How to avoid paying stamp duty??

[ILOVEBHA]

No it doesn't. You have shown no existing (prior to the budget) law that says what ILOVEBHA was offering was illegal. They may stop it for future transactions, they may even prosecutes people who didn't do things correctly in the first place.

I do dislike people getting away without paying their tax, and it's usually the very rich that do it - like the Labour Party. That said, if they've followed the rules, it's not their fault that there were loop-holes in the law, so dislike them as I do, you can't ask them to pay something they don't legally owe.


If the loophole was there, and the clients did things correctly, the government can never get the money back, because they were never due it. If someone uses one of these schemes and tells the government, and the government later prove (or a court decides) that the tax return is incorrect (loophole doesn't exist, scheme is not allowed), then the government would have 7 years for income tax - not sure if it's different for stamp duty? If someone has lied in their return though, it is fraudulent, and there is no cut off date for the government.

Good. Now we just have to find out if their schemes used the law correctly or not.

Like when Labour didn't pay stamp duty on their multi million pound London property deals.

I doubt it. The budget is about new laws, not chasing underpayments, so these comments are more about looking good in the speech than the reality of what's to follow.

You're really trying to gloat, but it seems far too early for that.
Well the one thing we can all agree on is that you were wrong there.

Here Here well said that man

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No it doesn't. You have shown no existing (prior to the budget) law that says what ILOVEBHA was offering was illegal. They may stop it for future transactions, they may even prosecutes people who didn't do things correctly in the first place.

I do dislike people getting away without paying their tax, and it's usually the very rich that do it - like the Labour Party. That said, if they've followed the rules, it's not their fault that there were loop-holes in the law, so dislike them as I do, you can't ask them to pay something they don't legally owe.

If the loophole was there, and the clients did things correctly, the government can never get the money back, because they were never due it. If someone uses one of these schemes and tells the government, and the government later prove (or a court decides) that the tax return is incorrect (loophole doesn't exist, scheme is not allowed), then the government would have 7 years for income tax - not sure if it's different for stamp duty? If someone has lied in their return though, it is fraudulent, and there is no cut off date for the government.

Good. Now we just have to find out if their schemes used the law correctly or not.

Like when Labour didn't pay stamp duty on their multi million pound London property deals.

I doubt it. The budget is about new laws, not chasing underpayments, so these comments are more about looking good in the speech than the reality of what's to follow.

You're really trying to gloat, but it seems far too early for that.
Well the one thing we can all agree on is that you were wrong there.

Let's wait and see. From what I have heard there have been 1200 letters already sent and more on the way. Uncle Spielberg has commented that some of his clients have had letters asking for stamp duty. I have already said it was not a loophole but a matter of interpretation....which the government believe is rather fanciful. And I still believe I will be proved correct on this matter.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I was not having a pop at ILOVEBHA. I admire people who get out and make a living for themselves and really wanted some advice on what to tell my 2 clients. Is this scheme dead in the water for their new £ 1m purchase ? I think it will be hard for the government to get any of the money back retrospectively personally.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

So basically it all hinges on whether a loophole has been exploited or the misinterpretation of what is permissible ?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I guess so. I think the people who have got the letters would have referred them to their lawyers.

 

[ILOVEBHA]

I guess so. I think the people who have got the letters would have referred them to their lawyers.

It looks like this is closing on properies over £2 million so looks like this wont effect us but wil llet you know

 

[Triggaaar]

Let's wait and see.

Agreed.

From what I have heard there have been 1200 letters already sent and more on the way. Uncle Spielberg has commented that some of his clients have had letters asking for stamp duty.

I don't doubt that.

I have already said it was not a loophole but a matter of interpretation....which the government believe is rather fanciful. And I still believe I will be proved correct on this matter.

It's possible that the courts will agree with you, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't. It would be odd if even Labour interpreted the law this way for their properties, but then the government argue the opposite.

 

[ILOVEBHA]

Just please make sure you go through legitimate firms as there are many people offering SDLT mitigation and not all use the best schemes etc, so please do your research.

As far as i know there have not been 1200 letters sent out requesting money all that has gone out are a few letters of enquiry which will be dealt with by the solicitors if you receive one at no extra cost.

 

[Triggaaar]

It looks like this is closing on properies over £2 million

Makes no sense to me. If it's a loophole and they want to close it, they should close it for all properties.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agreed.
I don't doubt that.
It's possible that the courts will agree with you, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't. It would be odd if even Labour interpreted the law this way for their properties, but then the government argue the opposite.

There are a few angles and schemes in use and different perms from company owned, residential, commercial, overseas company owned etc. I am mainly talking about what me and you would see as regular residential dwellings. Anyone who has done something a bit irregular and not paid the duty should be worried in my opinion.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As far as i know there have not been 1200 letters sent out requesting money all that has gone out are a few letters of enquiry which will be dealt with by the solicitors if you receive one at no extra cost.

Stick "1200 letters HMRC stamp duty" into Google and see what comes up.

 

[Uncle C]

It looks like George Osborne has made tax avoidance/evasion a central pillar of his policies. He is supported by the Lib Dems and both will be looking to claim success at the next election. Indeed he needs the additional money to fund his tax threshold improvements. Additional tax inpectors have been put in place and laws will be written/re-written to achieve results. I am glad I did not participated in any such scheme.

If those in sub £2m houses believe they are safe then think again. The public are solidly behind the policy and once the ball gets rolling.

 

[ILOVEBHA]

Good news just had a meeting with our tax providers and i am pleased to say that they have 4 robust routes still available should anyone want to mitigate their stamp duty on property purchases over £250k.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

So Osborne saying he would close these loopholes was lying ?

 

[ILOVEBHA]

So Osborne saying he would close these loopholes was lying ?

He has managed to close a loophole which was used by very few schemes so yes it was all bravado like many of these announcements.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Latest developements.

HMRC wins Stamp Duty tax case
Mortgage Solutions | 21 Sep 2012 | 09:50

Nicola Brittain

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has won a court case defeating a widely-used scheme to avoid stamp duty land tax (SDLT).

inShare.0The case was taken against Vardy Property Group, which had been using an aggressive SDLT avoidance scheme also being promoted by several accountancy firms.

A company in the Vardy Group had acquired a business park for £7.25m, which would have incurred a SDLT of £290,000.

Instead, the group structured the purchase through a newly-formed unlimited company, which immediately distributed the property as a dividend to the shareholder company.

The decision in HMRC's favour, subject to any appeal, could save the UK Exchequer more than £170m.

The government has also created rules that will force users of a wider range of stamp duty land tax avoidance schemes to disclose the schemes to HMRC.

The new rules will give HMRC much better access to information about these avoidance schemes and those who promote and use them. They can then be challenged and closed down more quickly.

HMRC's director general of business tax, Jim Harra, said: "This victory sends a clear message to tax avoiders that we will challenge avoidance relentlessly.

"The decision is good news for the vast majority of taxpayers who pay, rather than try to dodge, their taxes.

"It shows that the courts will see through arrangements which are put in place just to avoid tax.

"People who are tempted by tax advisers to enter into avoidance schemes should think twice and not be driven by greed into signing up for schemes that are just too good to be true."

 

[Driver8]

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has protected up to £123 million in tax after a tax tribunal upheld a landmark ruling against a stamp duty land tax avoidance scheme.

In July 2013, the HMRC won a case against Project Blue, which used the scheme. According to the HMRC the scheme attempted to eliminate all stamp duty on the purchase of Chelsea Barracks in London.

Project Blue appealed against the First Tier Tribunal’s decision, but the appeal has now been rejected by the Upper Tribunal.

The Upper Tribunal has decided Project Blue must pay £38 million in stamp duty land tax that would have been due if it had not used the scheme.

The decision acts as a precedent to 24 similar commercial cases and similar avoidance schemes with around 900 users, protecting up to another £85 million in tax.

The stamp duty land tax sub-sale alternative finance scheme was used in an attempt to eliminate all of the tax due on the purchase of the barracks.

David Gauke (pictured), financial secretary to the Treasury, said that this case shows the HMRC’s has been backed twice by the courts.

‘The message is clear – tax avoidance is complex, expensive and self-defeating. We continue to crack down on both avoidance and evasion – last year HMRC’s compliance activity brought in £23.9 billion.’