Should landlords have the right to refuse DSS tenants?10:43 AM, 20th May 2019
About 4 weeks ago 124
Earlier this year we helped a couple to restructure their property rental business in such a way that they will pay no personal tax whatsoever on the next £1.7 million they withdraw from their Limited Company.
This was achieved by arranging bridging facility to allow them to withdraw capital from their business of up to their acquisition costs before completing a sale of their business to their own new Limited Company.
The bridging financier agreed to transfer the facility to the Limited Company on incorporation and the couple retained the cash. However, they did not keep the cash for long! Bridging finance is expensive, so they decided to loan the funds they had borrowed from the bridging financier to their Limited Company in the form of a Directors Loan, which the company then used to repay the bridging finance it had just taken over.
The new Limited Company owed £1.7 million to its Directors.
The company will repay the Directors Loans out of net sale proceeds of the company properties and/or from retained profits, without any personal tax consequences for the Directors.
If the couple had sold the properties whilst they were in their personal names they would have had to pay Capital Gains Tax on nearly £3.8 million of capital gains. However, if their company now sell the properties, corporation tax will be the only tax due. Best of all, the corporation tax will only apply to appreciation in the values of the properties since the incorporation. The capital gains made before the incorporation now sit in the company shares, not the properties, so for obvious reasons our clients never plan to transfer those shares. CGT ceases to apply after death, i.e. the point at which their children will inherit their shares.
We were happy, our clients were VERY happy.
There was also a way to deal with their inheritance tax problem, but that’s another article entirely (link).
The finance was provided at a very competitive rate by a private funder and was secured against solicitors undertakings. This meant that property was not required as security to support the funding, which also kept costs down.
This structure is perfectly acceptable to HMRC. In fact, they even give examples in their Business Income Tax Manuals. The problem for most professional advisers is that they are unable to arrange bridging finance against the security of undertakings. However, we have been doing this for years!
The key criteria in regards to whether the above structure could also apply to you is:-
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.
Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agentsLearn More