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

13:48 PM, 30th August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Anne Noon" at "30/08/2016 - 12:22":

I pointed the same out to my MP.,when I was corresponding with her regarding Section 24. Received the message that the government want people to invest in a pension fund, not property. Here you are...

Anne Noon

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

13:54 PM, 30th August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "30/08/2016 - 13:48":

There it is, yet more proof that the Corpocracy is trying to steal everything from working people. Why should we trust Pension funds when they have proven themselves to be dishonest in the past. The only way I could have had a decent pension was to stay in teaching for 35 years!!

TheMaluka

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

14:17 PM, 30th August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Anne Noon" at "30/08/2016 - 12:22":

No problem put in a Nat West Premium Saver account, they pay 0.01%, that's 10 pence per thousand pounds per annum. Live in luxury.

Kathy Evans

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

14:28 PM, 30th August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "30/08/2016 - 13:48":

Not much help if you are already near or at retirement age and haven't got a decent pension because of poor fund performance. It's all very well for well-paid civil servants and MPs on final salary schemes to say that , but what about everyone else?

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

9:05 AM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Kathy Evans" at "30/08/2016 - 14:28":

Exactly. Nobody cares, especially those civil servants and MPs.

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

9:39 AM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Unfortunately you have copied a story on another web site that has misinterpreted the Finance Bill. See http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/fury-as-major-buy-to-let-tax-amendments-slipped-in-by-stealth/

Reading the measure, the pertinent condition for landlords says only property held as trading stock comes under the new proposed rules.

Buy to let can never be held as trading stock as they are an investment not property or land acquired for trading (ie speculation by flippers). The term 'developer' is not defined in law - statutes talk about rental property businesses and property traders. The two are very different and this amendment of the existing law about taxing traders will not affect landlords.

Although landlords can develop or refurbish, the intention is to generate income not to sell at a gain or profit as the clause states.

What is left is just a scare story with no substance. Those that are worried should discuss this with a tax professional to allay their fears

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

9:49 AM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Simpson" at "31/08/2016 - 09:39":

Peter

I think your comments are very disingenuous, not only to the editors of Property118 but also the good people at The Law Society who share our concerns.

Kathy Evans

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

14:30 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Simpson" at "31/08/2016 - 09:39":

Maybe, maybe not. It's on AccountingWeb now and the reporter says there is no guidance, so it is all very unclear: http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/personal-tax/property-investors-hit-by-sneaky-tax-rise

Badly written legislation, whatever.

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

14:42 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Peter Simpson" at "31/08/2016 - 09:39":

Peter, please look at the date and time this article was published and then point me to the one you think I copied?

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

15:04 PM, 31st August 2016, About 8 years ago

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