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

Bill Morgan

14:16 PM, 22nd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Hi Jack,

This is my interpretation of the tax legislation.Any given tax year is split into 2 periods.The first period consists of 205 days.During the 205 day period you cannot let the property to the same person for more than 30days.This means that you will need to let the property approximately 6.8 times (205/30) or more during this period.

The second period consists of 160 days and during this period you could let the property to the same person for the full 160 days if you want.

So to conclude the first period of 205 days would suit the tourist season as most only want to stay for a few weeks.The second period of 160 days would suit contract workers in the winter as they might want a longer rental period.

City lets would work well as its not seasonal so there should be all year round demand.

Pete

14:24 PM, 22nd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Steve Bolton" at "26/12/2015 - 08:59":

I hope we get some good news re our fight for justice. The unfair withdrawn of our rights to claim back interest

jack hammer

16:21 PM, 22nd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Bill Morgan" at "22/03/2016 - 14:16":

Hi Bill,
Many thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. I wish we didn't have to do it but at least it gives us a bit of manoevarbility !.
Best regards,
Jack

Bill Morgan

21:44 PM, 22nd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "jack hammer" at "22/03/2016 - 16:21":

Personally I have a strong feeling that when section 24 comes in it will cause carnage for a few years whilst the homelessness rate rockets.

Then they will almost certainly modify it or reverse it.So holidays lets offer a temporary place to run until things go back to a new normal.

NW Landlord

21:59 PM, 22nd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Bill u are so right I have been in meetings all week with barristers tax experts accountants and nobody fully understands the complexity of what is happening it is a pointless Ill thought out policy that is going to create havoc

We own as a group 500+ properties in a concentrated area if we cannot re structure the consequences will be beyond measure for vulnerable families that are perfectly happy with the service we offer. This if fully implemented will go down in history as one of the most ludicrous economic policies in history and I am not going over the top wen I say it.

Paul McCready

15:47 PM, 23rd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Hi
Gareth Wilson commented previously regarding the Treasury's possible response to the JR.

"Assuming no extension is granted by the Court, the defendants’ deadline for filing their Acknowledgements of Service with the Court is 16th March"

Is there any update regarding this?

Thanks

Dr Rosalind Beck

15:50 PM, 23rd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Paul McCready" at "23/03/2016 - 15:47":

Hi Paul.
In case Chris or Steve aren't reading this, I will answer and they can correct me if I'm wrong. I think they have yet another week after the 16th, so the deadline would then be today.

Paul McCready

16:10 PM, 23rd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Thanks Ros

Miascot

20:56 PM, 23rd March 2016, About 8 years ago

Just found this posting from 23 hours ago on their Facebook:

JUDICIAL REVIEW UPDATE:
We have received a reply from HMRC and HMT. We now need to speak with our lawyers before issuing any form of statement to ensure that our case is not prejudiced in any way.
Sorry we can't share more at this stage but it is critical we take legal advice and ensure we follow the correct protocols.
Thanks
Steve and Chris

21:58 PM, 23rd March 2016, About 8 years ago

I got that in an e mail this morning - and then couldn't find it to post on here later on when I saw people were still concerned (I had assumed everyone would get the same e mail)

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