Spending Review 2015 – 3% increase on Stamp Duty for BTL and second homes

Spending Review 2015 – 3% increase on Stamp Duty for BTL and second homes

14:30 PM, 25th November 2015, About 9 years ago 224

Text Size

GeorgeThe Chancellor George Osborne in his spending review today announced that he will increase Stamp duty for Buy to Let properties and second homes with a surcharge of 3% from April 2016.

The Chancellor said he wanted to change from generation rent to generation buy. He was concerned that Cash Purchasers and foreign investors, who were not affected by the relief cap of 20% on  mortgage interest, along with Buy to Let investors were squeezing out home buyers. Therefore there will be an increase of 3% in stamp duty for non-main residence purchasers, which would also raise an additional £1bn in tax.

The Housing budget will now be doubled to £2bn per annum and a project to build 400,000 new affordable homes to buy will be started. Osborne said “this government chooses to build.”

These affordable homes will be offered to First Time Buyers at a discount of 20%, and 135,000 new homes will be offered under Help to Buy shared ownership.

A London Help to Buy scheme will offer interest-free loans up to a maximum of 40% of the value of a newly built home.

Restrictions on shared ownership will be removed and the planning system reformed to deliver more homes.

Councils will also receive an additional £10m to help homeless people.

It is the Chancellors clear policy to help solve the housing crises by building more homes and squeezing the competitiveness of the Private Rental Sector thus shifting the balance from renting to home ownership.

stamp

Commercial property investors, with more than 15 properties, are expected to be exempt from the new charges.


Share This Article


Comments

Michael Fickling

18:31 PM, 14th December 2015, About 8 years ago

Fact..there is NO evidence that investors are forcing out first time buyers.NONE,,,investors look to buy properties at low prices.....precisely because they are professionals. To force prices higher ( especially with a small market share !) they would have to pay MORE than the market price.Basic maths AND basic market economics. When you buy to invest you are not generally going to pay above market..therefore we do not drive prices up. Secondly it is almost impossible on a straight mathematical basis to drive the price of anything upward when you have a relatively small market share..as we private landlords do. Thirdly all three major house price indexes including the govmnt, office of stats DO NOT show soaring house prices over the last ten years. IN FACT quite the reverse and this is even with london included.Take greater London out... and 50 million people outside london are seeing a period of ten years of DEPRESSED house prices when compared to the thirty year trend..Frankly this tax change is all arising out of London media hype driven by London centric people and media who are pursuing populist policies based entirely on ignorance of the whole uk situation.... its.long term trends and basic mathematics.No more ,no less..Maybe this should be shoved at the "financial correspondent of the year "and let him argue against these facts. ..because the evidence and the maths are soundly..very soundly against him and those who created and support this nonsensical tax change.

Dr Rosalind Beck

19:50 PM, 14th December 2015, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "michael fickling" at "14/12/2015 - 18:31":

Hi Michael.
Patrick Collinson and Hilary Osborned at the Guardian wrote this weekend:
'Implicit in the Bank of England's analysis is an acknowledgment that landlords have bid up house prices in parts of the UK and forced young families to rent instead.'
Perhaps you could forward your arguments to them, with reference to this particular statement in his article (i.e. challenge what they have claimed)? These are the email addresses:

patrick.collinson@theguardian.com

hilary.osborne@guardian.co.uk

Costas Tzanos

9:07 AM, 15th December 2015, About 8 years ago

So what's to become of the btl market post April 2016. Will small landlords now be pushed to the lower end of the matket where the sdt will be less punitive? I get the impression that members of this site are not as concerned about the sdt tax as they are about c24?

James dengel

10:42 AM, 15th December 2015, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Costas Tzanos" at "15/12/2015 - 09:07":

clause 24 affects you weather you are buying or not. just if you have a mortgage.

the SDT change only affects you if you buy, yes it's going to have an effect, but it's less damaging on the whole I think.

Manchester Landlord

11:46 AM, 15th December 2015, About 8 years ago

The future of buy to let will be the preserve of the wealthy going forward. We are I believe the last of working/middle classes who will be able to actively invest in property. That's what the government wanted and that's what they are getting. The consequences will be that as usual the rich get richer.

21:01 PM, 15th December 2015, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "James dengel" at "15/12/2015 - 10:42":

I think the difference is that although the SDLT is somewhat excessive, at least it is a tax on a real transaction, and is not being applied retrospectively, giving people the chance to consider whether they can afford future purchases. Clause 24 is a fantasy tax on imaginary income from properties we are already committed to and may not be able to dispose of without incurring even greater costs.

Chris Byways

22:04 PM, 15th December 2015, About 8 years ago

I have a query on how the SLDT +3% might work on our own house, that has a separate AST flat in the grounds, own postcode and tax band, but can't be sold thus valued, separate to the main house? (IE It can't be sold as a BTL or second home in it's own right separately.) Of academic interest now, but might become relevant suddenly. Or perhaps it's 'subject to discussions'. I don't want to have to issue a s21 due to this.

denis knockton

17:38 PM, 16th December 2015, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Roger Rabbit" at "16/12/2015 - 17:11":

It will surely slow any new acquisitions down but it will not totally stop it. In my case, I will not actively pursue any opportunities for a while but if a good deal presents itself and I can afford the new surcharge, then I will take a view. It all depends on the numbers. In London, one mostly relies on capital growth and ensures all the costs are comfortably covered by the yield. I will certainly aim to maintain a reasonably low leverage of 60% across the portfolio. The Chancellor may not actually stop here and there will be more thrown at us within the future budgets or via possible BoE measures, so it is best to lie down low for a little....

Kathleen Gell

17:54 PM, 16th December 2015, About 8 years ago

As I suspected, Scotland is following the example set by the Chancellor. An additional 3% LBTT on second properties sold in excess of £40K as from 1st April.
How they think this will help the mega housing crisis we have I have no idea

10:55 AM, 17th December 2015, About 8 years ago

Anyone know anything about a proposed exemption if you own 15 or more properties?

It Seems very odd / specific rule to me but my question is what would count as a property?

I've got a few freehold lockup single garages all on separate titles rented out. If I bought one more at say £5k that would take me past the magic 15 figure so will I be exempt? Or maybe I simply just carve up an existing BTL title into 2 titles (house on one and garge on the other) for a couple of hundred pound.

The Good thing about poorly thought out, complicated, unfair legislation is that there's always lots of loopholes to exploit.

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