Tag Archives: sdlt

The developer ended up paying the right amount of tax based on what actually happened, but he paid a high price for not spotting, or being advised of the dangers that occupation of the property would bring.

Stamp Duty Land Tax – Losing the relief

Cetin Suleyman - Partner - csuleyman@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 3rd December 2020

Categories:

An interesting case on SDLT was concluded recently, whereby HMRC were successful in overturning a claim for relief from the 15% rate of SDLT, but unsuccessful in their attempts to charge penalties for an incorrectly filed SDLT return.

By way of a very brief background to what was set out in the case, a property developer, through his limited company bought a house to demolish and re-develop for resale. The company claimed relief from the 15% SDLT rate on the grounds of the re-development but after it was built, a number of events transpired, and he ended up occupying the house personally with his wife for a few months.

HMRC raised an enquiry. This led to the developer subsequently paying over the extra SDLT (which was 150% more than the SDLT originally paid). The grounds for this were that as a non-qualifying individual, the company would lose the relief, if he lived in the home for any period of time.

HMRC were not successful however, in their attempts to claim the penalties of circa 25% of the tax. The reason being that they failed to prove that the developer had intended to live in the property all along.

Lessons for Property Developers

The interesting points for me here are:
• HMRC did and do regularly raise enquiries for SDLT relief claims;
• The developer ended up paying the extra SDLT to 15%, on the basis that as soon as he took occupation (in the 3 year controlled period), he lost the right to that relief;
• The burden of proof was on HMRC to prove that the SDLT return had been inaccurately completed, which they couldn’t;
• a large part of that failure was due to their inability to disprove the developer’s intentions at the very start of the process, ie, when he acquired the property. Intentions are often irrelevant for SDLT purposes, which are more based on actual facts at the time of completion, but this is an interesting departure in the case of a relief to be claimed;
• it was suggested that if the company had not been ordinarily engaged in property development, HMRC would have had a stronger case.

I do feel for this developer.

Whilst he ended up paying the right amount of tax based on what actually happened, he paid a high price for not spotting, or being advised of the dangers that occupation of the property would bring, however innocent the reasoning for that was.

The message can only therefore be that one should always take advice before acting, and put all the facts on the table so the advisor can fully consider these.

And of course, the warning is that whenever a relief has been claimed, an extra cautious approach is needed. This applies across all taxes.

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

A Picture of Richard Verge - Tax Director

Some people have, however, attempted to incorporate via a partnership in order to reduce their exposure to SDLT.

Should I Incorporate my Buy-to-Let Business Revisited 2017

Richard Verge - Tax Director - rverge@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 10th May 2017

Categories:

The incorporation of buy-to-let businesses remains a hot topic given the many changes to the tax treatment of residential lettings. I have previously discussed the potential tax charges arising on the incorporation of an existing buy-to-let business, but am revisiting them here as this is one of the questions I get asked most frequently at the moment.

There are many landlords now sitting on mature investment portfolios and are asking themselves the questions of whether they should be moving that into a corporate structure. The tax issues to consider are Capital Gains Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax, Inheritance Tax and in some instances VAT.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

Transferring a property to a company can create a tax point for Capital Gains Tax purposes. The disposal will be deemed to take place at market value. In some instances it may be possible to roll over the capital gains, however to do so you need to be able to take advantage of business roll over relief.

HMRC do not generally accept that passively owned property is a “business” for these purposes, but it appears that size does matter, as was borne out in the upper tribunal case of Ramsey v HMRC. In this case Mrs Ramsey owned a block of 15 flats. The case turned on the amount of activity that Mrs Ramsey spent in managing the “business”. This turned out to be around 20 hours per week plus she had no other occupation during that period. The tribunal ruled in her favour confirming that she was running a business.

I take from this that it is not the quantity of properties that any landlord owns that determines whether a business is being pursued but rather the active participation they take in running the business. As always with such matters the details will be important.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) and incorporating via a partnership

As with all property transactions, SDLT has become a major factor. A corporate buying property would be subject to the higher rate of SDLT on residential property.

The reason why this may work is that special rules apply to the transfer of properties into and out of partnerships. The incorporation of a partnership owning property would be such a transfer. Broadly, provided the ownership of the corporate matches the ownership of the partnership prior to incorporation, and provided all qualified conditions apply the value of the transaction for SDLT purposes would be nil.

The problem being encountered by landlords attempting this route is that establishing an effective partnership is not necessarily so straight forward. If partnerships are to exist there must be a business being carried on. This brings us back to HMRC’s view that the passive ownership of property does not constitute the business. Arguably using a Limited Liability Partnership may be a more robust route for incorporation, but this creates an additional degree of complexity. Also it should not be overlooked that there is general anti-avoidance legislation for SDLT purposes which may be brought into play if it is considered that the introduction of a partnership as a route to incorporation is purely an SDLT avoidance mechanism.

Inheritance Tax (IHT)

Quite often overlooked in the context of transferring property to a corporate structure is that in certain circumstances this can constitute a transfer of value for Inheritance Tax purposes. As such there is a risk that an immediate lifetime chargeable transfer may take place which would give rise to a 20% Inheritance Tax charge.

VAT

VAT will only be an issue for incorporation of a buy to let business where there is commercial property involved on which an option to tax had been made. It is likely that this could be dealt with by way of a transfer of a going concern; however this is something that would need consideration before an incorporation would take place.

Summary

In my previous article I said that the incorporation of a buy-to-let business was most likely to suit a business which had low borrowing requirements, low turnover of properties and can afford to roll up profits to take advantage of low corporate tax rates. My view is that this remains the case. The route to incorporation is alive with complexity and potential tax traps for the unwary, but in the right circumstances incorporation could be the best route. As always, each person’s circumstances will be different and you should take full advice before taking any action.

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

The ATED legislation was introduced in 2013 and was a major shift in the UK property tax base. Who would have believed that it would be the start of a number of changes? Further changes are expected in 2017.

A recent history of property taxation – 2016

Graeme Blair - Partner - gblair@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 31st August 2016

Categories:

CGT
Compared to today, property investment taxation before 2013 was relatively straightforward with one of the more complex discussions being convincing non-residents that they really could realise profits on investment sites without UK Capital Gains Tax. Changes were made in 2013 which proved to be the start of a wholesale reform to various aspects of property taxation.

Introduction of Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED)

2013 heralded the introduction of the ATED (Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings) legislation which applied to high value UK residential property “enveloped” in certain structures. The tax implications were an annual ATED charge, a 15% rate of Stamp Duty Land Tax and Capital Gains Tax at 28% on increases in value from April 2013. When ATED was first introduced the definition of high value was property worth more than £2m. Since then the definition has fallen to property worth more than £500,000 with subtle differences between ATED, CGT and SDLT thresholds.

There are exemptions against the ATED regulations but these exemptions need to be claimed and therefore many ATED Returns are submitted to HMRC which do not result in tax liabilities. Based on our client base we submit far greater numbers of “relief” returns than “charging” returns.

Capital Allowances

One year after the introduction of ATED there was a change in the regulations governing capital allowances. In order for the purchaser of a commercial property to claim capital allowances on the site’s fixtures and fittings the vendor must have already claimed allowances on those assets. This has led to commercial discussions about purchasers paying professionals to determine the claims which the vendor makes for pre-completion periods or reductions in purchase price to reflect the tax relief that the purchaser will not be able to claim as the vendor has not maximised their claims.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Later in 2014 the SDLT rates for residential properties moved from a slab system to a progressive rate. This was to help avoid artificial ceilings on prices caused by purchasers not being willing to pay £1 more for a property as that £1 would result in greater SDLT. The slab system still operates for properties charged under the commercial property rules.

ATED brought certain non-residents into the Capital Gains Tax net. From April 2015 that net was widened with the introduction of Capital Gains Tax on non-residents who dispose of UK residential property. The chargeable gain only applies to value generated from April 2015. For properties owned prior to April 2015 the chargeable gain can be determined by either a time apportionment of the gain or determining the actual increase in value from April 2015. If the latter is adopted then an April 2015 valuation would be necessary to determine the post 2015 gain. A connected change was the requirement for non-residents to report the gain within 30 days of conveyance. Unless the non-resident had an existing relationship with HMRC then the Capital Gains Tax may also have to be paid within the 30 day period.

Although UK Capital Gains Tax rates fell on 6 April 2016 the reduction did not apply to gains from residential property. A further change on 6 April 2016 impacted residential landlords. Traditionally these landlords claimed a 10% wear and tear allowance against furnished rental income to reflect the cost of repair and replacement of furnishings and white goods within a property. Although this was an optional treatment it was the method widely used by landlords. From 6 April wear and tear allowance has been abolished and landlords should claim tax relief on the actual cost of replacing these assets.

New rules for purchases of second homes or buy-to-lets

April 2016 was also the month in which new rules were introduced which resulted in higher SDLT rates on purchases of second homes or residential buy to lets. For effected properties SDLT is 3% higher than the rate of SDLT which would otherwise apply, but there are exemptions for lower value properties, caravans, mobile homes and boat houses. There is a specific relief for individuals who move home and buy their new home before selling their previous home. These individuals will need to pay the higher rate of SDLT on the purchase of a second home and then recover the excess SDLT on sale of the first home. There is a time limit to sell the former home and a time limit to claim a refund.

Offshore property developers

Offshore property developers of UK sites have been able to structure their affairs so that part of the development profit is charged to UK tax. This does not allow for a level playing field between the domestic developer, who is fully charged to UK tax, and the offshore developer. Legislation was introduced on 5 July 2016 to level this playing field.

Rental income

Individuals who receive income from renting out rooms in their home could receive up to £4,250 per year without tax. From April 2016 this has been increased to receipt up to £7,500 per year. The Government accept that some people can generate small amounts of income from rentals of, for example, their homes whilst on holiday. From April 2017 there will be a new £1,000 allowance for property income with individuals not needing to declare, or pay tax, on sums less than the allowance.

Mortgage Interest

From April 2017 mortgage interest on loans to acquire buy to let properties will only be tax deductible as if the landlord is a basic rate taxpayer. This tax relief restriction is being phased in over 4 years with the full restriction applying from April 2020. The mechanism to generate the relief is a credit against tax liabilities and not a deduction from rental profits. This can result in taxpayers falling into higher rates of tax and therefore being unexpectedly subject to the restriction. As the changes only apply to those paying income tax this has led to questions about the benefit of holding these properties in a company. Such a change in structure needs to be carefully thought through as it leads to other considerations.

From 6 April 2017 it is anticipated that there will be changes to the non-domicile legislation which will bring more individuals into the UK Inheritance Tax net and could result in properties which they own through offshore structures being subject to UK Inheritance Tax for the first time ever.

The ATED legislation was introduced in 2013 and was a major shift in the UK property tax base. Who would have believed that it would be the start of a number of changes? Further changes are expected in 2017.

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

A Picture of Michael Goldstein - Partner

The higher rates of SDLT represent yet another tax assault on residential property

SDLT (Stamp Duty Land Tax) – 2016 update: the tax on additional residential properties

Michael Goldstein - Partner - mgoldstein@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 22nd March 2016

Categories:

In December 2015 HM Treasury issued a Consultation Document providing details of the proposal to charge an additional 3% Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) on purchases of additional residential properties. The intention to levy an additional 3% SDLT had been announced in the Spending Review and Autumn Statement on 25 November 2015.

The stated intention behind this measure was to use some of the additional tax collected to provide £60m for communities in England where the impact of second homes is particularly acute. Furthermore it was suggested that the higher rates of SDLT will deter people from purchasing additional properties and therefore create greater scope for people to purchase their first home.

In the Budget on 16^th of March, George Osborne (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced that the proposal to levy higher rates of SDLT will go ahead as planned from 1 April 2016 but there were a few changes to the original proposals.

The higher rates will apply to most purchases of additional residential properties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland where, at the end of the day of the transaction, individual purchasers own two or more residential properties and are not replacing their main residence.

Where someone has more than one property and disposes of a main residence, it was proposed that they would have 18 months to buy a new main residence, before the higher rates of SDLT apply assuming they retain their additional property. If someone buys a new main residence before disposing of their previous main residence they are entitled to a refund from the higher rates of SDLT if they dispose of their previous main residence within 18 months.

The good news is that the 18 month period has been extended to 36 months. For those people who sold their main residence before the announcement of the higher rates on 25 November 2015, they have until 26 November 2018 to acquire their replacement main residence. Furthermore those who have inherited a small (50% or less) share in a single property within the 36 months prior to the purchase of a main residence will not be liable to the higher rates of SDLT

The original consultation document proposed that married couples would be treated as one unit. Couples who were formally separated would be treated as separate individuals The revised proposals recognises that if a couple separate they do not always have a formal separation granted by deed or by the courts. Consequently married couples will not be treated as one unit if they are separated in circumstances which are likely to be permanent.

Unfortunately the SDLT proposals confirm or announce a number of items disappointing news.

Non UK property

Foreign residential properties must be taken into account in deciding whether the property being acquired is an additional property. So a person coming to England from abroad and who has retained their foreign property will pay the higher rates of SDLT on acquiring a property here.

Property bought by companies

All corporate purchases of residential property will be caught for the higher rates. The original proposal to allow an exemption from the higher rates for bulk purchases of 15 properties or more has been withdrawn. However where at least 6 dwellings are being acquired, it is possible to claim multiple dwellings relief which may mitigate the higher charge to a limited extent.

Furnished holiday lets will be treated in the same way as other residential properties.

Purchases by property renovators will be treated in the same way as property purchases made by others.

Trust Acquisitions

On trust acquisitions, the position is that for bare trusts and life interest trusts, the higher rates will apply if the property being acquired is an additional property for the beneficiary. All residential property purchases by discretionary trusts will be liable to the higher rates.

In conclusion

The higher rates of SDLT represent yet another tax assault on residential property. Some of the rules are likely to run counter to the stated policy objectives of increasing the supply of housing for people who want to purchase a home. No doubt the policy aim was swamped by the prospect of raising additional tax revenue – plus ça change!

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

It could lead traditional “residential to residential” developers to look to “commercial to residential” schemes?

Additional SDLT for Property Developers – What is the bottom line?

Cetin Suleyman - Partner - csuleyman@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 21st March 2016

Categories:

Information is starting to filter through in relation to Wednesday’s budget announcement, and it doesn’t look good for developers of residential property.

The provisions, and the draft legislation included with them, apply an extra 3% SDLT (Stamp Duty Land Tax) to purchases of additional residential property by individuals after 1 April 2016. This was a component part of the Government’s commitment to provide more housing for first time buyers and families, announced in 2015’s Autumn statement.

What has become apparent from Wednesday’s announcements is that there is no carve-out or relief for property developers acquiring dwellings through limited companies, to develop and resell. In other words, all purchases of residential property for development by limited companies after 1 April 2016 are subject to the additional 3% SDLT.

It doesn’t need an accountant to work out the impact of an additional 3% SDLT charged on a development expecting to yield a 20% return – the developer’s profit will be reduced by some 15% – and yet these are the guys (and gals) who will build the houses needed to overcome the housing shortage. Go figure!

So I did. I pondered this in the context of the desire to build more houses, and try in some way to link that to how Wednesday’s revelations support the Government’s 5 point housing strategy?

It could lead traditional “residential to residential” developers to look to “commercial to residential” schemes? One can tie this in with the relaxation of the Permitted Development rights and conclude that perhaps the push is towards converting more office space into residential accommodation. This may favour first time buyers but is not so good for families wanting houses.

One can’t ignore Wednesday’s announcements increasing the SDLT charges on commercial property for many schemes, although in most cases it’s still likely to be less costly in terms of SDLT than residential purchases.

Or maybe one can look at more provocative ideas, which have been suggested recently. The limited information available appears to exclude the additional SDLT rates for residential property if “land” is acquired rather than dwellings. This could potentially include back-land developments (back gardens) and brownfield sites, and that would indeed be a good thing for families looking for suitable housing.

And dare I say it, the Green Belt, would also count in this, and that is an inflammatory topic indeed!

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

It’s not just World Cup games that end in penalties – The Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) Returns could lead to a few too!

Cetin Suleyman - Partner - csuleyman@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 10th July 2014

Categories:

So another World Cup match ends in penalties with the Netherlands suffering the curse of the English in last night’s game against Argentina, and I suppose it was almost inevitable that both teams would play a cat and mouse game after seeing what Joachim Low’s men did to both Brazil’s national team and its national pride the previous night.

And I can’t help thinking that penalties (of the fiscal kind) will be another inevitability for the future given the UK Government’s recent announcements to “Low”er (Sorry, I couldn’t resist that) the threshold for reporting Enveloped Dwellings from £2,000,000 to £500,000. This is part of the relatively new Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings regime (“ATED”)

In outline terms, the ATED rules require that high value residential property held within a corporate (or non-natural person) structure will be subject to a number of measures to combat anti-avoidance. These range from a higher rate of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) (15%) to the Annual Tax itself, assessed by reference to the valuation band in which the property sits.

