1st BTL now...am I crazy?

1st BTL now...am I crazy?

Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
You did note I said "In most cases".

There are occasions when Market Value substitution needs to be considered.

Even the link you have provided uses the word "may".

CarlosFandango11

1,921 posts

187 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all

Eric Mc said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
Eric Mc said:
And always ensure you factor in the Capital Gains Tax liabilities that will arise.
And always ensure you factor in any capital gains that may arise.
If you haven't got a Capital Gains Tax liability, you probably made a really bad investment.
It would be daft for factor in a CGT liability without also factoring in the capital growth....

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

247 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
33q said:
I have 6 buy to lets. I return 6.3% on what I invested
... and you're still a 20% taxpayer????

That I do not understand. Unless you are a full time landlord renting out some very cheap properties. Or making very big pension contributions to suppress your higher rate tax.

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
... and you're still a 20% taxpayer????

That I do not understand. Unless you are a full time landlord renting out some very cheap properties. Or making very big pension contributions to suppress your higher rate tax.
Or splitting the rental profits between more than one individual.

33q

1,556 posts

124 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
... and you're still a 20% taxpayer????

That I do not understand. Unless you are a full time landlord renting out some very cheap properties. Or making very big pension contributions to suppress your higher rate tax.
Or splitting the rental profits between more than one individual.
Splitting the profits with Wife and Brother has an interest too on 3 lowest value ones as we inherited them.

I'm also 'retired' but at 60 a few years off state retirement age.

dai1983

2,917 posts

150 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
BoRED S2upid said:
Why interest only? If it's going to form part of your pension don't you need to pay off the mortgage to enable the income to currently £450 pcm to go into your pension?

Do the calculation on repayment only and if the income still works then go for it. Interest only IMO is pointless.
Interest only gives you an income and the capital gains as the house price rises. You are able to put more cash aside just incase of voids or large repairs. with the rest of the income you can choose to pay off the mortgage, invest elsewhere (inc more property) or spend it as any other income.

I initally thought repayment was the way to go when we started renting out our house. Over time it has payed off the capital so we can get better mortgage rates. The downside is that there's less money available to put towards voids or repairs. In the new year we are going interest only to increase cash flow and decrease my stress levels!

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
Multiple ownership is also of value when the properties are eventually disposed of.

dai1983

2,917 posts

150 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
98elise said:
I'm a landlord and I know quite a few other landlords. We all let as income, and capital growth is just a bonus. I only buy if I can achieve over 6% yield, which gets me between 12-14% return on cash invested (at 75% LTV). As rents rise those % also rise. As part of a balanced pension plan thats a good return on cash. I doubt I'll ever see the captial growth cashed.

Obviously some LL's will invest for growth, but I doubt its the majority.
Would it be ok if I sent you a few questions via PM?

poocherama

396 posts

210 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
You did note I said "In most cases".

There are occasions when Market Value substitution needs to be considered.

Even the link you have provided uses the word "may".
Nope, you said - 'None. If you give something away you can't have made a gain as you have received no proceeds on a sale.' - which is complete tripe.

If you're simply gifting the property, and there is a gain after all allowances are taken in to consideration, you'll be liable to pay CGT on that gain. The 'May' in the link to refers to this.



Behemoth

2,105 posts

132 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
BoRED S2upid said:
Why interest only? If it's going to form part of your pension don't you need to pay off the mortgage to enable the income to currently £450 pcm to go into your pension?
Inflation & capital gain reduces the initial sum to a relatively low figure over a long period.

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
poocherama said:
Nope, you said - 'None. If you give something away you can't have made a gain as you have received no proceeds on a sale.' - which is complete tripe.

If you're simply gifting the property, and there is a gain after all allowances are taken in to consideration, you'll be liable to pay CGT on that gain. The 'May' in the link to refers to this.
OK

"May" also implies "may not". In other words, in other circumstances these rules won't apply.


These are general fora. If people want specific advice on such matters they need to consult, and pay for, the right advice.

Why do people have to react so rudely?

poocherama

396 posts

210 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
OK

"May" also implies "may not". In other words, in other circumstances these rules won't apply.


These are general fora. If people want specific advice on such matters they need to consult, and pay for, the right advice.

Why do people have to react so rudely?
Its not rude to point out when people make statements which are false. Thats the point of a discussion forum.

You're also referring to a link I posted in reply to your original comment. I think we can agree that 'May' is considerably different to the definitive 'None'.





Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
I admit I was being rather simplistic.

