1:00 AM, 26th December 2015, About 9 years ago 280
Text Size
Private Buy-to-Let housing providers have chosen Boxing Day 2015 to begin their fight back at Chancellor George Osborne and his discriminatory tax regime, announced in the Summer Budget, which only targets private landlords with mortgages via the Judicial Review process.
New tax rules will treat mortgage interest as though it is earned income and push many rental property owners into higher tax brackets. Knock on effects can also include increased CSA payments and removal of other vital benefits but Osborne’s tax measures will not affect the wealthiest landlords (those with no mortgages), or indeed limited liability companies which borrow money to fund buy-to-let property investment portfolios.
Social Media has been buzzing in recent weeks calling for legal action to be considered.
The first step to instigating a Judicial Review is to obtain a detailed Legal Opinion from specialist legal counsel. Omnia Strategy LLP, established in 2011 by Cherie Blair CBE, QC, has been appointed.
The organisers of the campaign have launched a fund-raising appeal via the Crowd Justice website. Thousands of landlords are expected to donate funds.
Letting Agents and Mortgage Brokers are also being encouraged to contribute to the fund raising campaign. This is because their businesses are likely to be hit too if landlords stop investing or choose to sell up.
A member of ICAEW commented;
“It is a long established principle of taxation that expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business are deductible when calculating the taxable profits. Clause 24 of the Summer 2015 Finance Bill contravenes that principle and will result in proprietors of property businesses being liable to tax on a fictitious profit – even if the proprietors really make a loss.
The tax change does not just affect new borrowings. Landlords with existing borrowings will be affected. Portfolio landlords will be particularly badly hit.
As a consequence of the tax change, major changes in the private sector will take place. Some landlords will pass on their increased tax by increasing rents. Others will be forced to sell, as they will not be in a position to pay the extra tax demanded by HMRC. Homelessness will increase as some tenants will not be able to afford higher rents and many will be evicted by landlords forced to sell”.
Mark Alexander, founder of the Property118 Landlords Forum said “it is important for the whole country that funding is raised to win this legal battle. Millions of Britons simply do not qualify for mortgages to be able to purchase a home of their own. The number of people seeking to rent privately has been increasing in line with the growth of the population for decades. It is all very well the government having an ambition for everybody to be a homeowner but they must be made to realise that isn’t realistic. The UK has an ever growing reliance on the Private Rented Sector. Investment and building needs to be encouraged, not taxed into oblivion”
In a letter to the Chancellor, Conservative Lord Flight said “A lot of Buy to Let investment has been an alternative to saving for old age via pension schemes. Up until World War II investing in rented property was the main method of providing for an income in old age. Given the poor performance of the Stock Market over the last 20 years, it is hardly surprising that many people have opted for Buy to Let investment as an alternative source of retirement provisioning. But Buy to Let does not enjoy any of the major tax advantages of pension saving, i.e. tax credit on the amount invested and accumulation of income and capital gains tax free within the pension scheme. The only Buy to Let “tax advantage” has been the ability of the interest cost to be offset against an individual’s income to determine their tax rates/bill – the very thing which you have attacked.”
When Lord Flight referred to offsetting the interest cost against an individual’s income he of course meant rental income only, not total income. Buy-to-Let interest is not deducted from any other income that a landlord might have – unlike the way MIRAS used to work.
Nor can Buy-to-Let losses be set off against any other income. A BTL property has to pay its own way. If it gives rise to a loss, the owner has to make good the loss out of other taxed income. Landlords do not receive any tax “breaks”.
BTL has increased housing stock by 2.5 million between 1996 and 2013.
BTL was only responsible for one-twentieth of the 150% price increase between 1996 and 2007, which is insignificant. Prices would have gone up even more if BTL had not financed the 2.5 million increase in supply – and so would homelessness.
Deducting finance costs from rental income is not a tax relief it is normal accounting practice everywhere, and for every business. That is why Lord Flight put “tax advantage” in inverted commas.
Disallowing finance costs for existing rental businesses is iniquitous and will be damaging for the economy. Rents will rise. Tenants who cannot afford the rises will be made homeless, to be put in temporary accommodation in whichever part of the country it can be found, at greater cost.
For these reasons, it is vital for private landlords, tenants and the entire rental sector that this funding campaign is successful.
The window of opportunity to submit an application for Judicial Review closes on 17th February 2016.
The Crowdfunding website page for making donations to the legal action fund can be found via a Google search for “Crowd Justice Judicial Review of Clause 24” or CLICK HERE.
Rachel Hobdell
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:43 AM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "michael fickling" at "26/12/2015 - 12:04":
:)))
Nice idea and revenge, beat them with their own game and tactics !
dom glynn
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:23 PM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
Yay, the £50k is now raised!
