Capital gains on BTL to be taxed as income

Capital gains on BTL to be taxed as income

16:52 PM, 25th August 2016, About 8 years ago 124

Text Size

Capital gains on BTL to be taxed as incomeIf you thought clause 24 of the 2015 finance bill was underhanded, wait until you get a load of this! Capital gains on BTL to be taxed as income

The government have slipped some additional clauses into the finance bill 2016 “Sections 75-78: taxation of profits from trading and investing in UK Land” which make profits made on the sale of buy-to-let property become taxable income, at income tax rates.

This wasn’t announced in the budget and there has been no consultation.

The Law Society has made representations to the government, prepared by its Corporation Tax sub-committee. These representations set out how the amendments will materially change some investors tax obligations.

Law Society chief executive Catherine Dixon said “By introducing a significant change in this way, the government is denying the public the chance to consider and comment on these proposals. If the government did not intend to make a material change, they need to clarify the language in the bill before it is passed. If they are intent on these changes, they should submit them for proper public consultation and legislative scrutiny”

A Law Society Pres Release says …

“Significant amendments to the Finance Bill slipped in at committee stage set a disturbing precedent of avoiding proper consultation and scrutiny.

The changes, which alter the way buy-to-let properties will be taxed, may result in many investors paying income tax rather than a capital gains tax on their investment, creating uncertainty for taxpayers.

The way these changes were introduced, in particular without consultation on the draft legislation before it was added to the bill at such a late stage, starts to feel like legislation by stealth.

No matter what the policy proposals, proper consultation and process is vital to maintain public confidence in our democratic institutions.”

They key sections of the report are:

2.4 For example, proposed section 356OB(4) CTA 2010 would apply the new rules where “the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of acquiring the land was to realise a profit or gain from disposing of the land” (Condition A). The consequence would be that the profit on realisation would be taxed as income rather than as capital gain. We consider that there are many situations where this formulation of the test would capture transactions that are uncontroversial investment transactions. Similar concerns arise in relation to Conditions B and D. (Proposed section 517B ITA 2007 has the same effect for income tax.)

2.5 In particular, we consider that this formulation of the test could apply to many buy-to-let investors, despite the fact that they are clearly engaged in a property investment business on general principles. Any buy-to-let investor will assess the overall yield before making an investment decision. In areas of the country with low rental yields, an essential part of the investment proposition is the prospect for capital growth, even if the investor‟s intention is to hold the property for the medium to long term. Indeed in the current market, and given the low returns on other asset classes, there are few areas where the prospect of capital growth is an immaterial consideration for investors. Financially speaking, it is hard to say that the obtaining of that capital growth would not be one of the main purposes of acquiring the land. However, the average buy-to-let investor will have assumed that it will be taxed at capital gains tax rates on ultimate disposal of the property. If the government‟s intention were to change this, then the Society‟s view is that this should have been subject to proper consultation on the principle policy and the draft legislation. If the government‟s intention is not to change this, then the Society considers that the terms of the legislation should be amended to reflect that.

Sections 75 and 76 of the finance bill deal with Corporation Tax but 77 and 78 deal with Individuals/Income Tax.

A link to the specific bit in the draft legislation is here -> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0047/cbill_2016-20170047_en_17.htm#pt3-pb5-l1g77

Are you angry about this?

Angry enough to help us to fight it by pledging £10 a month?


Share This Article


Comments

Whiteskifreak Surrey

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:10 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "31/08/2016 - 15:04":

Accidentally I forwarded the same link as Kathy. Sorry!

Commercial Trust

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

16:25 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Thank you for the Accounting Web links that validate everyone's concerns. The point is that, intention of the new clauses notwithstanding, there is no clear distinction in law between investors and traders. So buy-to-let landlords could still be caught by conditions A and B when they sell, due to the "main intention" test the new legislation imposes.

Also, I'm not sure that this has been covered, but the legislation takes effect from the date of its transposition into the Finance Bill: so transactions that took place on or after 5 July are affected.

Whiteskifreak Surrey

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

16:40 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Commercial Trust" at "31/08/2016 - 16:25":

How it is possible the law or regulations apply retrospectively? Am I missing something?

Dr Rosalind Beck

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:02 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:14 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

I am far from sold on the NLA explanation.

The concern raised by Property118 and the complaint raised by The Law Society is about new words having been added to the legislation, particularly the word “investors”.

Sue Wall

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

23:35 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

I am having trouble reconciling where we are trading and running a business one minute ( possible business / trading for talks over cgt being treated as trading income and therefore investors paying income tax ) In another scenario ( section 24) we are not running a business and therefore cannot claim all the mortgage tax relief that other businesses and traders can !!!!!!

Peter Simpson

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

8:29 AM, 1st September 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Sue Wall" at "31/08/2016 - 23:35":

It comes down to intention on acquisition/purchase:

Buy to let = To hold long term to generate rents = Income tax on rents/CGT on price gain

Trading = To hold short term to generate profit from sale = income tax on sale profits

Developer is not a tax term. Both businesses can involve 'developing' a property but it makes no difference to the tax status

What ifs can apply ie tenants in a trading property or a quick sale of a letting property, but these do not change the purchase intention

Property people can and do run both businesses at the same time

Luke P

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:18 AM, 1st September 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Simpson" at "01/09/2016 - 08:29":

How is it proposed 'intention' is decided?

Dr Rosalind Beck

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:08 AM, 1st September 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "01/09/2016 - 09:18":

They'll have invented a mind-reading machine by then or maybe use lie detectors on us. And where we're not sure about what our intentions were on purchase they might be able to invent a machine which retrospectively works out what we were thinking even when we didn't know it ourselves.

Jonathan Clarke

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

10:11 AM, 1st September 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "01/09/2016 - 09:18":

Intention is whats in your head at the outset,. This may of course change and shift over night or over time. That`s fine I have done that for a variety of reasons (not just tax ones) but more because of something external happening which changes what i want to do with the property . The more complex it becomes and the more it may look as if the businesses may taint each other the more tax advice you need and you or your tax advisor have that open conversation with HMRC
.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More