However, when pointing out other's mistakes, perhaps you could maintain an element of decorum.

98elise

26,644 posts

162 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
dai1983 said:
98elise said:
I'm a landlord and I know quite a few other landlords. We all let as income, and capital growth is just a bonus. I only buy if I can achieve over 6% yield, which gets me between 12-14% return on cash invested (at 75% LTV). As rents rise those % also rise. As part of a balanced pension plan thats a good return on cash. I doubt I'll ever see the captial growth cashed.

Obviously some LL's will invest for growth, but I doubt its the majority.
Would it be ok if I sent you a few questions via PM?
Yes that's fine. PH PM's go to an old address though so it you've already sent it I haven't checked the account in a few days.

sumo69

2,164 posts

221 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
poocherama said:
I hope you're not an accountant spouting this nonsense on the internet.

If the property is not your main residence and you gift it to a child its seen as a disposal by HMRC and you'll be liable to pay CGT on any gains. You can use your/wifes CGT allowance and there are other allowances available. Go see an accountant!

https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-property
I deliberately didn't respond to Eric's original post yesterday as he thinks I have a vendetta correcting him on here but....

Eric - please take this the right way as I know you post here much more than me and seemingly have a "good reputation" but that isn't going to last posting that as an answer.

The basic CGT position on a gift of a chargeable asset is that the asset is deemed to be sold at OMV (Open market value) and the fact that no cash has passed doesn't stop HMRC wanting the tax as if it had.

David

Eric Mc

122,053 posts

266 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
sumo69 said:
I deliberately didn't respond to Eric's original post yesterday as he thinks I have a vendetta correcting him on here but....

Eric - please take this the right way as I know you post here much more than me and seemingly have a "good reputation" but that isn't going to last posting that as an answer.

The basic CGT position on a gift of a chargeable asset is that the asset is deemed to be sold at OMV (Open market value) and the fact that no cash has passed doesn't stop HMRC wanting the tax as if it had.

David
Noted.

It was a bit of brain fade on my behalf.

I don't mind being corrected. It's the manner of how the correction was made that upset me.

One of my mottos in life is "It's now what you do, it's the way that you do it".

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

247 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
sumo69 said:
The basic CGT position on a gift of a chargeable asset is....
Yes, although there is still the ability to "hold over" the gain in limited circumstances. Back in the day "hold over" was more widely available but the rules have been changed.

For the benefit of anyone who's struggling to follow, CGT is charged on "disposals". Generally,

1. If you sell something, the Gain (net profit) you have actually made is subject to the CGT regime. The new owner then starts off with the price he has paid and moves forwards from there for his own CGT.

2. If you give something away, or sell it at "mates rates", what's used for the CGT calculation is the amount of Gain you would have made if you had sold at actual market value. So when making a gift you may trigger a tax liability even though you have received no cash at all. The new owner starts off with that same market value and moves forwards from there - even though he paid no money (or little money).

And finally, when someone dies the estate doesn't pay CGT, just IHT (Inheritance Tax, if any, over c.£325k). The CGT starting point for beneficiaries under a will is market value, so oldsters may wish to avoid paying unnecessary CGT in the later part of their lives.

Hope this is helpful. OzOs

Paul O

2,723 posts

184 months

Thursday 3rd December 2015
quotequote all
With the announced changes over the next few years, you won't be able to offset the interest payments. If you are a 40% tax payer, that'll be an extra £180pm on top, you aren't coming out with much. The only real advantage is capital growth, which depending where the property is might not be that great either.

I've just sold mine - not worth the hassle any more!

e8_pack

1,384 posts

182 months

Thursday 3rd December 2015
quotequote all
Thinking of similar.

Buy a BTL with 80k cash + mortgage. Put in wife's name who has no income.

Or are we better to pay some of our main residence off: worth about 300k owe 130k.

I'm 28 years to retirement.

Douglas Arfempty

Original Poster:

623 posts

187 months

Saturday 5th December 2015
quotequote all
Thanks for all the advice, you've raised some brilliant points.

We purchased the property for 60k 5 years ago and it is now at 110k, which is at the top end for the area.

On that basis, because the capital increase is not going to be all that great, we're going to sell.

However, we are continuing on a LTB basis until we complete on our new purchase. Once this is done we'll sell our existing property. Any obvious flaws in this plan? It'll cost us a fair bit, (4k ish in estate agents fees, conveyancing again(!) and the ERC on the mortgage, plus a couple of months of mortgage payments) however we feel it'll be worth it in the long run.

Thanks once again for all the advice.