Petition to extend the SDLT holiday to be debated in Parliament on Monday

Seashell517

SDLT_Geek said:

The Parliamentary debate on the petition occurred today.  Jesse Norman spoke for the Government.  You can watch the debate from a link here:https://propertyindustryeye.com/watch-live-mps-debate-petition-relating-to-stamp-duty-holiday-extension/

Unsurprisingly Jesse Norman said he "could not comment on tax policy outside of a fiscal event" and that the Government would continue to listen to representations.  He did point out that to benefit from the holiday it is not only completion by 31 March which will achieve the saving, but also "substantial performance" of the contract.

Is there a definition of what constitutes 'substantial performance' though?

SDLT_Geek

Yes, there is a definition of substantial performance.  There is some guidance on it in the SDLT Manual in a number of pages starting here: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm07700

davidmcn

SDLT_Geek said:

Yes, there is a definition of substantial performance.  There is some guidance on it in the SDLT Manual in a number of pages starting here: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm07700

Not likely to be all that relevant to a standard residential purchase though, where the expectation is that possession/title/price all change hands simultaneously.

Seashell517

Broadly, substantial performance is the point at which

• any payment of rent is made
• payment of most of the consideration other than rent is made
• the purchaser is entitled to possession of the subject matter of the transaction

Looks like if you're not buying leasehold then the only option is to be able to move in even though you haven't completed? Doesn't seem like it's practical for most people then...

SDLT_Geek

Agreed, not practical for most people.

NameUnavailable

I'm not sure why any tax payer should be subsidising anyone's home purchase.

The housing market is booming if you beleive the reports from Nationwide etc., so it is hardly in need of help.

Seashell517

NameUnavailable said:

I'm not sure why any tax payer should be subsidising anyone's home purchase.

The housing market is booming if you beleive the reports from Nationwide etc., so it is hardly in need of help.

Because it's a regressive tax and there's plenty of evidence that removing it leads to increased receipts for the treasury from other sources as well as increased spending in the local economy? 

From a quick google: https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/permanent-stamp-duty-cut-could-provide-139m-tax-boost-for-treasury.html

NameUnavailable

Seashell517 said:

NameUnavailable said:

I'm not sure why any tax payer should be subsidising anyone's home purchase.

The housing market is booming if you beleive the reports from Nationwide etc., so it is hardly in need of help.

Because it's a regressive tax and there's plenty of evidence that removing it leads to increased receipts for the treasury from other sources as well as increased spending in the local economy? 

From a quick google: https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/permanent-stamp-duty-cut-could-provide-139m-tax-boost-for-treasury.html

In that case why didn't they abolish it altogether?

Seashell517

NameUnavailable said:

Seashell517 said:

NameUnavailable said:

I'm not sure why any tax payer should be subsidising anyone's home purchase.

The housing market is booming if you beleive the reports from Nationwide etc., so it is hardly in need of help.

Because it's a regressive tax and there's plenty of evidence that removing it leads to increased receipts for the treasury from other sources as well as increased spending in the local economy? 

From a quick google: https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/permanent-stamp-duty-cut-could-provide-139m-tax-boost-for-treasury.html

In that case why didn't they abolish it altogether?

In my view, because the government response to all things Covid has been a panicked mess. You'd have to ask the Chancellor though.

numbercruncher8

I'm not going to read the article but is the claim from someone with a vested interest in things and the 'evidence' based on a range of estimates, of which they have selectively taken the most favourable ones?

Isn't it a bit like how Brexit was claimed for sure to be crashing the housing market - that was a spurious claim by vested interests, and the evidence only taken on worst case forecasts.

As it turned out, Brexit did very little and life went on. So what difference is stamp duty going to make overall? Yes, to a very small amount of individuals it will mean a much larger bill for moving house. 

I don't see how it is a regressive tax - if anything it is progressive. What kind of benefits do people that can't afford to buy a house get out of it? Are they getting a 5-figure tax saving anywhere?

Problem is even if it is extended a little you'll get a load of people coming out saying 'no fair, we would have continued our purchase if we knew, so you gotta do something for us'.

Most people are judging the effectiveness of taxation based on their own self-interest rather than the overall effect on the country..... like I said before in another thread, it's turned a lot of people into 'I'm alright Jacks'.