Avoiding stamp duty surcharge with a temporary main residence

G_M

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I resent that. I'm only partly anonymous.

and I'm only partly a wierdo.

CarrieVS

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I resent that. I'm only partly anonymous.

G_M wrote: »

and I'm only partly a wierdo.

Well between the two of you it averages out at mostly anonymous and mostly weird, and then you can round up.

00ec25

marv9n wrote: »

Alternatively, is there anything that stops me purchasing an even cheaper home as a main residence, moving in but then selling that to buy the new home and avoid the surchage again?

in principle that would work, however, you are without doubt running a risk since the overarching principle is based on "degree of permanence, continuity and expectation of continuity". That is how case law relating to subjective assessment of main residence is viewed.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm09812

since your stated objective is temporary residence to facilitate obtaining a refund, a refund request may well trigger an enquiry and my expectation of that would be you'd fail it

00ec25

CarrieVS wrote: »

Well between the two of you it averages out at mostly anonymous and mostly weird, and then you can round up.

so to sum up, this board is populated by mostly anonymous weirdos. But we already knew that :money:

marv9n

Thanks all for the replies. I would rather not be at HMRCs graces when it comes to them owing me a refund or not.

As far as affordability goes, we purchased the £600k house as a shared ownership flat (starting at 35%) and managed to staircase to 100% by saving every last penny we had.

The £175k house is a buy to let and I am paying £6k tax on that already, which again is an investment I am able to make by working and saving hard. My wife and I are on modest salaries as is apparent from the shared ownership threshold requirements, so just paying and additional £15k in tax isn’t something I’d gladly do. If there is a legal way around that I am definitely happy to explore it...

Regardless I think this seems like a grey area. I will potentially move into the £175k flat to save some additional money regardless, but after a few years of letting this out.

Thanks for the help!

Marlon

ModernSlave

This is the sort of thing HMRC Connect System was built for. Do post a follow up in a few years and let us know how it went please.

theartfullodger

marv9n wrote: »

............. My wife and I are on modest salaries.................

Aye, right: And

Hi all,

My wife and I own a central London flat of around £600k,..

You could always just pay tax due, like normal people?

My old man (born 1903, WW2 etc etc..) thought it his duty to pay tax and not try wriggling your way out of it: Those good old British traditions of decency, fair-play, respect for the law.

Just a thought.

Best wishes to all, including those who disagree with me.

Thrugelmir

marv9n wrote: »

so just paying and additional £15k in tax isn’t something I’d gladly do

How tax efficient is your plan to let the properties if it comes to fruition?

YoungBlueEyes

I agree with artful. My father would have been getting towards 90 now, and had a strong sense of fair play and decency. He cheerfully paid his taxes, some months his taxes were more than my wages! You can't have everyone just taking out of the pot - those that are replenishing it should be proud that they're in a position to do so.

One of his many maxims - "we do not shirk, we are not American".

Pixie5740

No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue

Lord Clyde: Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929]