Do we owe more stamp duty?

saajan_12

00ec25 wrote: »

it does not matter that you are not married, you purchased as joint owners so the higher rate SDLT applies to both of you if one of you would fail the test when considered individually - he fails as he was already an owner who had not sold up so was liable, making you both liable

if you submitted the SDLT return less than 12 months ago you still have time to submit (in writing) an amendment - looks awfully like you will get an interest charge and possibly a penalty, see here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-online-and-paper-returns

I disagree, if one person in a married couple owns a property, then they are treated as both owning it as a unit, and both living having the same main residence. So disposing of that main residence when they buy another property would not trigger the higher SDLT.

SDLT_Geek

saajan_12 wrote: »

I disagree, if one person in a married couple owns a property, then they are treated as both owning it as a unit, and both living having the same main residence. So disposing of that main residence when they buy another property would not trigger the higher SDLT.

Part of what Saajan says is true:

For a married couple if both have lived in a property as their main residence then they can both rely on a disposal of it by one of them alone to help them each come within the replacement exception. See SDLTM09800.

This does not help OP though as:
(a) They were not married.
(b) The partner did not live in the property that OP sold, but in the property he (unknowingly) had a share in.

aliby21

EmilyB23 wrote: »

I have checked the documents available on the land registry for his dads house and the title register shows 4 owners - my partner, his dad and his 2 brothers. The document is dated April 2000 and my partner was in his teens then so probably signed any documents he was given without bothering to check the details or even knowing what he was agreeing to.

Were your partner an his brothers both adults? AFIK minors are not able to own property (unless held in trust). If he and/or his siblings were children then might there be a way to challenge whether it was ever a valid transfer?

AnotherJoe

sillyhilly wrote: »

In that case, he had no knowledge of it so could not possibly be accused of tax evasion. Are you sure that the property isn't held in trust for your partner and his three brothers? It seems an odd thing to do to transfer all deeds of the property over to your three children for no real reason.

I would personally have a case of selective hearing in these circumstances. You may well have misheard your partner's father...

Most likely the reason was evading potential care home fees. Or possibly IHT (though that wouldnt work but then again that doesnt stop many people doing this)

[Deleted User]

Remember this happened 20 years ago. I'm not sure the rules on care home fees existed then. Could be wrong, but not keen on aspersions being placed on an elderly gentleman who probably did this thinking he was ensuring the future of his sons - and make sure they had a home if anything happened to him (remember they were all young) rather than trying to cheat the system.

princeofpounds

I think you need a little more advice than has been given on the thread so far, because the property was transferred when your partner was a minor.


The old property was possibly held as some kind of trust - my understanding is that minors don't directly own property - and deep in the bowels of the SDLT Manual there is some guidance on this issue:


https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm09815

Where a minor child would be treated as owning an interest in land because they are a beneficiary of a trust, the parents of that child (and, if the parents are not married to one another, the spouses or civil partners, if any, of those parents) are treated for the purposes of Condition C as owners of the interest [Para 12].

Now, this may well have applied back in the day, but I don't know what kind of trust exists (if any, now), and I also don't know how it affects someone who was awarded a beneficial share of a property as a minor and is no longer a minor.


But this is probably an area to focus on.

00ec25

saajan_12 wrote: »

I disagree, if one person in a married couple owns a property, then they are treated as both owning it as a unit, and both living having the same main residence. So disposing of that main residence when they buy another property would not trigger the higher SDLT.

that is one of the rules, but you have misread the facts of the case in this thread, so that rule is irrelevant in this context. He did not live in the property that has been sold.

He lived in his own property which has not been sold as they are joint purchasers of the new property thereby triggering the higher rate.