Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Re BTL tax changes, is there anything to stop

> people transferring title to a ltd. co., or

> interposing a company as head lease holder, to

> retain the tax benefits?



Nope but then you'd need a commercial mortgage (higher rates usually0, be subject to corporate CGT terms and corporation tax on profits. Plus all the admin costs / hassles of a ltd co.

There are various issues. Firstly there is potential capital gains tax on transfer of the property. This would be payable even though there were no sale proceeds. There is an instalment arrangement which could be arranged with HMRC for the payment of capital gains tax.


If you are not receiving any payment for transferring the property, then there would probably not be any stamp duty implications, although this is more the domain of a solicitor. Re-arrangement of mortgage might be regarded as a consideration received for transfer of property to the company.


The main issue would be how to extract profits without suffering income tax. If profits are about ?10,000 a year or less than probably the profits could be paid out in salary. For higher amounts, the profits would be subject to dividend tax and this could be quite high. Nonetheless, the first ?5,000 of dividend would be tax free. A better saving than current for a higher rate taxpayer. It is not a complete non-starter but it would not suit all situations.


It could work in the sort term, but there is no guessing how the Treasury would react if companies because widespread. It could end up expensive trying to get the buy to let out of the company again.


A full summary of the Emergency Budget is available via our website Coman & Co.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm still none the wiser how Mr Bens flat has gone

> from a nice little earner to a loss making enterprise?


I think I've worked this out. No sure though, so this could be wrong.


Assuming MrB is on 40% tax rate and he had a place that he rented out for ?1000 and paid ?800 a month on mortgage interest.


The old way would be he could knock all 800 off the 1000, leaving ?200 taxable "profit", which is due ?80 tax. So leaving ?120 in his pocket.


The new way, he would still be paying ?800 in mortgage interest, but he could effectively only knock half off the income before tax is calculated, meaning he now pays tax on effective 'profit' of ?600 - so a tax bill of ?240, even though his real profit was only ?200. So he's now paying more in tax than he actually makes in profit and so comes out with an effective loss of ?40.

I think Loz's example is basically there. A month on month loss is a distinct possibility for many landlords. Bear in mind that after fees/maintenance/etc the chances are (in London anyway) that your current monthly profit is already tiny. It's not a red herring at all, BB.


Yes you could potentially describe it as "profit" if you think the value will rise, but this isn't guaranteed and is of course subject to CGT. Not many private landlords would be willing to take on this kind of risk, so will have to sell. Let's hope they don't all try to dump their proprties at the same time!

Incidentally, for those of you who don't rent out your whole property, but just a spare room, I gather the budget was quite good news on that front. The government will increase the Rent-a-Room relief from ?4,250 to ?7,500 a year from April 2016. Hopefully will encourage more people to rent out their spare rooms.

Back to Loz's point - of course house price gains should be subject to CGT. To be tax-exempt is a massive incentive to "invest" in property versus other investments.


Taking the example, it's hard to feel too sorry for someone who has made net ?200k on their property. As Henry_17 pointed out, the example ignores immobility caused to the individual who hasn't benefited from free money on their current house (maybe because they are younger?) and also cannot buy the ?500k house in NW London.


It would be normal for a CGT system to take account of improvement expenditure, and inflation, but windfall gains should be taxed as with any other asset.

Just to be pedantic re Loz's example above, the measure introduced means that you can only deduct tax at the standard rate, not higher rate. So, using his figures, ?1000 rent and ?800 mortgage, in the future the tax due will be 40% on the ?200 'profit', and 20% on the other ?800 of 'income'.


I've never understood the vitriol spouted at individual BTL landlords - they're just market players and if it wasn't them it would be commercial landlords - and I very strongly suspect that this is going to have essentially zero effect on London rents. There's been an announcement this morning about easing planning restrictions on industrial sites - I haven't read the detail, but that's much more likely to have an impact on the market as a whole.

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MrBen, could you explain, using hypothetical

> numbers?



I won't as due to multiple variables involved it's not straight forward. I'm in the 45% tax band, several properties are involved, other sources of income and it depends how I'm financed....


The general point is that many mortgaged landlords whose mortgage interest and maintenance costs were covered by rent each month to deliver a profit will now effectively be making a cash-flow "loss" because they subsidising their property in terms of monthly outgoings. Fine if the capital value of the property is rising but they're not at the moment, property is already overvalued and sentiment can change quickly when liquidity wise people are paying out rather than reaping rental profits.

I seem to be alone here, but I don't believe the change to the tax treatment for BTL investment is a good idea, as it sets a precedent for the disallowance of tax deductible expenses.