Maybe Gideon responded to Lisa's tweet!
Tony Evans
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up14:58 PM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
I've pledged.
As a BTL landlord with 4 properties and a mortgage advisor I can see the effect this tax grab will have not just on me but on the market as a whole. Its not a fair tax by any means.
Abdul Choudhury
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up16:04 PM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
Dear Mark
Clause 24 is enshrined in primary legislation and challenging it under general common law or human rights law principles I believe will have little prospect of success because of the concept of "Parliamentary Sovereignty".
I believe we stand a better chance of success by challenging it under Article 107 EU State Aid Law. Clause 24 is selective and discriminatory and appears to fall foul of Article 107. This is an area where the European Commission and the Courts have significant powers to override national legislation as well as national tax policies.
The Commission has overall say in all state aid matters and has the power to launch investigations against national governments in respect of policies which may affect free trade.
In the light of the above I hope the following matters will be considered regarding the forthcoming legal challenge to Clause 24.
1. The firm of lawyers dealing with the action for judicial review must not only have expertise in judicial review/administrative law matters but must also have significant expertise in EU State Aid law.
2. In addition to judicial review I believe we ought to make a formal complaint to the European Commission and ask it to investigate the Government for a breach of Article 107.
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 Up16:46 PM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Abdul Choudhury" at "02/01/2016 - 16:04":
Hi Abdul. Yes, I don't believe the lawyers are going to take a narrow view of this. With the fact that we raised £50,000 in a week and without going all out on the fundraising - the RLA and NLA weren't involved, for example, I think we will have a very good chance of raising all the money we need to take this one all the way if necessary.
Dr Monty Drawbridge
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up17:07 PM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
In case anyone missed it, Mark linked on another thread to this blog analysis of the State Aid argument (mentioned above by Abdul) by an Oxford University tutor and tax PhD candidate.
https://taxatlincolnox.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/could-state-aid-law-protect-buy-to-let-landlords/
He makes it clear that he is basing his knowledge of the case facts upon information gleaned from newspaper articles - but it makes interesting and, dare I say, cautiously positive reading none the less.
Andy King
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up20:51 PM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Dr Monty Drawbridge " at "02/01/2016 - 17:07":
Indeed, there is a light at the end of tunnel.
Giles Thomas
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up21:09 PM, 2nd January 2016, About 9 years ago
For context note this HM Treasury consultation on the introduction of general rules for restriction of interest deductibility (not just for housing).
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tax-deductibility-of-corporate-interest-expense/tax-deductibility-of-corporate-interest-expense-consultation
money manager
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:26 AM, 3rd January 2016, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Giles Thomas" at "02/01/2016 - 21:09":
I saw this some time back and thought "about time too". I'm fed up with our high streets and supermarkets being crammed with such ilk as overseas based companies (Starbucks, Cafe Nero, Amazon) and suppliers (Mondelez Oreo, Cadbury, Green & Blacks, Phillidephia etc) that use agressive group segmentation (how much of the price of a Starbucks goes directly to, I think Holland, to use it's branding?) or internally generated debt to effectively rape and pillage. Steam now let off.
See
"6.2 Depending on the design of such a rule, it could ensure that no restriction arises for domestic groups and stand-alone companies in respect of interest paid to third parties.". and
"6.5 If a fixed ratio rule was implemented in the UK, the level of the fixed ratio would need to balance tackling BEPS effectively against allowing UK companies to deduct interest arising on third party debt that is used to finance assets and activities that are taxable in the UK. "
It's a tricky issue and there is a danger that inept actions (insert incredulous guffaws) could proliferate "C24" type damage in which case it would be goodnight and sayonara for all of us.
I have been wondering if global tax complexity might be better served by a flat tax system. Thee might even be an ally for that. Source: Wiki
"Flat taxes have also been considered in the United Kingdom by the Conservative Party. In September 2005, George Osborne, then in opposition, said that while he was "fully conscious that we may not be able to introduce a pure flat tax, we may be able to move towards simpler and flatter taxes."[26] However, it was roundly rejected by Gordon Brown, then the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that it was "An idea that they say is sweeping the world, well sweeping Estonia, well a wing of the neo-conservatives in Estonia", and criticised it thus: "The millionaire to pay exactly the same tax rate as the young nurse, the home help, the worker on the minimum wage".[27]"
So were does Georgie stand on the high marginal rates imposed on some under C24? (bursts out laughing)
Kathy C
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:55 AM, 3rd January 2016, About 9 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "26/12/2015 - 11:08":
Hi Mark
Thanks so much for not giving up and keeping the 'fight back' ongoing.
I tried to pledge, but due to generosity and determination the fund had reached its current goal and closed. I will pledge at stage 2 (fingers crossed we get there). I have renamed landlord tax from income tax to turn over tax.
Kathy