Stamp Duty, extra 3% - do I need to get married?
Discussion
Guys - I am really struggling with the stamp duty guidelines and would appreciate your help. The situation is:
- I own a buy to let as well as own the house I live in as my main residence
- my girlfriend owns a buy to let and lives with me as her main residence. Prior to this she rented a flat. Her buy to let was her first home but it’s been rented out for 8 years.
- we have just accepted an offer on our primary residence and had an offer accepted on a new house which we intend to purchase together.
I understood from the government helpline that as this will be our primary residence we would not need to pay the extra 3%, but having just read the governments guidelines myself I am worried that because we are not married my girlfriendS B2L might be seen as her primary residence and as such we will need to pay the extra 3% on the new joint purchase. Reading between the lines if this is the case, the only way around it would be for us to get married / civil partnership which just seems wrong!!
If however this is the case how soon before completion would we need to be married / civil partnership?
Can anyone help?
- I own a buy to let as well as own the house I live in as my main residence
- my girlfriend owns a buy to let and lives with me as her main residence. Prior to this she rented a flat. Her buy to let was her first home but it’s been rented out for 8 years.
- we have just accepted an offer on our primary residence and had an offer accepted on a new house which we intend to purchase together.
I understood from the government helpline that as this will be our primary residence we would not need to pay the extra 3%, but having just read the governments guidelines myself I am worried that because we are not married my girlfriendS B2L might be seen as her primary residence and as such we will need to pay the extra 3% on the new joint purchase. Reading between the lines if this is the case, the only way around it would be for us to get married / civil partnership which just seems wrong!!
If however this is the case how soon before completion would we need to be married / civil partnership?
Can anyone help?
Just buy it in your name only.
Interestingly, don't know if it's the same in England, but in Scotland, as you're cohabiting, she'd have to sign a waiver of her rights under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 as part of the conveyancing process of disposing of the current dwelling you she and kid occupy as your main residence. In other words, you can't dispose of her main residence without her approval.
That was ONE of the arguments I used to avoid us paying the additional rate when we changed main residence. Eventually, though not for that reason, we didn't have to pay it anyway, so I don't know if HMRC would have accepted that or not. Or, more accurately, whether the 1st Tier Tribunal would have accepted it, given that HMRC may well not have.
The whole matter of additional stamp duty requires proper legal scrutiny and senior court ruling. There are so many flaws and failures in it as a piece of legislation that, in the absence of senior court rulings, I would be very wary of the opinions of anyone other than a senior counsel as to how it should be interpreted in all sorts of scenarios including yours.
Interestingly, don't know if it's the same in England, but in Scotland, as you're cohabiting, she'd have to sign a waiver of her rights under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 as part of the conveyancing process of disposing of the current dwelling you she and kid occupy as your main residence. In other words, you can't dispose of her main residence without her approval.
That was ONE of the arguments I used to avoid us paying the additional rate when we changed main residence. Eventually, though not for that reason, we didn't have to pay it anyway, so I don't know if HMRC would have accepted that or not. Or, more accurately, whether the 1st Tier Tribunal would have accepted it, given that HMRC may well not have.
The whole matter of additional stamp duty requires proper legal scrutiny and senior court ruling. There are so many flaws and failures in it as a piece of legislation that, in the absence of senior court rulings, I would be very wary of the opinions of anyone other than a senior counsel as to how it should be interpreted in all sorts of scenarios including yours.
Edited by Groat on Monday 17th February 23:41
markizok said:
It’s just sooooo complicated. Last thing i want is to get stung for an extra 3% at completion!!!
Is it?https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/i-...
It really seems quite simple to me - you both own properties. You want to buy another one. Ergo, you're paying an extra 3 %. Is it not that simple?
I asked the other day on her about a similar situation a friend is in.
He owns three houses that he lets out, his partner owns her own house that he resides in but is neither on the mortgage nor deeds.
They want to sell her house and buy somewhere together while he keeps his BTL’s. His mortgage adviser, tax adviser and solicitor have all said he isn’t liable for the extra 3%.
Apparently it’s all because he resides at his partners house (he has been there about 18 months). It seems like a very easy was to dodge the extra liability, they will be over £16k lighter if they do have to pay.
He owns three houses that he lets out, his partner owns her own house that he resides in but is neither on the mortgage nor deeds.
They want to sell her house and buy somewhere together while he keeps his BTL’s. His mortgage adviser, tax adviser and solicitor have all said he isn’t liable for the extra 3%.
Apparently it’s all because he resides at his partners house (he has been there about 18 months). It seems like a very easy was to dodge the extra liability, they will be over £16k lighter if they do have to pay.
That seems utterly stupid given the whole thing was introduced to stop (and has succeeded generally along with other taxation) regular people becoming BTL landlords...
Surely if she only was buying the new place without him on the mortgage or deeds it would be fine, but as soon as someone with 3 properties gets involved, how on earth could that not attract the extra?
Surely if she only was buying the new place without him on the mortgage or deeds it would be fine, but as soon as someone with 3 properties gets involved, how on earth could that not attract the extra?
This is what the money advise service said earlier today. As a couple the only change is the moving of a permanent house therefore the no extra 3% is due. However if I were to keep my current house and converse to a b2l, see another b2l to find a permanent residence the 3% would be owed. Simple as that 🤣😂🤪
Gtom said:
I asked the other day on her about a similar situation a friend is in.
He owns three houses that he lets out, his partner owns her own house that he resides in but is neither on the mortgage nor deeds.
They want to sell her house and buy somewhere together while he keeps his BTL’s. His mortgage adviser, tax adviser and solicitor have all said he isn’t liable for the extra 3%.
Apparently it’s all because he resides at his partners house (he has been there about 18 months). It seems like a very easy was to dodge the extra liability, they will be over £16k lighter if they do have to pay.
He owns three houses that he lets out, his partner owns her own house that he resides in but is neither on the mortgage nor deeds.
They want to sell her house and buy somewhere together while he keeps his BTL’s. His mortgage adviser, tax adviser and solicitor have all said he isn’t liable for the extra 3%.
Apparently it’s all because he resides at his partners house (he has been there about 18 months). It seems like a very easy was to dodge the extra liability, they will be over £16k lighter if they do have to pay.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff