Getting Around Capital Gains Tax

silvercar

bobster2 said:

silvercar said:

Also no higher SDLT if you buy in partners name alone.

Concealing beneficial ownership to avoid SDLT can constitute tax evasion.

Unmarried so each partner can own a property each. Where they spend time is irrelevant, it’s one of the few upsides of not being married.

WalkerT_2

Keep_pedalling said:

Renting it out does not make sense if you plan to dispose of it relatively quickly, youmay end up with a tenant who won’t leave.

I never mentioned renting out the property but thanks anyway.

bobster2

silvercar said:

bobster2 said:

silvercar said:

Also no higher SDLT if you buy in partners name alone.

Concealing beneficial ownership to avoid SDLT can constitute tax evasion.

Unmarried so each partner can own a property each. Where they spend time is irrelevant, it’s one of the few upsides of not being married.

Indeed they can.
But in this case the OP has made it perfectly clear - this is ultimately a joint purchase intended to be their joint main residence. The OP has suggested a plan for the initial purchase to be in a sole name, with the addition of the partner to the title register at a later point, would be a scheme to avoid tax (although I think the main objective would be avoiding SDLT rather than CGT - as the CGT amount is likely small anyway).
Depending on how they complete the initial purchase - there may be various ways in which the OP could be seen to be a beneficial owner even if he is not on the title deeds. With implications for SDLT.

bobster2

WalkerT_2 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Renting it out does not make sense if you plan to dispose of it relatively quickly, youmay end up with a tenant who won’t leave.

I never mentioned renting out the property but thanks anyway.

I think the confusion came from when you wrote "We will then let my current property (1) sell as and when it does." I assume you meant let it sell. Rather than let it out.

silvercar

bobster2 said:

silvercar said:

bobster2 said:

silvercar said:

Also no higher SDLT if you buy in partners name alone.

Concealing beneficial ownership to avoid SDLT can constitute tax evasion.

Unmarried so each partner can own a property each. Where they spend time is irrelevant, it’s one of the few upsides of not being married.

Indeed they can.
But in this case the OP has made it perfectly clear - this is ultimately a joint purchase intended to be their joint main residence. The OP has suggested a plan for the initial purchase to be in a sole name, with the addition of the partner to the title register at a later point, would be a scheme to avoid tax (although I think the main objective would be avoiding SDLT rather than CGT - as the CGT amount is likely small anyway).
Depending on how they complete the initial purchase - there may be various ways in which the OP could be seen to be a beneficial owner even if he is not on the title deeds. With implications for SDLT.

There’s probably an argument for unmarried couples to make decisions on these sort of things when the time comes, rather than plan in advance. An unmarried status gives more leeway than an assumption by Mrc that married couple only have one PPR between them.