Potential Budget CGT relief and profit split for selling to long term tenants?

no thanx

Total rubbish policy so far as landlords are concerned. The benefits in lower CGT will be shared 50/50 with tenants, but the costs of the policy (more taxes on landlords in other areas) will be 100% borne by landlords. Overall, if implemented as per think tank suggestion, this is just another tax grab on landlords.
Also, the benefit will fall on very few properties as there will need to be the happy coincidence that (a) your property is saleable to a first time buyer (i.e. not an HMO or larger property (b) you and your tenant can actually agree a price (always difficult in a private sale) (c) the tenant can actually raise a mortgage and afford to buy it (d) you actually want to sell it.
If gov decides to go ahead with this, I hope they won't patronise us with some drivel about it being a "reward" for "good landlords"

You have to be kidding - The kremlin has arrived at number 10 in the shape of the Tories. Once again no joined up thinking a great vote catcher but it does nothing to solve the housing crises. If the Tories really wanted to solve the housing crises they would make it easier for landlords and developers to borrow cash, obtain planning and then tell them to go and build!!!

My worry here is if it turns out like the agricultural sector where long term tenants have a right to buy. They can force a sale at a reduced rate. No thanks. I set up my buy to let business to provide myself and future generations with a pension scheme. I provide good quality housing at market value. I am available to tenants 24/7 and all issues are fixed quickly. There is a shortage of good rental properties in my area. There is a need for what I provide. Some of my tenants don't want home ownership. They don't want a 2000 pound bill for a new boiler or replacement windows. They just want to pay their rent and know what they have left is theirs. I feel as if my business is now being penalised at every step. If it gets much worse I will join the rafts of landlords who are quitting the sector and that isn't good news for my tenants.

Wow you must be joking, this is the first step to Right to Buy!

Even more taxing is on the way: https://www.propertytribes.com/think-tank-proposes-new-type-of-property-tax-t-127636775.html
I just skimmed through this article, so do not realise full consequences. It appears that the system here is going to be like in France, where the tax is different every year.
Time to pack up and leave the sector and this country too. I do not want to live in the pure communism under Tories - they became even worse than Corbynov...

What they should do is bring back taper relief. It is my understanding that in Germany, after 10 years' ownership, landlords pay no CGT -as used to be the case here, I believe. This is designed to encourage landlords to remain fairly long-term in the business and thereby also give more security of tenure to tenants. It also can encourage landlords to then sell if they want to as there is no CGT to pay. Why landlords who may have owned the given property for decades, should then split the benefit of not having to pay CGT with their last tenant 50/50 is beyond me - how is that fair on anyone? It is also very misleading to present it as 100% relief. For the landlord it would cut it from the discriminatory rate of 28% (as landlords now have to pay the higher rate of CGT compared to others) to 14% - so not far off the 18% that everyone else pays. Big whoop. As others have said, it would also have a minimal effect as most landlords I know say that their tenants are not in a position to buy or as others have said, this would not work for HMOs.

Looking at the report it is riddled with flaws. But having spent what seems like a lifetime exposing these amateurs' interference in our business, I'm not wasting my time on it.

The summary on page 7 of the report states “Finally, we argue that other tax reliefs available on the sale of buy-to-let properties should be tightened to pay for the policy and support responsible landlordism. These include reducing the 18-month grace period for Private Residence Relief to six months, abolishing Lettings Relief entirely, and making Wear and Tear Allowance conditional on the landlord offering long-term tenancies to tenants”

Wear and Tear Allowance had nothing to do with the sale of buy-to-let properties, and in any case it can’t be made conditional because it was abolished in April 2016.

The second sentence starts with “These include” rather than “These comprise”. Yet the report only recommends two changes: reducing the grace period for PRR and abolishing Lettings Relief. Is this just poor writing and editing, or do the authors have some other tightening in mind? Is this proposal to reduce CGT on sales to tenants a Trojan horse with a sting in the tail which will nobble landlordists?

Beware former government advisers bearing gifts.

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 08/10/2018 - 12:20
It may be wise to email your many good points you make direct to Philip Hammond MP as I have already done so with mine.

A few years ago I offered all of my tenants an opportunity to buy the property I was letting to them at a discount. None of them were the slightest bit interested in home ownership. That's one of the reasons I moved abroad, i.e. to be able to sell my properties to whomever I choose, at a time that suits me and only pay CGT on the increase in value after April 2015. The sun is still shining brightly here in Malta 🙂