PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Avoid higher rate stamp duty on 2nd property

2

Comments

  • Davesnave
    Davesnave Posts: 34,741 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Any need for a that? :eek:
    A that?

    I've been looking for a that for a long time to go with my this, but they're as rare as those these!

    I can't see it here now...... Which way did it go?
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Davesnave wrote: »
    A that?

    I've been looking for a that for a long time to go with my this, but they're as rare as those these!

    I can't see it here now...... Which way did it go?
    That-a-way.
  • csgohan4
    csgohan4 Posts: 10,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    wish I could afford to buy 2 houses...
    "It is prudent when shopping for something important, not to limit yourself to Pound land/Estate Agents"

    G_M/ Bowlhead99 RIP
  • bob_bank_spanker
    bob_bank_spanker Posts: 559 Forumite
    edited 13 June 2017 at 9:25AM
    Davesnave wrote: »
    A that?

    I've been looking for a that for a long time to go with my this, but they're as rare as those these!

    I can't see it here now...... Which way did it go?
    Damn iphone keyboard at 11pm.....


    There is no need for others to be so vitriolic to the OP - they have come here for help not to be judged.


    In many ways it is unfair - our tax code quite openly allows you to carry capital losses forward, and in certain circumstances relieve them against other taxes such as Income Tax. Why not allow relief against SDLT, where the loss was also incurred on residential property?
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    In many ways it is unfair - our tax code quite openly allows you to carry capital losses forward, and in certain circumstances relieve them against other taxes such as Income Tax. Why not allow relief against SDLT, where the loss was also incurred on residential property?
    Because this isn't a tax on a capital loss. It's a tax on a property purchase. And the tax law is quite clear and simple, with the intent of dissuading people from doing exactly what the OP is doing...
  • I agree. Don't see the reason why OP is being battered here. He is in a negative equity, so is not like he doesn''t want to sell the house. If he sells it he may need to give away all his emergency etc savings.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    I agree. Don't see the reason why OP is being battered here. He is in a negative equity, so is not like he doesn''t want to sell the house. If he sells it he may need to give away all his emergency etc savings.
    He could always use the money he's saved towards the new purchase to buy his business partner out of the first property and live in that.
  • AdrianC wrote: »
    Because this isn't a tax on a capital loss. It's a tax on a property purchase. And the tax law is quite clear and simple, with the intent of dissuading people from doing exactly what the OP is doing...
    No, but they have a capital loss. On disposal, that loss can be relieved. Why not against SDLT? There is no logical reason why not - it was incurred in a residential property transaction - exactly like the next transaction. This was, like most recent tax changes, put through on the quick by an incompetent treasury.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    No, but they have a capital loss. On disposal, that loss can be relieved. Why not against SDLT? There is no logical reason why not - it was incurred in a residential property transaction - exactly like the next transaction. This was, like most recent tax changes, put through on the quick by an incompetent treasury.
    You seem to be suggesting that the recent change to dissuade BtL either should have changed the way ALL SDLT works, or somehow did.

    SDLT is a simple %age of purchase value. It has been since it was introduced in 2003, as a replacement for SD, which had a trail back to 1694. Much of the current legislation still goes back to 1891. The way in which the %age was calculated changed in 2014, to move from slabs to tiers, and the 3% for additional properties was added in 2015, but the basics haven't changed at all.
  • The property may not be in the same geographical location to where the OP lived and works now.
    Also what money would he offer to his business partner for the negative equity?
    Eg we both own the house which is after the ,mortgage is taken in to consideration is worth - (minus) £20,000. So technically his business partner would need to pay the OP to get off the bad investment.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards