Eliminate Section 24 – The Landlord and Tenant Tax?

I understand why people want this back but the counter argument is…

1) No one else gets a tax credit for an investment business in person name.
2) It only really affects you if you are higher or above earner tax payer.
3) If you are a property investor you should have incorporated.

So the majority of people impacted are larger portfolio owners and or higher earners with a few properties in personal name.

My view is it allows still allows people to own a few properties in personal name during retirement.

I know this is a tax raid for some that have worked and built and empire, or really a push the kill the P in PRS.

What the government of the time should have allowed is somehow a transfer from personal name to over to LTD at either no or very little cost during the ramp out period (I know that’s not straight forward). This would then give people the option to professionalise, sell or carry on with S24.

I personally would’t support it being repealed but do think that it shouldn’t have applied retrospectively.

Good luck with your petition maybe Reform will pet it in their manifesto

There's no real counter argument, it's poor policy.

It only really affects higher rate taxpayers?
Tell that to the tenants being evicted from their accommodation as landlords sell now unprofitable properties.

The higher rate threshold has been decreasing year on year in real terms and this is set to continue as far as the eye can see. We will all be higher rate taxpayers.

Any other self employed business can offset borrowing costs against their income, so this is anomaly set up to favour some people over other. It's people in ivory towers playing god.

I disagree, its not poor policy because it’s exactly what the government wanted to do to slow down growth in the PRS. They also introduced at the same time the additional SDLT but there is no petition for that. Let’s be honest their plan has worked.

In all policy changes there are “winner” and “losers” and those “unaffected”. I do feel the pain for those caught up in this policy but it was given plenty of notice and tapered in giving investors time to make a decision. Sell up or pay the tax.

All investors should know the rug can be pulled at anytime so always have an exit plan and be ready to diversify and spend the risk. For example if you invested in commercial property that is currently unaffected by S24.

Farmers and RRB are next.

Don’t get me wrong S24 could have been implemented in a different way but I can’t see how any petition now would carry any weight especially with this government.

Reform included revoking S24 alongside other landlord friendly policies in their 2024 election manifesto.

Reply to the comment left by Jason at 16/01/2025 - 12:27
Isn't every sole trader business allowed to deduct theor loan costs?
It only affects 2 million landlords or about 4 million tenants -Isn't that bad?
It's easier said than done incorporating when you've already owned the houses years.

There are MANY with dozens of properties in personal names.

Yea u says wise words on Govt should have helped people incorporate. It has made many homeless.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 17/01/2025 - 11:21
>No because a sole trader is exactly that “trading”. There is no trading in investments. If I borrowed money from a bank to buy shares I cannot claim back the interest on my tax return.

>Yes unfortunately this goes back to my point on “winners” and “loosers” on a policy change and unfortunately if I use your numbers, 2 million landlords is not enough. Just like the farmers and private schools of today. If more people shouted up at the time like the pasty tax then it might have been reversed, but a petition nearly 10years later, no chance. Reform is the only possible way.

>I agree its not easy to change from personal name to LTD for property you have had for years that’s why I do agree the government should have given a mechanism for professionals landlord to incorporate and stay in the market.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 17/01/2025 - 11:21
Yes, as a sole trader we get loan finance deducted as a cost, but the subtlety may be upon "investment business", not the loans normally associated with a trading business.

Regardless, this is just sophistry for the parasitic class to take from the productive. They like to traverse both sides of the argument, they don't want to admit its a trading business, but they want to tax you like one, and tax you as an investment business at the same time. A Ltd company is just a legal fiction, it's just a concept to put something into a category so certain rules may or may not be applied for the resulting purpose of theft by taxes.

Has no one yet brought up the point of illegality that if .gov are not allowing full tax deduction, that they are in effect taxing twice? They are taxing you on the cost of your mortgage, and then (theoretically) taxing the bank on the payments of your mortgage. Does no-one see the illegality of this?

Lets take it a step further. The Child Maintenance Service takes a cut of your income before tax. Because the forever-wise HMRC now does not remove your finance costs from your income at the top of the calculation, the CMS is also charging you on your mortgage costs. And when your mortgage costs go up, so do your CMS payments... OH those naughty greedy landlords who keep putting the rent up hey???

Reply to the comment left by Jason at 17/01/2025 - 14:09
Is buying shares a job?

I agree on Reform.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 17/01/2025 - 17:19
I agree on reform too.

And yes shares can be a job.

No way S24 will be revoked by Labour or Conservatives as they have now become used to the extra money it generates and are unlikely to give it up