Profile incomplete
1:00 AM, 26th December 2015, About 8 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.
Michael Fickling
14:10 PM, 16th February 2016, About 8 years ago
Yes and unlike HMRC he sees landlording solely and perhaps conveniently as an investment not a business whereas and unlike the govmnts. very own HMRC which declares very, very clearly that it is a business... and he is either ignorant of capital gains tax..or perhaps how and to whom it is applied.. We live in times when people seem to often feel the need to have strong opinions on many issues..about which they really know very little. Sad but true. Also and perhaps even more strangely , this chap believes that you can move a market significantly when you only have a 16% holding of its total stock as a base..( O.N.S fig. )..and of course are seeking.... bargains... usually...either below market or at worst at market..as an "investor",..surely ???... The maths on that are basically quite clear. One can not significantly move a market like that because your buying at or below its ...pre-acheived level........and only have a tiny proportion of its whole. ...Its simply impossible to have a significant effect on price levels in those combined circumstances . Thats a matter of proven science not opinion.. ,Unfortunately, he is not the only person to be mathematically incompetent in this regard.
Indeed those persons selected to lead us in monetary policy seem to be laboring under the same fundamental misunderstandings on the same issues........When is a business not a business ?? when George Osbourne says so..thats when. When are basic mathematic principles to be ignored?? when George Osbourne says so thats when . When is capital gains to be ignored when assessing how level the "playing field" is..when George Osbourne says so thats when. Those kind of thinking patterns can only logically represent ignorance ,or falsehood coupled with political cynicism...or maybe a mixture of both...or maybe he actually believes that he is an omnipotent deity.and as such.. beyond and above both science and nature.? What next....perhaps... and maybe hopefully... George Osbourne will sit on a steep beach somewhere ...at low tide......and declare that henceforth it will not roll in.... In "George world" its entirely possible he will succeed. !!...We...in our current struggle....In the real world.. and in our time... will rely on the facts, the science and the recent histories. They will repeat as surely as the tide. As allies they are often slow and inexorable in operation but they are infinitely more potent than chancellors.
NW Landlord
14:28 PM, 16th February 2016, About 8 years ago
It does my head in when being a property investor is correlated with stocks and shares. It is like saying a square is a circle or playing tennis is like playing football.
So it's ok if u operate under a ltd company banner to offset finance costs but in your own name you can't ridiculous. People who write these articles have no knowledge of the facts to be honest neither do the people who devise the policies which is even more worrying to be honest
Chris Chance
14:32 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
I am a landlord with only a couple of properties, but I do like to think that I am a decent human being and a good landlord. I want to be professional.
That being said I have looked into joining an landlord association. I have looked at both the NLA and RLA. To date I have not joined. My reason is because they dont appear to be organisations that fight for or defend landlords but merely inform them and give them product advice. Whilst both of those objectives is laudable I want an organisation that represents me more than just submitting a paper when asked to do so by the government, so that the government can say that they have consulted!!
I want an organisation that takes up and takes on the government when it acts against the interest of landlords. I contacted both organisations when a Mickey Mouse selective licensing scheme was introduced in my area (and in many other areas across the UK) and what did either of these organisation do? To my knowledge nothing. I think that it is generally agreed that many Local Authorities have not properly done the research required for their area, but merely get someone with some qualification to give them a document confirming that there are social problems associated with the private rented sector in their area. Enfield is a case in point. That case was left to an independent landlord to take on.
Now comes the clause 24 or the Tenant Tax, and what have either of these organisation done about it. Absolutely nothing. Given the ongoing threatened judicial review, neither organisation even has mention of it on their website (Check for yourself).
Given that I think that it is generally agreed that landlords are fast being promoted as the scapegoats of over 30 years of failed social policy, is it not time that we landlords seek to have proper representation from an organsiaon that has some testicular fortitude?
Landlords are or should be a force to be reckoned with. Most are not destitute, many are educated (both life and institution), many have business and professional knowledge and experience. The crowdfunding efforts for the review of clause 24 is a small example of what we can achieve if we pull together (win or loose). Whilst I do not believe that most landlords are philanthropists, I do believe that many will put their hand in their pockets when self defence calls for it, and in or self interest.
So what say you about the action or more appropriately inaction of the NLA and RLA, and do any of you share my view that we need more aggressive representation? Informed, balanced, considered but when the need calls for it aggressive representation.
