Stamp Duty

[CSLM3CSL]

I purchased a property a few years ago but due to a change of circumstances never lived there and I have rented it out. At the time it was my only property and I paid the standard stamp duty rate.

I am now considering the purchase of another property to live i n ans I am unsure on what my position is with regards the stamp duty surcharge. I'm presuming I am due to pay the surcharge on the new one. I have a couple of questions if anyone can help please.
1)If I sell the buy to let within 3 years can I claim the surcharge back?
2) Would I be able to avoid the surcharge on the new property by transferring the existing property to a limited company before buying the new one? (obviously in this scenario there would he stamp duty to pay but the new property is more expensive so would save money overall.

[UpTheIron]

I'm no expert but my understanding is 1) Yes and 2) No.

2) Based on the fact you will still be the owner of the property (via your Ltd) so you still have to pay the 3%.

[dmahon]

If you are replacing your main residence, you don’t need to pay the surcharge.
If I’ve just saved you the stamp duty, want to split the saving with me?

[Sarnie]

dmahon said:

If you are replacing your main residence, you don’t need to pay the surcharge.
If I’ve just saved you the stamp duty, want to split the saving with me?

He's not replacing his main residence........he's buying one.........but already owns a property so will incur the surcharge.....

[CSLM3CSL]

Thank-you for the replies. It looks like my best option will be to sell the buy to let first before I complete on the new property.

[Voguely]

I had this issue a couple of years ago. Although it feels very unfair, I'm afraid there is no way of avoiding the surcharge. I ended up selling my BTL (also bought as a residence for me initially but then ended up moving with work and let it out) as the extra stamp duty on new place was going to be such an insane amount.