Additional taxes on second properties / holiday Lets

636 Posts

in Cutting tax
wonder how long it is before both the govt and local councils realise they could make decent return by increasing taxes on additional properties, seems to be ever increasing buying more properties to rent out as a holiday let and then minimising taxes via all the loopholes currently on offer
0
Latest MSE News and Guides
Childcare budget boost
More support for children from nine months and those on Universal Credit
MSE News
Replies
Second homes / holiday lets already attract:
- higher stamp duty on acquisition
- CGT on disposal
- Council Tax (sometimes higher than the standard rate for PPR).
In certain situations you can claim a tax deduction instead but this is limited to getting relief at basic rate and does not prevent you from having a larger taxable profit figure.
As a result things like HICBC, tapered Personal Allowance, loss of Marriage Allowance and reduction in Married Couple's Allowance can all lead to larger tax bills
they are also stopping local people getting on the property ladder in many areas
In many areas, the local economy depends on tourism.
If you drive out the holiday lets, less visitors and the local area suffers also.
It is a two-sided coin as the property is cheaper but the locals have no job so cannot afford a house.
So, you have to take the land-area occupied by the holiday lets to create alternative work space and attract new businesses.
Because the holiday lets have been knocked down to allow the industrial park to be built, still no more houses for locals.
OK - OK - So, that is a grave over-simplification but is sort of shows that the link is not as simple.
If there are no holiday let owners, there are no holiday lets so no holidays for families.
Unless you only object to the individual with the single holiday let but are happy to accept big business with multiple holiday lets, holiday camps, hotels...
Most local councils allowed for "late" registrations for business rates (which they'd not previously been registered for) and immediately qualified for the initial £10k covid payments, and then subsequently from the local councils additional restrictions grants. All that despite most of them continuing to be operational, housing "essential" workers during the strict lockdowns and then normal temporary lettings during the more relaxed restrictions for holidays etc.
The ones who did the best were those with converted outbuildings, such as barn conversions, where there were several separate "units" who were least affected by the lockdowns. They could operate because they had separate entrances rather than communal entrances/hallways so could be operational when others had to remain closed. Common sense would have dictated that generous covid relief grants were restricted to holiday letting businesses that were worst affected, i.e. those without separate entrances that couldn't legally operate!
It is very strange that when holiday lettings are generally regarded as detrimental, that local councils were falling over themselves to throw money at them, when they didn't actually "need" it, by contrast to the govt deliberately excluding 3 million self employed (by use of anomolous and unfair exclusions) to people who did need help!
There's something wrong when "unworthy" businesses got lots of help when others got nothing.