Barry Fitzpatrick
17:47 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Chris Chance" at "17/02/2016 - 14:32":
Chris,
You sum up the situation/attitude if the NLA/RLAaccurately. I went along to an NLA meeting last week at which Richard Lambert was in attendance. I presume you have seen the open letter to Richard Lambert and his pathetic response on this forum?
I confronted him with this and is still defending his/the NLA's position, in fact he went further and said we shouldn't antagonise GO for fear of even more tax hikes. I am not sure how much worse being made bankrupt can get!!
Chris Chance
19:45 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
Hi Barry,
Not seen open letter or anything, searched and it came up blank, would you mind posting the link.
Mark Shine
20:06 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
Chris / Barry
I am not a member of either, but perhaps the RLA/NLA are just supporting the majority of their membership? We should remember that landlords who are both (1) not incorporated and (2) have encumbered properties ARE the minority?
Just had a look at the membership pages on their websites. Both offer corporate membership, so if the majority of their membership (and fees) is made up by either corporates and those with unencumbered rental properties, then logic would suggest that they may actually be acting in the interests of the majority of the members if these 2 associations supported C24?
Chris Chance
21:13 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
I suppose for me the question is what is representation? Yes responding to government white papers etc is representing, however if something is done against your membership that threatens the very principle of who they are, and you don't at least suggest a means to take it on, then in my view that is not proper representation. If your employer decides to cut your pay in half a decent Union will not just write to the employer and say bad boy, but they will consult appropriate professionals, and where necessary will at least as a minimum advise you of the options including court, and an active union would have a representative for you in that process. Look at the NRA in the States, we all know that gun control is reasonable but the gun lobby is so strong that the government of any colour will not take them on. In my view here in the UK, landlords should have similar clout, and one reason why they don't is because they know that the organisations that are meant to represent LLs have no spine and teeth, and are happy to work with them in the consultative process. I work in the representation/negotiation business and I know that regardless of what is on paper, the personalities involved are a crucial factor in the negotiations. The government knows that the NLA and RLA are happy to collect pay packets from the membership, but will not put themselves or the organisations on the line. Think about it, this proposal goes to the heart of those that they say they represent. You cannot get more impactful than real potential bankcruptcies. Their response nothing. To me in this day and age where information is so freely available via the net, and where net working is so easy via emails, then if these organisations aren't prepared to take on these very real fundamental issues, then I seriously question their value.
As regards your suggestion on majority membership that does not hold water really. When you represent someone you do so to the best of your ability, if you are not able to because the views of the majority outweigh the views of the minority then you have a conflict of interest situation and the professional should cease to represent the minority. And following your argument, if the organisations feel unable to represent the small individual owner because they are not incorporated, and have encumbered properties, then they should discontinue respresenting them. That supports my argument that they have failed their membership (small unincorporated encumbered) and those members would be better served by an organisation that does represent them including taking on a battle which threatens the heart of their existence.
So I say again we need either different organisations or different leadership of those organisations. To me given the current climate, which only appears will get worse, the private LL will be completely screwed if the status quo remains.
Barry Fitzpatrick
21:40 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Chris Chance" at "17/02/2016 - 19:45":
@Chris,
I will have a search and try and find it for you.
Dr Rosalind Beck
21:40 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Chris Chance" at "17/02/2016 - 21:13":
Hi Chris.
i am glad to have you on board. You are very insightful and eloquent. As you say, the landlord bodies have not stepped up to the mark at this most critical time. Luckily, at Property118 we realised fairly early on that we were leading the way on this and many of us have not stopped in our campaigning, including providing integral support to the legal challenge.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the role we have had here - if you look at the link to other articles you will get an idea of the vast range of campaigning we have been involved in. We don't get too involved with other issues like the RLA and NLA do; we are very single-minded and our main aim is to overturn Clause 24.
At some point the issue of how we can be genuinely represented will have to be dealt with, as you say. At the moment we are reacting to a sustained assault on our livelihoods, but we will have to also begin to get organised. I think legal challenges will be the way to go as well as convincing influential people that landlords need to be supported in our role and not demonised and scapegoated. Having cosy chats with the Treasury wouldn't be part of my agenda while mad George is still presiding.
Mark Shine
22:11 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago
Reply to the comment left by "Chris Chance" at "17/02/2016 - 21:13":
Chris
Agree completely that the PRS needs an association to challenge the myths & spin peddled by the govt (or their institutional sponsors), Shelter, HPC copy/pasters etc.
If such an association existed, that could genuinely and impartially represent the whole of the PRS, I'd very happily sign up and hand over my membership fee tomorrow!