In fact, “assessed” is the wrong word to use here because the ATED tax is actually based on self-assessment. It is up to the taxpayer, in this case most likely the property owner, to assess their liability and submit a return accordingly. Now the vast majority of my clients will be eligible for one of the various reliefs on the basis that they are either letting the property or developing it for resale, so does that get them off the hook?

Well, yes and no. Whilst they’ll have no tax liability they still have an obligation to file the return and that’s where penalties could come into play. Furthermore, the return appears at first glance to be an annual return but there is in fact an additional obligation to submit an ATED return 30 days after acquiring an eligible property, or 90 days after the creation of a new property. It’s worth adding at this point that a separate ATED Return must be completed for each individual Enveloped Property.

So back to penalties. The ATED penalty regime is heavy – a £100 fixed penalty for being late by a day, followed by a £10 per day fine for each of the next 90 days and then a further £300 once 6 months have passed and so on.

But let’s be practical, Enveloped Properties valued at over £2m are not that common and so one could say that at present the non-compliance risk for developers and investors, who let’s face it have a myriad of other things to contend with when acquiring properties or completing developments, is not so great.

However, next year the £2m threshold falls to £1m, and the year after it falls to £500,000. This gives an exponential increase in the number of ATED returns required, and inevitably an increase in the number of property owners falling foul of their filing obligations

And, just like all World Cup games that end up in penalties, it will seem very unfair to those on the receiving end.

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

Property owned in Corporate Structures – the net widens following 2014 Budget announcements

Cetin Suleyman - Partner - csuleyman@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 20th March 2014

Categories:

Property & Construction

I previously wrote on this blog a post suggesting that HMRC were keen to widen the net to bring more properties into the tax rules concerning residential property owned within a Limited company, or other “non-natural person” wrapper.

I did some research at that time and concluded that with property price inflation, even if the rules were not changed, the day wouldn’t be too far away before many “modestly” priced London properties were worth over £2m and therefore liable to the full range of tax measures.

I needn’t have bothered! Whilst not completely out of the blue, one of the announcements made in yesterday’s budget was the reduction of the £2m threshold to £500k for:

– the 15% Stamp Duty Land Tax on acquisitions,
– the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) charge, and
– the liability to Capital Gains Tax at 28% on gains.

The Stamp Duty Land Tax change is effective immediately, with the other two aspects following from 1 April 2016 onwards for properties worth between £500k and £2m. An interim provision will bring properties worth between £1m and £2m into the ATED regime from 1 April 2015. Current proposals are for the ATED to be set at £7,000 per annum for properties worth £1m to £2m, and £3,500 per annum for those worth between £500k and £1m.

HMRC state that these new measures are designed to tackle tax avoidance and not damage commercial enterprises. The Chancellor also states an intention to bring back into use large numbers of property currently sitting empty, and I can’t argue that that isn’t a good idea. For these reasons I would expect reliefs will be available in the same way as the current reliefs for property businesses. We’ll know more when the Finance Bill is released.

However, even though there may not be an actual tax impact on genuine property businesses, one cannot escape the fact that for many situations a Limited company is an attractive structure in which to acquire property. The regime as it currently operates is geared so that such property owners are presumed guilty of using their company for tax avoidance and liable for the taxes until they declare their innocence by submitting the annual ATED return, and claim one of the available reliefs. So that’s yet a further piece of annual compliance for the diary (together with a requirement to make various disclosures regarding values etc) and it comes with the usual threat of penalties for non-compliance.

Now, given that one-bedroomed flats are commanding over £500k in parts of London, and according to thisismoney.co.uk, 50% of London homes are worth more than £1m, this is not simply a “widening of the net” but more akin to sending a super-trawler up the Thames – and as Eric Cantona of Manchester United fame once said – “the seagulls follow the trawler because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea”!

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

Growing pains – A fly in the ointment when deciding on UK property ownership structure?

Cetin Suleyman - Partner - csuleyman@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 26th February 2014

Categories:

Property & Construction

Property investors generally look for growth in the value of their assets, so how could that growth bring them into a charge to tax that they did not expect?

Well, first some context – according to the UK Land Registry, the average house price in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea increased from £490,000 in 2003 to £1,078,000 in 2013. That’s an increase of more than double in a 10 year period. If that rate of growth continued, it would mean that a property currently worth around £900,000 in that Borough would be worth £2m in 2023.

