tax arising from your business activities. Well, who wouldn't...?
Many, yes.I'm guessing there are many people out there in similar circumstances
They will. If they don't try to play the poor-hard-done-by card in an attempt to evade their legal responsibilities.I hope they find you lot more sympathetic.0 -
The vitriolic small minded fools over on HPC are now trying to stir it up on here:
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/230297-another-poor-soul-on-mse/#comment-1103247470
What a bunch of pathetic losers0 -
Oooh, the hidden sub-forum? I feel all... left out.The vitriolic small minded fools over on HPC are now trying to stir it up on here:
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/230297-another-poor-soul-on-mse/#comment-1103247470
What a bunch of pathetic losers
It must exist, right? It can't possibly be a figment of their fevered conspiracy-ridden minds, right?
(and they can't possibly be stupid enough to mean the very un-hidden "debate house prices" forum, can they?)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards