Stamp Duty confusion

scottishblondie

welshguy85 wrote: »

I'm inclined to think, and this is not wishful thinking, that as long as I'm off the deeds of the current property I am in and I can prove that my other property is a consent to let (not for residential purpose), then I am clear to proceed with not having to pay the 3% surcharge.

You still seem to be stuck on the whole "consent to let" thing on the first property. The consent to let has no bearing on the stamp duty situation of the proposed new property, the only important thing is that you own it in the first place. The surcharge applies to additional properties, regardless of purpose. The important thing to establish is that you are disposing of and replacing your main residence, as that is allowed without attracting the surcharge on the new property purchase.

Alter_ego

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

Is he? Or is it you? Hmm...

Yep, could be me sorry if I've muddied the water.

AnotherJoe

welshguy85 wrote: »

Thanks Pixie5740 and ScottishBlondie, you make it sound so simple, but there's clearly a "grey area" here.

I'm inclined to think, and this is not wishful thinking, that as long as I'm off the deeds of the current property I am in and I can prove that my other property is a consent to let (not for residential purpose), then I am clear to proceed with not having to pay the 3% surcharge.

.

No. No no no no NO.

The first property is irrelevant whether it’s consent to let, BTL, empty, inhabited by elves or any other thing, it’s not your residence and you own it. Only those two last facts matter.

Normally, as said upstream, if you were selling your main residence, eg the other property where you live with your soon to be ex, and bought another residence, there would be no extra 3%.

What matters is are you replacing your main residence under the rules and you’d need to check that however it is you transferred it counts under the rules. Selling does. Whether “giving” it or transferring it to someone also counts I don’t know though logically it should but logic and HMRC don’t always go together.

amnblog

There has always been an exemption on higher rate SLDT for those simply moving residence (from one property owned to another).

HMRC say...

‘There is a replacement of a main residence if, at the time of a purchase, the transaction was a higher rates transaction and in the subsequent three years, the purchaser sells a previous main residence. The previous main residence must have been the main residence of the purchaser at some time during the three years before the purchase of the new main residence.’

This does not apply if the C2L was your only property and you had not lived there in 3 years.

As ever, you should consult your solicitor for guidance in your particular case.

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Paragraph 3.18 in those notes seems to make clear that a gift of the previous main residence will also count so I think the OP will be ok.[/FONT]

welshguy85

Thank you all for the responses, I feel somewhat confident by the responses here that the high rate does not apply. Phew!

Tom99, thanks for cutting through the guide for me and picking out that paragraph - that is indeed our situation. I'll be speaking to the solicitor, it states the need for an appropriate court order.