Capital gains on BTL to be taxed as income

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Monty Drawbridge " at "26/08/2016 - 08:59":

Shshh don't even whisper the idea for it will surely become reality!

To take up a point mentioned by Mark before. Where are the Landlord Associations on this? Where are the press statements highlighting the law society report? Where are the newspaper articles complaining about the sneaky change and badly drafted legislation? Where are the news reports on the BBC?

Are those of you who are members (I am not for this very reason) going to complain to the Landlord Associations about their lack of response?

We do need to organise.

I just merely note that if the Law Society had not noted it who would have noted the change?

Reply to the comment left by "Mike W" at "26/08/2016 - 10:33":

As I've said before, I think with the advent of P118AG (and whilst I appreciate they have different offerings) LLs should reconsider their RLA/NLA memberships, if nothing more than to wake them up to their inaction on issues such as this.

Further thoughts on the implications of the worst case scenario, i.e. legislation receives Royal assent as drafted and HMRC apply it to maximise tax receipts:-

1) If the profit is treated as income for tax purposes then any available CGT allowances will not be applicable.

2) When s24 is also in full affect then mortgage interest will be added to other taxable income and profits from sale of property to determine which tax band we fall into. A couple previously earning just £10k a year each could very easily find that when they sell their one and only investment property their taxable income is over £100,000. They would lose their nil rate band tax allowance on this basis!

FFS, why haven'y all readers of this article chipped in a tenner a month to fight this?

At the point of writing this comment 9,975 people have read this thread and only two have committed to a tenner a month to fund a fight back. If all readers had committed £10 a month the budget for the resistance movement would be approaching £100,000 a month!

Reply to the comment left by "Mike W" at "26/08/2016 - 10:33":

The Landlord Association are probably planning to have a meeting over the next few days to discuss this news and then to decide whether to wait to see what the first move of their rivals is. At best they might have something on their agenda to decide who makes a trip to the House of Commons or The Treasury to have a polite quiet word about this with somebody.

Now I've written this comment of course, they will probably also be debating what their one liner media comment will be and spending an hour or two discussing the insolence of the founder of Property118 for making these remarks!

Of course I still think the Landlord Associations have their place, they do lots of things very well and lots of things that Property118 Action Group don't do at all. Where they are hopeless is "Fighting For Landlords"

Another very good, very recent example of that is Paul Routledge from LandlordReferencing.org managing to persuade Bristol council that Selective Licensing was futile. He achieved something that NLA and RLA have never managed to prevent. The two biggest Landlords associations even act as co-regulators of some licensing schemes for heavens sake!

Alex Caravello from MK Landlords also managed to convince Milton Keynes that licensing didn't make sense. Alex is already a member of Property118 Action Group and a very active one too. It is people like this we seek to unite and raise funds to help them to win more fights of this nature.

The big Landlords Associations have proven to be about as effective as a chololate fire guard. They refused to back our fight against West Brom too but we managed to win that without them.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "26/08/2016 - 10:03":

Thank you Mark - much appreciated!
Kind Regards

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "26/08/2016 - 10:43":

Just done, Mark!
I think that horrible news needs to sink in a bit, some people must realise consequences.
I saw the post I think last night and just could not believe what I was reading. In the time of a huge housing crisis they are doing something like that.
I always thought this country is pro small business, pro taking care of yourself for an old age, pro law. It does not longer looks like that. Even in former communistic countries the law and regulations were not retrospective. Here we see something completely opposite.

I have been giving some thought to what sophist justification The Treasury might have for this.

Does this sound likely and slightly familiar?

"To level the playing field between limited companies and private landlords investing investing into residential rental property we will be taxing all profits made on the disposal of such property on the basis that it is income"

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "26/08/2016 - 12:16":

Meaning that "We'll make it even better for our big incorporated cronies by charging them 20% on the profits of a sale and their competition, the unincorporated landlords, 40-45%. That, coupled with the extra tax the unincorporated landlords have to pay on their "business expenses" aka mortgage costs, should soon put them out of business and give the big corporations we have invested in a clear run.

Reply to the comment left by "Kathy Evans" at "26/08/2016 - 12:32":

Yep, that pretty much sums it up Kathy.

I've read an unsubstantiated comment on Facebook suggesting it will not apply until 2018. If that is proven to be true then at least some landlords will be able to implement the necessary avoidance strategies before then, e.g. incorporation or take residence in a tax haven for the purpose of incorporation and/or to sell part of their portfolio like I'm doing.