Stamp Duty on Form 17 split?

Reply to the comment left by Olls63 at 17/03/2021 - 22:08
Neil Patterson has changed his views on this since 2017.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 17/03/2021 - 22:15
But have HMRC?
HMRC will do all they can to deny that a rental business is self-employment, due to the sideways loss relief benefits.
We are having this discussion not knowing if the author of the original question is using the word partnership as we understand it, or as it is used in common parlance; 2 or more people doing something together.
And as they don't appear to have responded to any of our posts, I think we are boring them senseless!

Reply to the comment left by Olls63 at 17/03/2021 - 22:24
I'm finding this thread intriguing though! 🙂

In answer to your question, yes I do think HMRC have softened their approach of late, particularly since the 2013 Ramsay case concerning S162 incorporation relief. The updates in several of their manuals clearly reflect this too and I am not aware of a single tribunal case where HMRC have challenged an SA400 registration or an SA800 return from private landlords over the existence of a Partnership.

I have, however, seen a few Compliance Checks where S162 relief has been assumed to have been applied automatically as per their manuals - see https://www.property118.com/tax/testimonials/comment-page-12/#comment-132197 but no further Tribunal cases in that regard either.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 17/03/2021 - 22:46
PS - landlords also have more ammunition to fire back at HMRC than ever before to prove the existence of a business, not just HMRC's manuals but things like licensing, the new PRA lending regulations defining a "portfolio landlord" and the addition of many new layers of regulation including CP12, EPC's, EICR certification, Article 4, deposit protection etc. etc. etc.

Even if all of the above are outsourced though contractors and agents, the landlord remains accountable.

Richard Branson doesn't fly Virgin Airliners personally, but I don't think anybody would argue that he's not running a business. Likewise for the new car rental business owner who only has two cars on his fleet.

You threw me there with mention of Ramsay, I am more familiar with the 1982 Ramsay case concerning tax avoidance. Makes me wonder if this is something Rishi will focus on next Wednesday.

Reply to the comment left by Olls63 at 17/03/2021 - 23:09
Time will tell, but I doubt it.

I’m very familiar with the W T Ramsay case too, but we will have to leave that one for debate for another day, maybe in another thread.

You threw me there with mention of Ramsay, I am more familiar with the 1982 Ramsay case concerning tax avoidance. Makes me wonder if this is something Rishi will focus on next Tuesday.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 17/03/2021 - 23:13
I am sure we shall

Just to go back to the original post:
The OP says that the income tax returns show income from a partnership inferring that a separate partnership tax return is prepared and submitted. If this is the case then HMRC have accepted there is a separate business and the profits can be spilt as the partners wish without the need for any Form 17 or trust deed.
If there is no partnership return then the profits are automatically split 50:50 and Form 17 can only be used to change the split of income to the underlying ownership between husband and wife (or civil partners). Hence the need for a trust deed to change the underlying ownership.
For a belt and braces approach if there is a partnership the OP should make sure there is a written partnership agreement. It Is quite common for H & W to have a business partnership, not so common for there to be a written partnership agreement!