Buyer trying to avoid stamp duty !

Zammo

guppy wrote: »

Yes, all you honest "losers" ought to be ashamed of yourselves! Just imagine how much better this country could be if everyone followed Zammo's shining example...:rolleyes:

As rabbitmad has pointed out, it's not illegal for the seller to accept the cash.

Personally I'd prefer to take the 10k at the buyers risk than have my house sit on the market for god knows how long, slowly depreciating in value.

Encouraging the OP to mimic your sanctimonious and rather pointless moral stance will probably end up costing him dearly.

Nenen

RabbitMad wrote: »

Alot of people on this thread seem to be confused. The buyer is responsible for stamp duty and it is not the vendors responsibility. Accepting £10K in cash is not illegal. You would not be breaking the law in any way.

I am not a legal expert but I would think that if you accepted £10,000 knowing full well that this was an attempt to defraud the tax office you could possibly face prosecution yourself for aiding and abetting a crime. We were told by both an EA (not usually the most honest of professions) and a solicitor not to even begin to engage in trying to offer a sum on top of 250K for genuine f&f... to the point where the EA would refuse to deal with it as he stated quite clearly that they and any solicitor who seemed to be aiding and abetting fraud could get done... I would hazard a guess that applies to the vendor too! Personally I wouldn't want to take the risk... and if that makes me a boring loser in some people's eyes then so be it!

Mozette

Great idea Zammo - let's none of us pay tax... then just pray you don't need medical help, the police, have kids to educate, want to use the roads etc and all the other things your tax (well, not your tax, but all the honest people's) goes to pay for. The money belongs to the Country, not the Government. The Government doesn't have any money, it just distributes our money.
A thief is a thief is a thief - and all are despicable rats.

Generali

Well morally speaking, all tax is theft but that's another matter.

I've had a look at the HMRC website and it appears that the buyer only is responsible for the declaration and paying of SDLT. I'd still be reluctant to deal with someone that is so clearly a crook.

Nenen

Generali wrote: »

Well morally speaking, all tax is theft but that's another matter.

I've had a look at the HMRC website and it appears that the buyer only is responsible for the declaration and paying of SDLT. I'd still be reluctant to deal with someone that is so clearly a crook.

I beg to differ Generali... my search of HMRC website (must admit it took some finding) turned up this:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/sdltmanual/SDLTM86360.htm

Note you can be held liable for TWENTY YEARS after the offence!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: Think I'd rather sleep at night than worry about being found out for the next twenty years!


"SDLTM86360 - Compliance: Penalties

Other legislation: Assisting in the preparation of an incorrect land transaction return FA03/S96

A person who assists in or induces the preparation or delivery of any information, land transaction return or other documents which they know will be (or are likely to be) used for tax purposes and also knows them to be incorrect, is liable to a penalty not exceeding £3000.

The time limit for a penalty is 20 years from the date when the penalty was incurred.

In any case where the use of FA03/S96 might be required, SCI should be contacted for advice via a Grade 6 officer."

guppy

Zammo wrote: »

Encouraging the OP to mimic your sanctimonious and rather pointless moral stance will probably end up costing him dearly.

Morals don't come in to it. Encouraging him to assist in a fraud might well cost him more dearly still. Is that really sensible advice to be giving out on a forum like this?

Zammo

Mozette wrote: »

Great idea Zammo - let's none of us pay tax... then just pray you don't need medical help, the police, have kids to educate, want to use the roads etc and all the other things your tax (well, not your tax, but all the honest people's) goes to pay for. The money belongs to the Country, not the Government. The Government doesn't have any money, it just distributes our money.
A thief is a thief is a thief - and all are despicable rats.

Yes, and the government wouldn't have the cash to start illegal wars and kill millions of innocents. What's your point?

Stamp duty is a complete con and should be abolished for all but the super rich. But you'd rather bend over and let Gordo thrust his greasy length up your dirtbox than actively refuse to be part of his little scam. You're absolutely spineless.

RabbitMad

Nenen wrote: »

I beg to differ Generali... my search of HMRC website (must admit it took some finding) turned up this:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/sdltmanual/SDLTM86360.htm

Note you can be held liable for TWENTY YEARS after the offence!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: Think I'd rather sleep at night than worry about being found out for the next twenty years!


"SDLTM86360 - Compliance: Penalties

Other legislation: Assisting in the preparation of an incorrect land transaction return FA03/S96

A person who assists in or induces the preparation or delivery of any information, land transaction return or other documents which they know will be (or are likely to be) used for tax purposes and also knows them to be incorrect, is liable to a penalty not exceeding £3000.

The time limit for a penalty is 20 years from the date when the penalty was incurred.

In any case where the use of FA03/S96 might be required, SCI should be contacted for advice via a Grade 6 officer."

This is to stop sols filling in SDLT returns falsely. Besides I was advocating taking the cash and then telling HMRC so they can get the full tax from the buyer.

I don't see how the vendor could know that the buyer is going to evade SDLT, they might suspect they are trying to so would want to tip HMRC off as good citizens but there might be all manor of reasons why the buyer would want to pay the £10K above the SD threshold in cash (I just can't think of any plausible ones right now.)

Generali

RabbitMad wrote: »

This is to stop sols filling in SDLT returns falsely. Besides I was advocating taking the cash and then telling HMRC so they can get the full tax from the buyer.

I don't see how the vendor could know that the buyer is going to evade SDLT, they might suspect they are trying to so would want to tip HMRC off as good citizens but there might be all manor of reasons why the buyer would want to pay the £10K above the SD threshold in cash (I just can't think of any plausible ones right now.)

It would be obvious from the contract. If you've got a situation where there's a contract for £x, £x exchanged hands in a normal manner and then £10k was paid in cash it's pretty obvious what was going on!

I'm not sure that reporting the transaction to HMRC after the act is good enough, legally speaking. It's rather like stealing something and then turning yourself in. All very laudable and all that but the crime has still been committed!

You've also got another couple of problems if you do this. The first is security - I wouldn't feel that comfortable knowing I had £10k in cash hanging about the place, especially if some crook had just given it to me.

The second is, what the hell do you do if the notes are dodgy!

Thirdly, what do you actually do with the cash? If you try to stick £10k in cash into the bank then that's going to be reported through the money laundering rules automatically.

Oh, and if your solicitor even suspects that anything dodgy is going on (s)he has to report it under money laundering rules. Eg. this link.

A Belfast solicitor has been sentenced to six months imprisonment at Belfast Crown Court on 4 October 2004 for failing to tell police about his suspicions that a client was laundering drug money. He received a £70,250 cash deposit on a property worth £105,000 in his capacity as a conveyancing solicitor. Mr Justice Higgins said that solicitors who became suspicious of money laundering “have a duty to tell the police”.

I'm not sure that it's spineless so much as sensible to reject the offer.

RabbitMad

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure that reporting the transaction to HMRC after the act is good enough, legally speaking. It's rather like stealing something and then turning yourself in. All very laudable and all that but the crime has still been committed!

I see it more as observing somebody else stealing and then reporting them.