The basic premise of a business is that expenses are deductible. What we have now is the government saying that for this particular type of business, mortgage interest expenses are not fully deductible, as this is "costing" the government lost taxation revenue, so lets say only a part of this expense is tax deductible in order to claw back some tax revenue. Its just BTL businesses coincide with a sensitive area - housing.


Which business will be targeted next when there is a budget black hole? Shall we say plumbers make too much money, therefore lets disallow the taxible deduction of an apprentices salary, as that is costing the government tax revenue?


Continuing on the budget theme of this thread, the one area that particularly worries me are the proposals to change the pension system, from that of tax free contributions/taxed benefits upon withdrawal, to one of fully taxed contributions and tax free benefits upon withdrawal.


This raises some areas of concern to me:

1) what incentive will anyone have to contribute to their pension investment without tax savings? and if people are not incentivised, the governments of future years will simply face a huge burden of now providing state pensions to entire generations of workers that did not invest in their retirement.

2) if you are retiring in 30 ish years, do you trust that all governments over say, the next 60 years, would honour the committment to allow your pension savings (if, for some reason you did contribute) to be withdrawn tax free? I wouldn't! It will simply be another pot of meney a successive government will view as a source of prompt tax revenue. So there is a massive risk that you will be double taxed.

3) how is it possible to plan in such a changing tax environment?


So, there was a good alternative for people to finance their retirements - BTL properties - relatively skill free and accessible to many. So now that tax relief is being reduced on these...whats left?

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

if you are retiring in 30 ish years, do you

> trust that all governments over say, the next 60

> years, would honour the committment to allow your

> pension savings (if, for some reason you did

> contribute) to be withdrawn tax free?



Which pensions allow savings to be withdrawn tax-free (beyond the 25% lump?)

"I seem to be alone here, but I don't believe the change to the tax treatment for BTL investment is a good idea, as it sets a precedent for the disallowance of tax deductible expenses."


I'm not sure about that - I don't think the tax position generally of BTL as an individual is comparable to other typical sole trader businesses. If you operate commercially through a ltd co you are subject to the normal business tax regime.


However, there is little doubt that this is a political gesture rather than a considered policy, either from a tax or a housing perspective.

Bob, this is one of Osbornes proposals being mooted at the moment - pension contributions being paid from net (taxed) income, and withdrawn upon retirement tax-free. This is what is meant when comments are made about pensions being made into "ISA-style investments".


I, for one, would have no faith, that if paid net contributions now and through my working life, that future governments would honour leaving them as tax-free income during retirement.

DaveR, ok, so perhaps it forces BTL businesses into a corporate structure. I still think it sets an alarming precedent that the government will pick and choose allowable tax deductible expenses as it pleases. Such a changeable environment would, I believe, discourage small business.

So that assumes the treasury estimates only 1 in 7 landlords pay tax higher than the basic rate? Yet this is meant to equalise the playing field? It simply doesn't make sense to me.


The tone of government language now seems to focus on these areas as "costing" the government tax revenue...when in actual fact it isn't costing the government anything, it is simply additional revenue to help balance previous uneconomic polices. Feels to me like the conservatives are now in effect the labour party...I wonder which party will fill the previous conservative hole.

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bob, this is one of Osbornes proposals being

> mooted at the moment - pension contributions being

> paid from net (taxed) income, and withdrawn upon

> retirement tax-free. This is what is meant when

> comments are made about pensions being made into

> "ISA-style investments".


> I, for one, would have no faith, that if paid net

> contributions now and through my working life,

> that future governments would honour leaving them

> as tax-free income during retirement.


Seems every time I get around to (finally) looking at pensions, there's another potential fly in the ointment on the horizon.


I'm just going to have to stuff money under the mattress.

So the National Living Wage, currently at around ?7.20 will be rising to ?9 an hour by 2020. I bet all those on that princely sum are over the moon. In 5 years no doubt council tax, water rates, electricity, gas, transport and fuel costs, just to mention a few, will all rise and make not the slightest difference to the recipients way of life. Osborne you're a star.

Not only is Osbourne delivering a ?9 minimum wage, whereas Labour proposed ?8, quids, but is also delivering ?8bn more to the NHS, when Labour only promised ?2.5.


It was a pretty radical budget. Hard to really put a red/blue tag on it - a bit of both, really. Made it hard for Labour to criticise as he nicked so many of their ideas. Maybe it's a longer term strategy for the next election - nick all their centre ground ideas and start pushing Labour left. Corbyn winning (and he's picking up some very valuable union support) would virtually guarantee the Tories the next election, IMHO.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...