Johnson considers Stamp Duty switch from buyer to seller

Johnson considers Stamp Duty switch from buyer to seller

9:27 AM, 15th July 2019, About 6 years ago 43

Text Size

Conservative Party leadership contender, Boris Johnson, has confirmed his interest in switching Stamp Duty liability from the house buyer to the seller as proposed by Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT).

Last year Johnson stated Stamp Duty was “absurdly high” and last month he suggested he would consider scrapping it for homes worth £500,000 or less.

Earlier this month, Johnson met with AAT and agreed to examine their Stamp Duty recommendation further, requesting further information which has subsequently been provided.

Phil Hall, AAT Head of Public Policy and Public Affairs, said: “AAT is naturally pleased that Boris has agreed to look at our long-standing proposal to switch Stamp Duty liability from the buyer to the seller. This will save the taxpayer £700m a year by rendering First Time Buyers Relief redundant. It will also protect the £9bn of revenue Stamp Duty generates as it will still be paid in full, simply by different people. It is also much more progressive as it will be paid on the lower priced property being sold rather than the higher priced property being bought.”

The idea certainly appears to have the support of home buyers too.

Tony Richardson and his partner Caroline Danks live with their two young children in a three-bedroom terraced house in Plymouth, Devon. They are now looking at buying a bigger house but have concerns about Stamp Duty costs.

Tony Richardson said: “One of the things that’s made us delay buying a bigger house is the huge amount of upfront costs we will have to face, legal fees, mortgage arrangement fees and the biggest of all, Stamp Duty. That’s why the AAT recommendation to switch Stamp Duty liability is so attractive – it will mean we pay less as we’d only have to pay it on the house we are selling not on the one we are buying. I hope the new Prime Minister, whoever he is, seriously looks at this because it will make a real difference to people like us.”


Share This Article


Comments

Jon D

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

20:41 PM, 22nd July 2019, About 5 years ago

The PPR relief on a main residence is very generous, let's face it. Millions of people have made six figure sums tax free on their home. It would be practical to charge SDLT on the sale to at least contribute something in tax from this windfall. It's not like it's 20% CGT is it? 1-3% so stop complaining.

The tax due should be minus the (lower) SDLT paid on purchase.

And it's a free market so let's see the seller add on the SDLT and close the deal. Perhaps.

Any barrier to buyers in any market only kills sales. And SDLT is a barrier.

Colin Dartnell

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

22:34 PM, 22nd July 2019, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Jon D at 22/07/2019 - 20:411-3%? Any house over 250k is 5%.
Where is the windfall? Buy a house ten years ago for 500k plus 25k stamp duty, replace any of the following, heating, windows, new kitchen, bathrooms, and general maintenance could easily swallow up another 25k over the ten years. Sell it now for £550k.
50k windfall from sale minus 25k SDLT on purchase, minus 25k maintaining house. Windfall = £0.00

Oh and then if you peg it your NoK could pay IT of 40% on the 50k so called windfall. Your are in a loss.

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

10:30 AM, 23rd July 2019, About 5 years ago

Regarding BoJo I have just read an article in City am: https://www.cityam.com/could-jacob-rees-mogg-help-boris-johnson-to-revolutionise-our-planning-system/
I am the last person to give JRM any credit (apart from his continuous criticism and complete inertia of doing nothing) but one sentence in that article caught my attention:
"Jacob Rees-Mogg has co-written a report with the Institute of Economic Affairs proposing radical free-market reforms “to our sclerotic planning laws to free up land for development” while also taking aim at a tax system that “distorts the housing market.” "
Anyone for any speculation about that? Or better still having more inside info? Thanks.

Tim Rogers

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

11:35 AM, 23rd July 2019, About 5 years ago

I'm no great fan of JRM, but he does have one of the most incisive and analytical minds in the house. So It will be interesting to see his take on "the tax system that distort the housing market".

Richard Harrison

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

11:24 AM, 24th July 2019, About 5 years ago

If the seller had to pay SDLT, who would pay the additional 3% if selling to an investor? Would the seller be expected to pay the additional 3% or would the seller pay the standard SDLT and the investor pay the additional 3%?

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

11:32 AM, 24th July 2019, About 5 years ago

Generally it is a very bad idea (is that all we can expect from BoJo?).
Unless there is a huge reform in the Stamp Duty tax (eg abolished for houses below £500k, and in South East £600K is not unreasonable) and then it is not made punitive for more expensive propertoes, I can imagine an almost complete stagnation of the market. Seller must never pay and additional 2nd property stamp duty, othwrwise the houses will stop selling to BTL and holiday homes. Maybe a bit simplistic, but...

Peter G

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

22:09 PM, 8th August 2019, About 5 years ago

Any such law will be complex as so many valid exceptions will be found. For example, a transition period might be needed where taxes are shared by seller and buyer on a sliding scale over time until a tine when tax is fully borne by the seller; Allowances made to encourage downsizing; SDLT 3% paid by landlords etc. Thus the law should not be passed quickly, to sensibly allow for these exceptions to be identified and worked into good solutions.

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

23:20 PM, 8th August 2019, About 5 years ago

Words "sensibly" and "good solution" are never used by this government, especially if they are supposed to relate to Landlords...

Claudio Valentini

Become a Member

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

Sign Up

11:14 AM, 9th August 2019, About 5 years ago

Great! They stiff you on the way in and now they propose stiffing you on the way out...
They’re going to do the same with long term health care funding if you ask me.

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

11:24 AM, 9th August 2019, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Claudio Valentini at 09/08/2019 - 11:14
Wasn't Boris LLs great chance for a positive change?

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