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 5 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

Rob Crawford

8:18 AM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

It will just drive up the price of houses!

blair

8:37 AM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

Stamp duty is a tax - revenue earner ok any amount is too high really !! My concern is if its switched i could be paying TWICE once on purchase and again when I sell the said property so that adds up to 12% - if over the thresholds which in London almost always are

Prakash Tanna

9:17 AM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

That's just ridiculous to put it politely! It's a tax on purchase (not sale). If the seller has to pay SDLT they will just put the sale price up by an equivalent amount. So house prices go up and the purchases ends up with a higher mortgage value and more debt! Great plan Boris .... I can see where this is going to end up!

James E

10:01 AM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

I think this is a great idea.
Buyers hate paying SDLT, it feels like money down the drain because you never get it back and it is a barrier to people buying and moving up the market.
For the buyer: It will reduce the upfront cash required to make a purchase as more of the cost can be mortgaged and people can move up the market quicker. This will stimulate the market, meaning more deals are done. Prices will move up to absorb the SDLT paid by the seller but it doesn’t matter because the buyer would normally have to pay this anyway.
For the seller: The market will adjust upward to absorb the cost, so it won’t cost the seller. It will stimulate demand meaning property sells quicker.
This would make a big difference for higher priced properties as SDLT on them is colossal currently and consequently this part of market can be very slow.
The property market is pretty boring when it is slow. Deals can’t be done, peoples dreams are delayed. Hope deffered makes the heart sick.
Not sure how Boris would deal with ADS. I would think that would probably remain payable by investment buyers. It would probably be politically unpopular to remove it. I’m not that bothered about ADS anyway, I see it as part of the investment cost and the cost will be recovered through higher rents because less people will invest in property.

Tim Rogers

12:31 PM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

Having paid Stamp Duty when I purchased, it's a little strong to be expected to pay it again when I sell.

Prakash Tanna

12:34 PM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Tim Rogers at 20/07/2019 - 12:31
It's what they call a double whammy !!

Tim Rogers

12:39 PM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

Too much to hope they structure things in such a way that the seller only pays on a property they didn't pay stamp duty when they purchased.

Hamish McBloggs

14:08 PM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/07/2019 - 17:32
I'm not convinced it will be a problem for HMRC.

When executor of my father's will, I got a bill for IHT that I had to cover by increasing my mortgage before I was granted probate and allowed to sell his property ... in case I did a runner. Very stressful.

They'll simply do the same to sellers and make them cough up before permitting the sale to complete ensuring that when it comes to creditors they have first place in the queue.

I can see a whole new set of mortgage products becoming available to 'smooth' this process ... together with more middlemen.

I'm more irked at the possibility of paying twice, paying to downsize and freeing up housing stock at the 'upper end' (titter) thus improving general mobility. I feel it unlikely that any system would see a transition of SDLT from buyer to seller and will end up as cliff edge as child benefits did.

There again, is BJ really that progressive, a philosopher? Or is it positioning if he becomes PM.

A curate's egg, the idea is not new and I'm intrigued. I will watch and see.

Jay James

15:01 PM, 20th July 2019, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Hamish McBloggs at 20/07/2019 - 14:08"When executor of my father's will, I got a bill for IHT that I had to cover by increasing my mortgage before I was granted probate and allowed to sell his property ... in case I did a runner. Very stressful."
-
Perhaps any solicitors on this page can comment on the 'I had to' portion, as it sounds questionable to me.

Hamish McBloggs

12:17 PM, 22nd July 2019, About 5 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Jay James at 20/07/2019 - 15:01
Yup. It was about 18 years ago and I did not have the bandwidth to argue. Small children and a new baby, holidays eroded to deficit by having to sort stuff out like funeral, hospice, house clearance, relatives, expectant beneficiaries, pension cockups, overpayments of health benefits. Coupled with my work based at the other end of the country so no sleep other than on the motorway whilst driving and an employer so concerned that they put me at risk and then made me redundant. The sale of the house was mercifully quick. Fortunately I found I had a 'redraw' facility on my family home mortgage and I didn't tell my mortgage provider that I was unemployed.

My experiences of the tax man had not been favourable to that point and this experience did not help.

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 Tax Planning Book Now