Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

I will continue to moderate and hopefully the problem will clear itself.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "03/08/2015 - 11:57":

Brilliant

Reply to the comment left by "Stewart Jackson" at "03/08/2015 - 12:37":

Maybe, but only in very special circumstances - see >>> http://www.property118.com/moving-a-btl-portfolio-into-a-company-structure/76543/
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "03/08/2015 - 12:37":

Let's keep fingers crossed.

I am not on FB so am proactively sharing the petition via contacts, emails etc.

I have googled this FB page and they have 27k followers:
https://www.facebook.com/TheTenantsVoice.co.uk

Actually, if you google "tenants group on facebook" there are quite a few

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "03/08/2015 - 12:31":

Interesting information. From the wording it seems that the principal maybe is the same as mine, that those who outsource all/most tasks (I probably spend less than 16 hours per year thinking about BTL) are using it as an investment tool, wherease those who run the whole thing are correctly considered businesses. I think it is wrong to say it must be one or the other for everyone. For you Mark it is clearly a business, for me it is clearly an investment.

In the past self employed income was assessed under different schedule e.g schd D case 1,2 or 3.

Different income was assessed under different schedules with having different rules.
Rental income was assessed under schedule D case 3.

Where a person had different incomes e,g D case 1 or 2. The tax payer was allowed to offset the loss from these schedule except case 3 looses were not allowed.

The reason for this was that rental income normally did not have surplus due low rents & high interest rates. The only reason the Landlord bought the properties was for capital appreciation. This meant that the landlord with their schedule D case 1 income say as a builder, could not offset his tax losses on the property rental against his income this would result in the builder not paying any tax or less tax the year.

These different rule were created in order that the tax pays his tax on the income & to not be able to set off losses against their other income.

The above difference was created for no other reason. The rest is spin to not accept & deny that it is a business has no explanation.

This chancellor has taken this to another level and we must fight this out.

The difference sole/Ltd company has very little benefit in buy to let as a the Landlord is not going to be obtaining regular credit unlike a trader e,g a corner shop. The main credit will be the mortgage & that would be covered by the first charge over the property.

The whole issue has been clouded by the chancellor.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "03/08/2015 - 12:37":

Even better! (than brilliant, if it referred to the matter underlying your comment at 11.57am today).

Reply to the comment left by "Anne Nixon" at "03/08/2015 - 12:29":

With hindsight you were unlucky to buy your properties at what must have been close to the market peak in most of the UK (excluding London of course). You say capital growth doesn't exist where you are, but be sure that it did for those who bought in the late nineties or very early noughties. I think for most investment landlords that CGT was a big consideration in the investment model.

Reply to the comment left by "David " at "03/08/2015 - 12:46":

Ah but I outsource my lettings and management too.

I also outsource in my other businesses which are nothing to do with BTL.

Many businesses outsource, this does not magically transform them into investments does it?
.