No doubt, this is one of the reasons why there is a well-trodden path towards UK property investment, and it would look like this trend is set to continue. Savills, for example, have recently issued their forecast for house prices Savills 5-year house price forecast. They forecast growth of up to 25% in the next 5 years across the UK as a whole, so parts of the country could be far in excess of that.

Now to ownership structures. The options for the structure in which property is owned are numerous and there are a variety of tax and non-tax issues to consider. The relative importance of each will be different to each individual investor.

It is essential to consider the ownership structure from the outset as Stamp Duty Land Tax rates of up to 15% make it costly to change afterwards. The need to take advice is clear, but what if that advice suggests ownership in a corporate vehicle?

Much has already been written about the tax rules which apply to properties worth more than £2m, and owned in a corporate vehicle (enveloped dwellings). In a nutshell, the rules include a headline Stamp Duty Land Tax rate of 15%, Capital Gains Tax charges for properties sold using such vehicles and an Annual Tax charge dependent upon value.

Properties costing less than £2m are currently outside of this regime, and many investors are buying such properties – so what does the “anti-avoidance” legislation hold in store for them?

Well, HMRC have launched a consultation to explore the possibility of extending the capital gains tax aspects of the “over £2m” rules, so that they apply to lower value properties held in corporate vehicles.

The outcome of this consultation cannot be predicted, but my view is that HMRC are looking to squeeze as many properties into this taxation regime as possible. Time will tell if they do, but even if HMRC don’t pass new legislation, we can be reasonably confident that, growth in property values will at some point push many more properties into the “over £2m” rules.

Given that investors in property invariably seek capital gains, this may in time prove to be a fly in the ointment for many. However, until then it just adds one more factor to consider when deciding upon property ownership structures; whether you are a UK taxpayer or not.

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

Tax on high value residential property

Graeme Blair - Partner - gblair@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 8th February 2013

Categories:

On 31 January 2013 the long expected draft legislation on the taxation of high value residential property was released. Properties are high value if they are worth more than £2 million.

The draft legislation covers the 15% stamp duty land tax charge that has applied to the acquisition of high value residential property since Spring 2012 and it confirms proposals for the Annual Residential Property Tax (ARPT) that will apply from 6 April 2013. In addition there are changes to the capital gains tax regime from 6 April 2013.

The legislation applies to “non-natural persons” which includes companies and partnerships (if one or more of the partners is a company). Trusts are excluded from this legislation. Also excluded are genuine businesses carrying on a genuine commercial activity such as property rental or development and properties owned by charities for charitable purposes.
Stamp Duty Land Tax

Non-natural persons who purchase high value residential property have been subject to a 15% SDLT rate since March 2012. Although the draft legislation confirms this proposal it also provides relief against the charge for genuine businesses carrying on a genuine commercial activity. Those entities would be subject to a 7% rate of SDLT.
Annual Residential Property Tax (ARPT)

Non-natural persons who hold UK residential property valued at more than £2m on certain specified dates will pay ARPT of between £15,000 and £140,000, depending on the value of the property. The £15,000 charge applies to properties whose value is between £2m and £5m. The measure takes effect from 1 April 2013 and the annual tax is payable on 31 October 2013 for 2013/14 and on 30 April for each subsequent year.

The amount of the ARPT will increase every year on an index-linked basis. The value bands will not be adjusted for inflation. Residential properties within the charge will need to be revalued every five years.
Capital Gains Tax

Capital Gains Tax will be chargeable on both UK and non-UK non-natural persons when they dispose of interest in high value residential property that is subject to ARPT. Capital Gains Tax will apply to disposals on or after 6 April 2013 at a rate of 28%. The tax will only apply to increases in value of the property from 6 April 2013. This therefore rebases the property values to that date. Current indications are that the 28% will be subject to a form of taper relief where the property is just over the £2m mark. This is to prevent distortion in the property market for properties worth marginally more than £2m.

Taxation at a 28% rate is higher than the standard corporation tax rate for UK companies. It is felt that very few UK companies will fall into the ARPT charge and therefore the impact of this tax anomaly is believed to be minimal.

The draft proposals permit the sale of offshore companies which hold high value residential property to remain free of UK Capital Gains Tax. However the purchaser of the company shares will inherit the Capital Gains Tax base cost of the property which is owned by the company. This may lead to considerable Capital Gains Tax at a future time if the property was sold by the company.

