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
-
The intension for the new property is covered in the guidance. If you do not intend to live in the new property as your only or main residence you fail the main residence test.
3.36 The test in respect of the new dwelling purchased is a question of intention, does the purchaser intend the dwelling to be his only or main residence? This is a question of intention at the time of purchase, what has the purchaser acquired the property for? The intention test will not only be met if there is an intent to immediately occupy, if some works are to be undertaken before occupation commences, or a short lease is in place before purchase, then this does not prevent the test from being met. If the dwelling is intended to be put to other uses, for example as a source of income, then the intention test will not be met. There may be rare cases of the purchaser!!!8217;s genuine intention at the time of purchase being frustrated by events.0 -
-
Badgersrus wrote: »It is for the purposes of SDLT.
No it isn't! Even when presented with the appropriate regulations you still refuse to accept. How thick is your hide?Badgersrus wrote: »Anyway, we're going in circles.
The only reason we are going round in circles is because you refuse to accept the facts. You are wrong, plain and simple, and have failed to pay the correct tax. Whether this is due to your mendacity or ignorance is open to debate, but either way you would still be liable for the tax and for prosecution.0 -
Badgersrus wrote: »Anselld, why do I not have a point? Whilst HMRC may say no, it does not necessarily follow their rules are not arbitrary rather than a reasoned position.
It does not follow that an arbitrary unreasoned position is not a rule.0 -
If this was to be the case why wouldn't everyone just rent their own home out and rent another property?0
-
It's just as well that Badgers is trolling, and this situation really doesn't exist.
If he was for real, he'd be inside by now.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