Judicial Review – Landlord Tax Grab

Judicial Review – Landlord Tax Grab

1:00 AM, 26th December 2015, About 8 years ago 280

Text Size

Landlord Tax – George Osborne Policy To Face Judicial Review.

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 saidA 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.

Further information link

JUDICIAL_REVIEW


Share This Article


Comments

dom glynn

22:44 PM, 17th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Chance" at "17/02/2016 - 21:13":

Totally agreed with all you said. RLA membership cancellation imminent.

Simon Griffith

8:47 AM, 18th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Agree with you all. I find Barry's comment on what Lambert said shocking but it is along the lines of what I had said back to me on a number of occasions I have put my concerns to the NLA on their policy line. A pal of mine who used to be on the board of an association suggested that the NLA can't stir things up too much as they have govt mandate on one of the deposit schemes from which they derive a significant percentage of their income - conflict of interest. Sadly I am coming to the conclusion that their role, still valuable, is to educate and as a shop. Quite separate from the desperately needed united campaigning that is basically being done by property118.com. For me the defining moment will be what support they offer Steve/Chris when the next call to fund the judicial review comes. If the NLA/RLA don't get behind either publicity wise and/or financially then we must seriously consider their worth as campaigners. How could either organisation justify their existence as representing PRS if two chaps and a landlord forum won the judicial review for example. Finally, there have been hints about deals being done behing closed doors with NLA/RLA on the judicial review so let's hope our fears are ill founded.

Dr Monty Drawbridge

14:37 PM, 18th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Does anyone know what happens whilst the judicial review is in progress?

Does the clause remain in place until the case is eventually decided? Or is implementation delayed? If it stays in place but is then deemed illegal does everyone affected by the clause received compensation?

Chris Chance

14:01 PM, 19th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Hi Monty,
If the legislation has been enacted it will remain in place unless and until it is overturned. It is possible for the application to include an application for a "stay", that is, that the legislation not to be effected until the case is heard, but as the law does not become effective for some time then I consider that unlikely (unless the case takes so long to determine,then the court may have to deal with the issue of a stay, until the matter is tried)

What I assume the JR application will have included is an application that it be determined urgently because of the seriousness of the matter. If that is the case then the court will set a hearing to determine the timetable.

If at the conclusion of the matter it is determined that the Governement acted improperly then what actually happens will be determined by what the court says. That is the court may say that it is unlawful in totality and then it will be thrown out in its totality, or it may say that a specific part of the legislation is unlawful, and that would leave it open to the government to tinker with the act to remedy the defect as outlined by the court.

All of the above is very rough generalisations, and I stand to be corrected.

I have been watching the sites for an update, but see nothing. I assume everyone has been franticly working on the submissions, and I am hopeful that over the weekend someone may have the time to draft something to inform the public what is actually happening with the case.

Dr Monty Drawbridge

16:22 PM, 19th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Chance" at "19/02/2016 - 14:01":

Cheers Chris.

When you say that the law does not become effective for some time, is it not effective on all interest from 6 April this year (subject to the scale)?

Paul Mahoney

9:31 AM, 20th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Great work Mark
I've pledged on behalf of myself and Nova Financial and will be asking our many landlord clients to do the same

Roy B

19:36 PM, 20th February 2016, About 8 years ago

The more I hear and see about this tax grab - the more I feel that is set up to get rid of smaller landlords so the larger companies can have a field day by tax subsidies we do not get. When lots of us have had enough and sell up these are the companies that will buy our properties, below market value because no one else will have the money. I pity the poor tenants who will be bled dry with rent increases - blamed on GO's yax grab which does not affect them at all - in fact is very beneficial to them.

19:53 PM, 20th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Roy B" at "20/02/2016 - 19:36":

Roy.....I really do not believe that the institutions would be interested in the type of property that small independent landlords own. It just would not be cost efficient for them. Institutions will be much more interested in build to rent. There is space in the market for both kind of landlords. We need the institutions to build on the scale that the UK needs to plug is property deficit. It would be fair however if both private landlord and institution where treated equally

Paul Mahoney

20:31 PM, 20th February 2016, About 8 years ago

Roy & Jim
I agree with both of you. I think that the Gov has been very short sighted in trying to push out private landlords without realising that the institutions won't buy and rent out houses in regional areas but only large scale build to rent or in-situ blocks. As we know that type of property doesn't suit all areas which will mean many tenants are going to be hurt by increasing rents and less available properties to rent.
Paul Mahoney recently posted...What does Buy to Let Property Investment and A Big Juicy Orange have in common?

Graham Kogan

20:29 PM, 21st February 2016, About 8 years ago

Does a vote to leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum end the path to Judicial review?

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