Conclusion

The impact of the proposals is to provide a disincentive for future purchases of high value residential property to be made using a wrapper such as an offshore company. The disincentive is the 15% rate of stamp duty land tax and the ARPT, whose minimum annual charge is £15,000.

Non UK owners of existing structures will need to weigh up the cost of the ARPT compared to the possible saving of capital gains tax by sale of the wrapper free of CGT. There is also protection against UK Inheritance (Death) Tax by holding high value property in offshore structures. Owning properties in these wrappers is not just for tax reasons. For example, some individuals hold them in offshore companies for privacy reasons.

If an existing structure is going to be caught be the new provisions then consideration should be given to restructuring the way property is owned before 1 April 2013.

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

15% SDLT – “Stop the world, I want to get off – well at least until the 2012 Finance Act is passed”

Cetin Suleyman - Partner - csuleyman@goodmanjones.com

Posted on 19th April 2012

Categories:

We’re well aware of the recent budget announcement for a 15% SDLT charge on certain property acquisitions, but this created a hiatus period between the budget being announced and the likely passing of the Finance Act in June/July 2012.

Let’s summarise below what the Finance Bill currently states:

A punitive SDLT rate of 15% will apply where a residential property costing over £2m is purchased by anything other than a person, eg, a Limited Company. The SDLT rate for a “person” making that same purchase would be 7% so clearly, this has a big impact – even on a £2m acquisition the difference in SDLT is £160,000.

When drafting the 2012 Finance Bill, the Government have clearly listened to property developers and so have included a very narrow exclusion for them. The current draft therefore allows those developers who buy the property in the course of a bona fide property development business and for the sole purpose of “developing and reselling the LAND” to pay 7%, and not 15% SDLT.

Furthermore, the property development company must have carried on that business for at least two years before the transaction to qualify.

Note the inference that the company must make the purchase with a view to development and resale – not holding for investment purposes. There is no indication as to how any change of intention will be taxed.

There are therefore TWO particular risks for anyone currently making a relevant acquisition:

1. That there is some change to the drafting of the Finance Bill before it is finally passed that makes the criteria more strict for example, the 2 years standing is increased – this is remote, but a risk nevertheless.

That the get out for property developers is narrower than my reading of it would infer. Of specific interest is the word LAND that I have written in capital letters above.

The legislation refers specifically to “reselling the land” but does the re-development of a building count as “land”. I’m sure there is case law around to support one view or the other, and the chances are that this is not as significant as feared – but hey, when we’re talking about £160,000 in SDLT even on a £2m purchase, it would be unwise to ignore this risk.

So until the Finance Act is passed as law, uncertainty reigns supreme and leaves two obvious questions:

– what exactly are corporate developers supposed to do, and

– what does this do to the high end residential property market?

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

Who we help

Our services

About us

Our Insights

Tag Archives: sdlt

The developer ended up paying the right amount of tax based on what actually happened, but he paid a high price for not spotting, or being advised of the dangers that occupation of the property would bring.

Stamp Duty Land Tax – Losing the relief

Lessons for Property Developers

Some people have, however, attempted to incorporate via a partnership in order to reduce their exposure to SDLT.

Should I Incorporate my Buy-to-Let Business Revisited 2017

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) and incorporating via a partnership

Inheritance Tax (IHT)

VAT

Summary

The ATED legislation was introduced in 2013 and was a major shift in the UK property tax base. Who would have believed that it would be the start of a number of changes? Further changes are expected in 2017.

A recent history of property taxation – 2016

Introduction of Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED)

Capital Allowances

Stamp Duty Land Tax

New rules for purchases of second homes or buy-to-lets

Offshore property developers

Rental income

Mortgage Interest

The higher rates of SDLT represent yet another tax assault on residential property

SDLT (Stamp Duty Land Tax) – 2016 update: the tax on additional residential properties

Non UK property

Property bought by companies

Trust Acquisitions

In conclusion

It could lead traditional “residential to residential” developers to look to “commercial to residential” schemes?

Additional SDLT for Property Developers – What is the bottom line?

It’s not just World Cup games that end in penalties – The Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) Returns could lead to a few too!

Property owned in Corporate Structures – the net widens following 2014 Budget announcements

Growing pains – A fly in the ointment when deciding on UK property ownership structure?

Tax on high value residential property

15% SDLT – “Stop the world, I want to get off – well at least until the 2012 Finance Act is passed”