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!
Offsetting rental expenses
Comments
-
Badgersrus wrote: »Before he moves in he gets a job offer abroad and instead of living in it chooses to let it out
Exactly. So it's never been your primary residence therefore it's liable for the additional SDLT.0 -
Badgersrus wrote: »A man buys his new home. Before he moves in he gets a job offer abroad and instead of living in it chooses to let it out, move overseas and perhaps return 20 years later and either live in it or maybe sell it. That's not fraud. One is perfectly entitled to do what one wishes with your one's home - rent it out from day 1 or never. The state gets its cut in tax on rental income and, when the property is sold, a proportion of CGT payable on a pro-rata basis depending upon the split of personal and rental use.
You suggested that you had persuaded HMRC to reduce the stamp duty on the flats because you would be living in one of them and therefore it was not liable at the same rate because it would be your own home. You then went on to suggest that you hadn't actually ever lived in the flat. That is fraud by misrepresentation. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.
You are not perfectly entitled to do as you wish with your home. There are all sorts of laws that actually preclude you from doing a variety of things with it. However, if you wish to live in a society where you can do whatever you want then may I recommend the Burma as a possible place to live? As long as you can pay the bribes then you will be able to do exactly as you please, unless someone else wants to do exactly as they please and this conflicts with you, but they have more money to pay bribes.0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »
Of course, if I have understood what you previously wrote, .
I'm not sure you understood a thing, least of all the spirit of my posts. Good day!0 -
Badgersrus wrote: »I'm not sure you understood a thing, least of all the spirit of my posts. Good day!
Please enlighten me then, because if you haven't done as I surmised you might want to change what you wrote, because what you wrote describes you committing fraud.
I understand perfectly, so the only grey area is your poor explanation of what you did, otherwise you are a fraudster.0 -
Exactly. So it's never been your primary residence therefore it's liable for the additional SDLT.
Before he moves in. Not before completion. Anyway, I'm not sure you couldn't buy your one and only house as a buy to let, claim it as your main residence for the purposes of SDLT, let it out before the contact ink is dry and go live with your Mum. In fact I think you defiantly could.
In my case, since I sold my primary residence prior to purchase of the block of flats I am free to name a flat as my home for the purposes of SDLT - HMRC said so. Form that point forward, what I do with it is my business. Even if I did own a primary residence, if I sold it within 3 years I could then claim one flat as my own and claim the SDLT back.0 -
Badgersrus wrote: »Before he moves in. Not before completion. Anyway, I'm not sure you couldn't buy your one and only house as a buy to let, claim it as your main residence for the purposes of SDLT, let it out before the contact ink is dry and go live with your Mum. In fact I think you defiantly could.
You definitely couldn't, although doing so would be in defiance of the law. It would remain fraud by misrepresentation, as you would have a very hard time proving that you had ever intended to live there.Badgersrus wrote: »In my case, since I sold my primary residence prior to purchase of the block of flats I am free to name a flat as my home for the purposes of SDLT - HMRC said so. Form that point forward, what I do with it is my business. Even if I did own a primary residence, if I sold it within 3 years I could then claim one flat as my own and claim the SDLT back.
You keep telling yourself that.0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »You suggested that you had persuaded HMRC to reduce the stamp duty on the flats because you would be living in one of them and therefore it was not liable at the same rate because it would be your own home. You then went on to suggest that you hadn't actually ever lived in the flat. That is fraud by misrepresentation. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.
.
You don't have to stipulate whether or not you intend to live in it. The rules state you can nominate one property as your private residence which will not be subject to the SDLT surcharge. Forget for one moment the flats, I own other buy to lets. Had I sold my home and purchased another home, despite owning other property, my new home would not attract the surcharge. Does not matter my intention to live in it or otherwise.0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »You definitely couldn't, although doing so would be in defiance of the law. It would remain fraud by misrepresentation, as you would have a very hard time proving that you had ever intended to live there.
.
The tax is on second properties. If a person only owned one home it does not matter what they do with it.0 -
You still don't get it do you? You can't declare a property as your primary residence unless you actually live there.Badgersrus wrote: »Before he moves in. Not before completion.
No, they really don't.Badgersrus wrote: »The rules state you can nominate one property as your private residence which will not be subject to the SDLT surcharge.
It does matter. You are only exempt if you are replacing your current primary residence with a new primary residence. If you never live in the new property then it isn't your primary residence.Had I sold my home and purchased another home, despite owning other property, my new home would not attract the surcharge. Does not matter my intention to live in it or otherwise.0 -
Badgersrus wrote: »You don't have to stipulate whether or not you intend to live in it. The rules state you can nominate one property as your private residence which will not be subject to the SDLT surcharge. Forget for one moment the flats, I own other buy to lets. Had I sold my home and purchased another home, despite owning other property, my new home would not attract the surcharge. Does not matter my intention to live in it or otherwise.
Yeah, you just continue to be wrong about that.
If somewhere is your residence then you live there. You can carry on restating what you say over and over, but it won't make it correct.
Ignorance of the law is not a defence, by the way, and the rules on stamp duty are easily available.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards