|
|
|
|
|
|
by JimmyL
4037 days ago
|
|
|
Very true, but ATED is cheap. On a (for example) £7M house you would have paid £750K Stamp Duty, or if sold though a corporate transfer, £35K of tax on the shares and £36K/yr ATED - so holding it for less than twenty years would have been a deal, assuming no other possible savings from the corporate option. |
|
|
Even though this law should dissuade people from buying through corporate vehicles, all the existing housing stock (i.e. probably nearly all the property in Kensington & Chelsea, Knightsbridge, Belgravia, etc that is from the 1700-1900s) that is worth holding through SPVs is already held through SPVs, and will not be captured by this change.
Developers usually split up their new buildings in separate entities before they build anything, because I believe only stamp duty is payable on the land then. Instead of then selling the property, they sell the shares, which is taxed as capital gains (instead of corporate income) for them. Good times in the luxury market, since share sales in corporate vehicles tend to be tax free.
It's still very much a win-win situation for both seller and buyer (probably much less for new developments after this change), so no reason not to do it. I don't think this will raise significant amounts of tax any time soon. :)