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

Dr Rosalind Beck

19:35 PM, 17th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Bill Morgan" at "17/03/2016 - 19:11":

And I don't think there will be a big market in Merthyr Tydfil and Pontypridd... or even Cardiff for that matter. This is not a realistic option for many of us.

Bill Morgan

20:18 PM, 17th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "17/03/2016 - 19:35":

Yes but holiday lets does not necessarily mean tourists.

If there are hotels,or travel Lodge or Premiere Inn in your area you can compete with them on Airbnb.

Cardiff would definitely have demand.

If I don't succeed at this my tax bill will rise by 20k so I have to make it work. I'm going to try it at least. I have let my first one in Bristol and it's going well.

Nicholas Dickinson

9:08 AM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Simon Hall" at "17/03/2016 - 16:29":

Simon s162 incorporation relief does NOT avoid SDLT and it is those rates that are increasing by 3% from the beginning of April. So nothing runs out, but if you incorporate after the end of this month it is likely you will have an additional tax bill equivalent to 3% of the value of your portfolio thereafter

Dr Monty Drawbridge

10:25 AM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Bill Morgan" at "17/03/2016 - 20:18":

I considered holiday lets. There would be good demand where I am. But I would breach the VAT threshold and have to charge 20% VAT, which I would either have to absorb or add to the letting price - which would make the rents uncompetitive.

David Lawrenson

11:37 AM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

I thought that the budget yesterday (18/3/16) was interesting because it flagged that it might just be possible that George Osborne has got nervous about one thing.

Clearly, last year, there was an intention to let the big institutional investors off from the Stamp Duty Land Tax hikes impacting residential investors, but Osborne, no doubt fearful of legal action under EU laws has now been forced to say that the big boys with over 15 properties will have to pay the hikes, just like the pesky small landlords that he seems to have it in for so much.

Clearly, there was an intention to let the big institutional investors off from the Stamp Duty Land Tax hikes impacting residential investors, but Osborne, no doubt fearful of legal action under EU laws has now been forced to say that the big boys with over 15 properties will have to pay the hikes, just like the pesky small landlords that he seems to have it in for so much.

Is he worried, I wonder, about this legal action. And is this about-turn, his pre-emptive strike to rule out one of their arguments - i.e. that the tax is unfair to small landlords as it disadvantages them compared to companies and the institutional investors?

I'm not a lawyer, so would appreciate a view from someone who is, on this.

David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com
Private Rented Sector Consulting

Bill Morgan

12:37 PM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Monty Drawbridge " at "18/03/2016 - 10:25":

Would it not make sense to split your portfolio so some are holiday lets and the balance btl. That way you can avoid breaching the vat threshold.

At least you would get full interest relief on the holiday lets which helps your business survival.You may also get more profits from the holiday lets.

I would also spend less time on the BTL business and hire more people to do the work I do free of charge so profitability in the BTL business shrinks and profitability falls below the higher rate bracket.

I'm also thinking of buying properties in a limited company and then the first 5k of profits taken as a dividend is tax free so I assume I could use this money to help pay the tax bill.

At the moment I am looking for ways to reduce the damage the new tax will cause me so I can survive.

Bill Morgan

12:42 PM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "18/03/2016 - 11:37":

Yes I agree that Osborne appears to be back peddling and does not want to give any more ammunition to the Judicial Review as what he is doing is blatant discrimination.

Lisa S

15:41 PM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

If GO is back peddling, why has he specifically excluded residential property from the CGT reductions?

Yet more ammunition, I would have thought, to complain to the EU about.

David Lawrenson

15:58 PM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Lisa S" at "18/03/2016 - 15:41":

I don't think he is back peddling as this latest CGT attack shows,,,,

Where I thought the legal case had most potential to succeed was in perceived unfairness re how BTL landlords might be treated compared to institutional investors.

He has levelled the playing field a little on that by saying both will be whacked by additional SDLT.

This makes the legal challenge being bought weaker.

I have to say, I don't think the challenge will succeed.
Have more hopes on Mark's fight against West Brom - seems a better case to me... but hey, what do I know about this legal stuff.

Fact is that all lawyers will tell you, you have chance....and the other side's team tell them the same thing. The winners are the lawyers in both outcomes. They will still get paid, whatever the outcome.

Lisa S

16:03 PM, 18th March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "17/03/2016 - 08:54":

Ros,

I sent it to Mark yesterday, Hopefully he received it.

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