Updating post from Reddit.
It means if you took advice from property118 to move a personal property to a ltd by first calling it a partnership to avoid SDLT then you broke the rules of S75A and the taxman has 20 years to chase you
You know that thing in action movies where someone sees a red dot and realises they're in a sniper's sights. It's like that, except there's a taxman at the other end.
Honestly, I think I'd rather the sniper.
Wait, is this a sorta legit thing? Currently joint own a property (so partnership?) and would love to move it into a ltd company but facing a huge stamp duty bill.
Jointly owned is not a partnership! A partnership is a separate entity for financial and tax purposes and will need to file its own financials statements and tax returns. I’ll wager you are not in a partnership.
I’ve read HMRCs property income manual and didn’t fully understand the partnership examples.
Still unsure, HMRC PIM1030 states a partership could exist if we "provide significant additional services in return for payment" - it's a large multi-tenant commercial property and I do the management myself which is run the same as a PM business.
It's a large commercial ex-mill building with ten tenants so not exaftly small, it's run and managed as a part time job and I'm a co-personal owner of the property.
This sounds like a scenario where you might actually be able to claim incorporation releif, worth speaking to a (good) accountant. Usually you need to be spending (around) 20 hours a week on managing it.
I mean, five minutes on that website was enough to know that it was essentially a circlejerk, and not somewhere you should be taking legal advice.
Especially because tax law is famously uncomplicated
Reading many of the comments over the years I think Mark writes most of them himself - they're all in a very similar odd tone of voice.
For example when Mark offered to "have a pint to sort this all out with Dan Neidle" and all the posts were in the same vein
- what kind of man wouldn't want to sort this out over a pint....
- I'm with you Mark, I don't trust anyone who won't sort a problem over a pint like a real man
- what more can you do, if Dan Neidle was a true gentleman he'd accept your offer to talk things out over a pint
And so on
All hail Dan Neidle.
I've thoroughly enjoyed reading his posts. There has always been a sense that he's sensible, fair minded and open to constructive criticism.
I always got the opposite sense from P118 and I've never understood how they managed to convince thousands of people to trust their incorporation structure with hundreds of millions of pounds of property.
People will want to believe they can get away without paying tax. So they do believe it. They think the advisers must just be clever.
As with many white collar fraud events, they are sort of clever. I once hear it described by a senior lawyer as « clever in the way that armed robbery is clever ».
I think that people notice that Amazon, Ikea, Google pay no tax in this country and assume that, as long as you get a good tax advisor, tax is a voluntary payment to the state. They notice that Rishi has income in the tens of millions of pounds, and pays an average rate of 22%. They don't understand that the taxman isn't so accommodating for the little people. (OK, Rishi at 5'3 is the exception that proves the rule, but you know what I mean.)
we do need to ensure all landlords pay tax, including aristocrats in trusts, and offshore landlords. if every landlord paid their taxes, not just the ones based on the UK - we could have a lower tax rate overall for property.
We could but we sure won’t, it’s not in the treasury’s interest
Lol as if the Treasury would decrease rates and revenue if people paid
They won't do it because the establishment and tonnes of Lords have land they rent out through offshore trusts.
British government's wants to have foreign investors putting their money into UK. They and indlcentivised to do this without paying corporation tax to the UK.
For.them to roll.out consistent tax treatments for rental property they would need to close the loophole for the establishment and for foreign investors in all sectors.
The expensing treatment of mortgage interest between ltd Co and sole trader landlords is ridiculously fair and they're OK with that. So.i don't know how they will close up offshore tax havens.
what, you think they would just tax people and invent things to spend money on for the sake of it, rather than lower taxes when they could for the obvious electoral benefit?
Yes they would.
More tax means more wastage by labour....or more labour corruption
Because the conservatives definitely funneled everything into useful causes
What does this mean?
In a nutshell, if you used their offerings prepare to be investigated.
They did a whole presentation at Baker Street Property Meet a couple years ago. That's one of the largest in the country. You could see people queuing up for info at the end
If it's too good to be true...
It was a good sales pitch, when you hear it's been approved by barrister's. Most would take that for a green light.
Id like to think I'd back out once they told me the actual details, as that does sound like nonsense.
A friend on mine got involved in a clear Ponzi scheme and was trying to tell me that they’d had a barrister explain why it was legal. Sadly I failed to get the point across that a barristers job is primarily to put forward ONE side of the case as well as they can, not to provide a balanced legal decision.
Serious question - is anyone here involved? If so what's the strategy? If me then I'd have an accountant unwind it and prepare a disclosure to HMRC and submit a claim against P118 / Cotswold.