Call for CGT roll-over relief to apply to Buy to Let landlords

Lets gets law change through! I am in the situation where I am selling 3 properties at the moment, having never sold any of portfolio before. Once I have sold the 3 I will actually have a net loss, as 2 have dropped in value and 1 risen, will I still have to pay CGT on the 1 that has made a profit? If so my net loss will be even more than I thought. Off to phone an expert!!!

I will happily introduce you to my own accountants who are absolutely brilliant if you wish. Just fill in the form at the bottom of the page from this link >>> http://www.property118.com/index.php/landlord-tax/

I think I was completing the form as you were typing! Introduce away please!

I know several landlords who have reached a certain age and want to sell up but can't because the amount they owe on their mortgages and the capital gains tax would leave them with nothing. I tell them to sell their own homes and move into one of the rentals for 6 months to establish it as their prime residence then sell it. They will save £40k and 3 years of gains before they pay tax. On the second one you would need to live there for a couple of years - to avoid being seen to be evading tax. It will take some years if the landlord has a large holding but any saving is worth it.
Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets

Thanks Jon, all done, you should have an email from me.

Hi Mary, I broadly agree with your strategy and that’s what my parents are doing to reduce their tax. However, just because you have lived in a property it doesn’t necessarily wipe out all of the tax. It’s complicated to explain so please see the example my accountant (Neil Barlow) gave in his comment on this thread >>> http://www.property118.com/index.php/exit-plan-move-in-before-selling-up-to-avoid-cgt/31355/

Mark, I fully applaud any idea to reduce CGT liabilities and thus make the property market in general more fluid. I know a number of people who due to high gearing and negative equity don’t have the funds in a property to pay the CGT due if they sell it – tis is not good for them, the market or often their tenants, as investment is not a priority in the property.

I think we’d have more luck in getting a version of the old taper relief introduced as any change to the taxation law would be applicable to all CGT disposals not just one’s by PRS – the option already exists of holding properties within a company structure to mitigate CGT however this results in
the loss of other benefits we currently have, including that NI is not changing on ‘unearned income’.

Paul makes a very good point regarding the current GCT rules for ‘unearned income’; that it’s very rarely possible to dispose of part of a property in the way it is possible to say sell 20% of a stock and thus use your annual entitlement to mitigate gains over a period of time. May be a method of accruing annual CGT allowance against future property sales could be investigated.

The holding of PR properties in SIPP’s could also go some way to addressing this issue without the need to make changes to the CGT system.

I think you have put your finger on it.
If LL are treated as a small business; it could not possibly be justified for a tenant to be allowed to use a business asset for no cost.
This is what happens presently due to the pathetic eviction laws.
Govt will NEVER allow the PRS to be a business as it would clearly have to treat like any other business.
If LL had the facility to remove tenants as soon as as the tenant stopped paying rent there would be mass homelessness.
The govt relies on the useless eviction laws to cover for all the wrongun tenants out there.
I saw somewhere that 2.5 million tenants were in rent arrears.
Can you imagine what the political effect of allowing a business if the LL game is converted to such being able to remove tenants when they fail to pay rent?
As far as I am are the PRS is the only business which is forced by law to provide accommodation at zero cost to the tenant until evicted.
NO normal business would expect to have to operate under such terms and expect to be subject to all normal business condition.
This is why you will NEVER see the govt allow the PRS to be a normal business.
Basically the PRS subsidises the govt's a--e,; we effectively privatise the losses that tenants cause and then socialise the losses by paying less tax to the govt..
This means less tax for the govt but at least it doesn't have the problem of millions of homeless tenants and it keeps the homeless problem at a distance.
They prefer to take the tax hit and continue to allow LL in the PRS to take the hit.
So you can forget any CGT advantages being arranged EVER as a normal small business would expect!

I disagree

I'm dead against this. Landlords already get big tax advantages over first time buyers. Why give them yet another advantage when they are already persecuting us with ultra high rents despite being bailed out by record low interest rates.

Instead we need a far bigger clamp down against landlord tax avoidance.