Jeremy Hunt purchases BTL in name of Ltd co.

Apart from his sanity being questionable by getting into this industry, I can't see the problem.

Laid out on paper, numbers-wise, BTL makes lots of sense. It is only when you get into the game that you start to learn the current reality.

However, when not in his official capacity, he is an individual, like us all, who needs to provide for himself in the best way he thinks fit.

I also would not presume that it means the government would not eventually attack Ltd companies either. On the contrary, it will probably be the next move for them to at least attack a portion (smaller fry - based on turnover probably) of that sector when the S24 furore has finally settled down.

They will see they 'got away with it' (S24) relatively unscathed, and then target the smaller fry who jumped ship to LL and temporarily escaped.

The problem-solvers will then come along again and sell new 'solutions' to new problems etc.

That's the way the world turns...

Why?

Because they want money and landlords are fair game. It brings votes in too.

They are relentless at pursuing money - it's their job.

Never forget that they can just change the rules to suit their aims.

There's no story here. Don't see what all the fuss is about.

With the number of Landlords either selling up, or converting to Ltd Co., or making new purchases through Ltd Co. The tax receipts are likely to be down versus the predicted receipts in the Sec.24 documentation.
As those potential receipts have moved to the more tax efficient Ltd Co it is probable that the Chancellor will seek to recoup those lost receipts by changing the tax regime for incorporated LL's.

Reply to the comment left by Barry Fitzpatrick at 31/03/2018 - 17:05
Exactly Barry.
It must be great when, if you have a problem, in this case tax revenue, you just change the laws to get more income.

In many cases the masses would revolt.

However, when it comes to landlords, it not only brings in more cash - it has the support of millions of voters too.

Reply to the comment left by Ken Smith at 31/03/2018 - 21:03
Short term it may win votes but the masses are like football supports, ie very quick to flip.

When the 4.5 million renters realise they’ve been screwed over, that’s when the MP’s will begin to reap the crops they are sowing the seeds for now.

The sad thing is, those making the stupid rules now will all be in cushy jobs at Newspapers or at L&G and the likes by then. Some are already there of course!

Reply to the comment left by Ken Smith at 31/03/2018 - 21:03
PS - as always, the strongest will survive and thrive. This will be a mix or property criminals and incorporated landlords. Demand shows no signs of slowing. Many landlords will have helped to solve some of the demand for owner occupiers by selling their rental properties, meaning there will be a lot less choice. The rental market is likely to polarise on this basis, with very few small landlords left in the business. The bottom of the market will be served by the crooks who provide grotty sub-standard accommodation and the over-stretched Councils are likely to turn a blind eye to this on the basis they cannot cope with demand. At the other end of the spectrum will be established landlords and corporations offering premium price homes.

I think this is bad for ordinary people but I know my place. I am aiming to operate in the second category described above and sell of many of my mid range properties which now provide what I consider to be poor returns for the effort involved.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 31/03/2018 - 21:44Totally agree Mark. I am but one landlord but I have 34 tenants all of whom have experienced substantial rent rises since 2015. As I am a student landlord, that's 34 tenants each year that I have sat down and explained why their rents are rapidly rising, so to date over 100 tenants who know exactly how they are being royally screwed by this Government. Word will spread ....

Totally agree Mark on how it will probably pan out. I am just using the whole sorry state of things as a motivating force to leave and let some poor sap step in. The potential returns in property now dont excite me once the downsides are taken into account.
Its been a great experience and extremely profitable too. We bought BMV when blood was on the streets in 2009 period.
Used £1m, borrowed £2m and used great finders to secure property for £3m that was worth £4m - and had been valued at £5m 12 months earlier. (1,2,3,4,5 formula)

However, it's been nowhere near as profitable as my equity gains in that time - and with hardly any input. I really thought property would win hands down.
I'd advise anyone with serious cash, as I had, to stick to the equities markets.... and be patient.
Under 100k, even 250k, that equities strategy wont gear up fast enough - and yes, property was great 15 years ago for leveraging up amounts like 100k. BMV and no-money down deals etc - made it the golden-age.

Reply to the comment left by Ken Smith at 01/04/2018 - 17:27
I don't blame you for getting out and good luck to anyone making a tidy profit- After all, we are not communists!

But all this poor sap and boasting stuff is getting a bit much.

You decided on a fire sale last year at 10% below market average. Logically someone is selling at 10% above market average to even that out. i.e Buying wholesale and selling retail.

And prices have increased since you setting your price and whenever your future completion date is.

So you are down about 25% on what you could have potentially made if you hadn't bottled it (hindsight is a wonderful thing admittedly!).

And by selling up all at once, much of the profit you've made will be taxed at the upper 45% bracket- ouch!

Your decision may well be the right thing for you to do in your individual circumstances and good luck to you but purely based on the figures, it hasn't been the best decision- so far.

(I'm also selling BTW.)

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 02/04/2018 - 11:34
Monty, the maximum rate of CGT is 28%, not 45%