Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "18/11/2015 - 19:06":

Thanks for clarification Mark. Would, trusts be of any use, if you are currently holding your properties individually?

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Cooper" at "18/11/2015 - 19:07":

Thanks Chris.

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "18/11/2015 - 19:10":

Maybe, that would depend on your circumstances. Please see >>> http://www.property118.com/avoiding-restrictions-finance-cost-relief-landlords-tax/82302/

My team are ready, willing and able to advise.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "18/11/2015 - 19:22":

Mark I was brought up on the thinking that with buy to let the tenant payed the landlords mortgage this is what renting is, as far as I can see there is no other model which works, so unless I can claim back all my interest as my mortgages barely cover will all the legislative burdens and costs, then I'm out. The end game is capital appreciation and outwith London this has largely not happened since 2009 so it's looking pear shaped to me, even before recent legislation.

Having spoken to my Accountant today, the rumor has it that, Chancellor is looking to increase CGT rate as he knows that, number of landlords will exit the market hence he will trap outgoing landlords.

He will either announce it on Wednesday or next April.

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "19/11/2015 - 22:19":

This is George Osborne's equivalent of reversing his Range Rover back over the body... just to make sure.

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "19/11/2015 - 22:28":

Leveling the playing field (and the body). Has GO not heard the story about the golden eggs? Already lls are concerned that they cannot sell because CGT will exceed net proceeds.

GO has not just moved the goalposts he has changed the game from soccer to cricket - except that what he is doing is most certainly 'not cricket'.

Sorry, Saeef, but is your accountant the Oracle? Landlord organisations have apparently been told the CGT % will go the other way (of course they may be being fobbed off). So it's really a rumour factory. If your accountant has heard this from a credible source and can tell us who that source is, then that would be different.

Reply to the comment left by "Saeef Khan" at "19/11/2015 - 22:19":

Saeef your accountant friends stories youve posted here for last few weeks have give me real hope.

That hope is painfully fading.

And now from the person coming up with the idea being fired and the policy scrapped, you claim there could be another hit to our positions with a CGT jump?

Got to be a bad joke. My portfolio would come under too much strain.

-----
Saeef Khan says: Read about me on my member profile
17/08/2015 at 21:31

I am thinking of sacking my accountant as he is not very creative. As such I have shopped around and have spoken to couple of very good accountants.

One of them suggested that, although he might be playing devil’s advocates, but he seems to think, chancellors forthcoming plans may not be retrospectiive..which means they may only apply to new loans from 2017 onwards and may be…may be existing loans will be exempt from new measures!!

I know, this is wishful thinking, but there might be light at the end of tunnel with glimmer of hope.

Fingers crossed!

----------
Saeef Khan says: Read about me on my member profile
17/08/2015 at 21:38

I asked that accountant, what is Chancellors motive behind this move, if they won’t apply to existing loans…Why does not he come clean at this stage?

He responded…may be he is trying to slow down housing market by spreading scaremongering stories…similar to Mr Carney, as after every 3 to 4 months Mr Carney suggests interest rate rise is imminent, once people start panicking, and it comes to crunching point…Mr Carney backtracks by stating, inflation is lower than expected etc etc…and goes back to square one!

----------
Saeef Khan says: Read about me on my member profile
31/08/2015 at 10:26

Reply to the comment left by “Barry Fitzpatrick” at “31/08/2015 – 10:17“:

The forum for government is essentially, consultants employed by treasury who at times, fire blanks and then subsequently realise that, it was not properly thought through.

Generally, public seems to think, that, it is Osborne’s Policy but as a matter of fact it is his advisers, some of them recent graduates who come up with policies and then he (Osborne) cherry picks.

My accountant seems to think, that, the adviser who advised him to come up with this policy, is likely to be fired.
----------

Anyone able to translate this into laymans terms ....FFS!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/33/section/24/enacted

274ATax reduction for individuals

(1)Subsections (2) to (5) apply if—

(a)an amount (“A”) would be deductible in calculating the profits for income tax purposes of a property business for a tax year but for section 272A, and

(b)a particular individual is liable to income tax on N% of those profits, where N is a number—

(i)greater than 0, and

(ii)less than or equal to 100.

(2)The individual is entitled to relief under this section for the tax year in respect of an amount (the “relievable amount”) equal to N% of A.

(3)Subject to subsection (4), the amount of the relief is given by—

where BR is the basic rate of income tax for the year, and L is the lower of—
(a)

the total of—
(i)

the relievable amount, and
(ii)

any difference available in relation to the individual and the property business for carry-forward to the year under subsection (5), and
(b)

the profits for income tax purposes of the property business for the year after any deduction under section 118 of ITA 2007 (“the adjusted profits”) or, if less, the share of the adjusted profits on which the individual is liable to income tax.

(4)If the individual’s gross finance-costs relief for the year (“GFCR”) is greater than the individual’s adjusted total income for the year (“ATI”), the amount of the relief under this section for the year in respect of the relievable amount is—

where BR and L have the same meaning as in subsection (3).

(5)Where the amount (“AY”) of the relief under this section for the year in respect of the relievable amount is less than—

where BR is basic rate of income tax for the year and T is the total found at subsection (3)(a), the difference between—
(a)

T, and
(b)

AY divided by BR (with BR expressed as a fraction for this purpose),

is available in relation to the individual and the property business for carry-forward to the following tax year.

(6)For the purposes of this section—

(a)an individual’s adjusted total income for a tax year is the individual’s total income for that year less the total of—

(i)so much of that total income as is savings income,

(ii)so much of that total income as is dividend income, and

(iii)any allowances to which the individual is entitled for that year under Chapter 2 of Part 3 of ITA 2007 (individuals: personal and blind person’s allowance), and

(b)an individual’s gross finance-costs relief for a tax year is the total relief to which the individual is entitled for the year under this section before any adjustment under subsection (4).