Originally posted by 1_emoneyexchange_1
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: property investment and tax
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "property investment and tax"
Collapse
-
Does make you wonder why you do things honestly sometimes, doesn't it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JMorleyThey should not, but that does not stop many people. I've seen it done (obviously should the Revenue ask me to testify to this I only said this for effect!).
Leave a comment:
-
They should not, but that does not stop many people. I've seen it done (obviously should the Revenue ask me to testify to this I only said this for effect!).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JMorleyI think the most tax efficient way would to have put our main residence in either my name or my wife's name and the second property in the other's. That way you can claim it to be a main residence and not pay tax on any profits on final sale.
Leave a comment:
-
Simon
I do thank you for your input to this discussion, I may be mistaken but your last post sounds like you have taken offence. None was intended.
Regards
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by WHA
As for accountants wanting to avoid enquiries because of having to do the work free, I think you will find that most (if not all) accountants would charge for enquiry work or insist/advise you to get insurance to cover their costs - even for those who do the "all inclusive" monthly fee, I think very few would also include tax enquiry/investigation work - they will either be charged separately or your monthly fee will include insurance - whatever way, the accountant will get paid for the extra work!
Leave a comment:
-
I think the most tax efficient way would to have put our main residence in either my name or my wife's name and the second property in the other's. That way you can claim it to be a main residence and not pay tax on any profits on final sale. It is of course a tax dodge and I have not pursued this for that reason, although I know of people who have very succesfully.
With respect to paying less tax if I held it in my name rather than the company, I would be taxed at 40% income tax.
As it stands I put 12.5k into the property on purchase, a further 10k on repairs. This would have to have been paid to me in dividend as 22.5k and would have incurred 40% (at least in part). When I sell, while this money would not be taxable a second time, assuming I sell for a reasonable profit of ~25k then unless I am out of contract for a period prior to selling this too will be taxed at 40%. So no real gains for me.
So purchasing through the company has enabled me to use marginal relief on profit not paid as dividend and any other capital at 19% CT. Obviously, at the point of sale I pay dividend and will incur 40% tax. However, I have more cash to put into the property on purchase as I pay less tax at this point. Additionally, loan interest, solicitor's fees etc. go against CT.Last edited by JMorley; 21 May 2006, 09:45.
Leave a comment:
-
But even if you managed to claim the cost as an expense, which I doubt very much would be successful, when you eventually sold it, the entire proceeds would be taxed as income -on a like for like basis. Surely you would prefer capital gains tax treatment for the property in personal ownership as you would pay far less tax on final sale.
As for accountants wanting to avoid enquiries because of having to do the work free, I think you will find that most (if not all) accountants would charge for enquiry work or insist/advise you to get insurance to cover their costs - even for those who do the "all inclusive" monthly fee, I think very few would also include tax enquiry/investigation work - they will either be charged separately or your monthly fee will include insurance - whatever way, the accountant will get paid for the extra work!
Leave a comment:
-
boredsenseless
If you had read my previous posts in detail, you would have noticed that the argument I constructed (in concurence with The Act) does not depreciate the asset, it associates the capital cost as an expense of the trade. This in effect accounts for the fact that property does appreciate rather than depreciate over time. As noted by Simon the point is whether the Revenue would accept the asset as being provided for worker welfare.
I appreciate Simon's posts and thank him for them. My course of action from here is to ask the opinion of the Revenue, the chances are that Simon is indeed correct. Though, as I have said previously, you don't get if you don't ask.
One other point worth noting, and this is not meant as a slight to Simon, however, it is not in the interest of an accountant to sign off accounts that could be queried by the Revenue. For the simple reason that they would then have to deal with the query at their own expense in time. As such, an accountant is very unlikely to advise a course of action that may incur him non-chargeable work.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simonsjdaccountancyIf the client has had to take the rental property because of the location of the role, and they keep their main home (and don't let it), then we advise them to claim all costs associated to the rental property. Have never had this challenged, and no BIK is declared.
Same applies to buying a property in the Company name near the contract location (again assuming not main house etc) - bills and interest allowed, but the capital cost of the property would never be allowed.
Assuming for one second the house was an allowable asset...
How do you measure the useful life of a property? My house was built in 1700 and therefore has already had 300 years of useful life, and I expect it to last the same again, so would you really want to offset the cost at 1/600 a year?
Also the idea of writing down an asset is to account for the fact that over time it becomes less useful and less valuable, both of which do not apply to properties which traditionally become more valuable and remain just as useful.
I think you've made a mistake buying it in the company name, you would have been employed engaging a decent tax planning specialist to determine the best way to extract the cash out of the company to buy it that way.
Leave a comment:
-
rent
If the client has had to take the rental property because of the location of the role, and they keep their main home (and don't let it), then we advise them to claim all costs associated to the rental property. Have never had this challenged, and no BIK is declared.
Same applies to buying a property in the Company name near the contract location (again assuming not main house etc) - bills and interest allowed, but the capital cost of the property would never be allowed.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simonsjdaccountancyIf you rented a property whilst away on contract, and it was not your main home, then the rental costs would be allowed against profits.
Are there any hard and fast rules or is it just down to the inspector on the day?
Possibly of interest to the OP. When I bought a house near contract which I used not as a primary residence I claimed:-
Bills
Mortgage interest
Council tax
Again I took a small BIK (5% I think) for personal use.
I don't see why it should be any different for the OP just because the property is owned by his company (but may well be of course).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JMorleyI Just that such Acts are very well constructed to accomplish a set objective.
Originally posted by JMorleyAs a sidepoint, probably of little significance, I did not live in the property, I stayed there in the same way I stayed in a hotel prior to purchasing the property. Nonetheless, this does provide anothe rfront to my argument, namely that the cost of staying in a hotel is an expense that is not taxed, therefore, so should the cost of the property purchased.
Originally posted by JMorleyOut of interest, had I have rented accomodation would that be classed as subject to CT?
Leave a comment:
-
I like your notion about logic and tax rules, although I have to say I think that an Act of Parliament somewhat gazzumps the Revenue's opinion if you have a dispute. Not that I'm saying the Capital Allowances Act will facilitate setting tax aside as I would like. Just that such Acts are very well constructed to accomplish a set objective.
As a sidepoint, probably of little significance, I did not live in the property, I stayed there in the same way I stayed in a hotel prior to purchasing the property. Nonetheless, this does provide anothe rfront to my argument, namely that the cost of staying in a hotel is an expense that is not taxed, therefore, so should the cost of the property purchased.
Out of interest, had I have rented accomodation would that be classed as subject to CT?
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: