Accidental Landlord

oldwiring

I was passed this article about the unfortunate newly weds
.
The extra levy was meant to catch those making money out of property, not young couples, who will likely be strapped anyhow setting up home.
By no means am  I socialist, but  I do feel such as the couple should benefit from relief as much, if not more, than those  selling their dwelling to climb the ladder or downsize,who have equity.                  

davidmcn

Why are they "forced"? Why can't they just move into the flat they can't sell? 

GDB2222

The legislation charges 3% extra SDLT if you have another house. This couple have a hard luck story, and I truly sympathise. 
But, how should the legislation be changed? Should every case be passed by @oldwiring to look at? 

Grumpy_chap

I am not sure that article, which is very hard to read, is entirely correct.
These two individuals (A & each own a separate property.
One of the properties is now a BTL, so subject to income tax on the rent received and the CGT from the point at which owner A moved into the property owned by B.
A & B now both live in a property (LTAMC) owned by B.
When they sell property B and buy property C together, won't they both get PPR relief on the sale and purchase?  Or has property A not be declared as no longer the PPR of owner A?

Marvel1

They have a home (flat).

greatcrested

Not the Daily Mail by any chance?

Look. Life is not perfect. Sh*t happens.

Grenfell was a tragedy and there's a whol bunch of people (newly weds or not) who own flats that are hard/impossible to sell because of the new cladding requirements. That is a well known issue. I'm not belittling it, or the thousands caught in the trap created by rules designed to prevent another Grenfell, but laws are never perfect.

We could debate for pages on this thread whether Grenfell residents, or residents of other tower blocks, have been sufficiently helped or compensated. That's politics.

There are others, individuals or businesses, who have fallen between the gaps in support for employees/business during the pandemic. Again we could debate for pages.

Or we could debate the (shock horror!) people who have lied or cheated to claim pandemic support they are not entitled to.

But these two nearly-newly-weds currently own two homes between them, so sympathy for them is misplaced. There are people far worse off!

And I may be wrong, but were Registry Offices not conducting weddings over the summer .......?

SpiderLegs

oldwiring said:

I was passed this article about the unfortunate newly weds
.
The extra levy was meant to catch those making money out of property, not young couples, who will likely be strapped anyhow setting up home.
By no means am  I socialist, but  I do feel such as the couple should benefit from relief as much, if not more, than those  selling their dwelling to climb the ladder or downsize,who have equity.                  

Accidental landlord is such an often used phrase here, I hadn’t realised that none of them actually made money out of their properties.

 

[Deleted User]

oldwiring said:

I was passed this article about the unfortunate newly weds
.
The extra levy was meant to catch those making money out of property, not young couples, who will likely be strapped anyhow setting up home.
By no means am  I socialist, but  I do feel such as the couple should benefit from relief as much, if not more, than those  selling their dwelling to climb the ladder or downsize,who have equity.                  

This couple could have had a simple registry office wedding with just witnesses but they chose not to. They could sell the house and live in the flat but they choose not to.  

AdrianC

So much self-pitying guff. But is it a surprise, really?

@greatcrested - no, not the Wail. But close. The broadsheet equivalent...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/cancelling-wedding-twice-landed-59k-stamp-duty-bill/

AdrianC

Grumpy_chap said:

I am not sure that article, which is very hard to read, is entirely correct.
These two individuals (A & each own a separate property.
One of the properties is now a BTL, so subject to income tax on the rent received and the CGT from the point at which owner A moved into the property owned by B.
A & B now both live in a property (LTAMC) owned by B.
When they sell property B and buy property C together, won't they both get PPR relief on the sale and purchase?  Or has property A not be declared as no longer the PPR of owner A?

He owns A. She owns B. They are jointly buying C.
Unmarried: if they sell A, keep B, and jointly buy C, they pay +3%, because she is going from one to two properties.
Married: if they sell A, keep B, and jointly buy C, they do not pay +3%, because they are replacing their primary residence.

If the +3% is £59k, as the article header suggests, then they're buying a ~£2m property.
(I refuse to subscribe to the Telegraph, so I'm only seeing the screenshot, a few google snippets, and the article header...)

There is precisely zero reason not to just have a quick registry office wedding - they've been going on all year. They can do the full meringue with a load of friends post-pandemic.

davidmcn

AdrianC said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I am not sure that article, which is very hard to read, is entirely correct.
These two individuals (A & each own a separate property.
One of the properties is now a BTL, so subject to income tax on the rent received and the CGT from the point at which owner A moved into the property owned by B.
A & B now both live in a property (LTAMC) owned by B.
When they sell property B and buy property C together, won't they both get PPR relief on the sale and purchase?  Or has property A not be declared as no longer the PPR of owner A?

There is precisely zero reason not to just have a quick registry office wedding - they've been going on all year. 

To be fair, they're not allowed in England at the moment apart from exceptional reasons (which I guess don't include tax efficiency) :
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home?priority-taxon=774cee22-d896-44c1-a611-e3109cce8eae#weddings-civil-partnerships-and-religious-services