This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.
Analytics

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.

Essential

Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

Should I have got married?

Evolved
Posts:7
Joined:Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:24 pm
Should I have got married?

Postby Evolved » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:59 am

Lighthearted topic name but still an area of concern. I am confused after reading so many articles on the web. I'm sure that somewhere on the forum my question has been answered already but there always seems to be something additional that doesn't exactly tie in with my situation and it's the detail that gets you in the end.
I think that my situation is simple but it is still difficult for me to sort out the (internet)advice wheat from the advice chaff.
I own the house that my wife and I live in. The mortgage has been repaid and was always in my name only. My wife owns a flat which she rents out. We would like to move to the coast which means that I sell our current residence and I buy the new property in my name only. My wife will retain her rental property. I will not have a mortgage on the new property.
My wife and I have lived together for 16 years but only got married last year.
Will I get caught by the higher SDLT as a consequence of getting married please?

Thanks in advance

maths
Posts:8507
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Should I have got married?

Postby maths » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:32 pm

Will I get caught by the higher SDLT as a consequence of getting married please?
No, because the property you own solely has also been wife's residence.

Evolved
Posts:7
Joined:Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: Should I have got married?

Postby Evolved » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:32 pm

Thank you maths.

Here is the source of my confusion..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sta ... -divorced/

..in particular the section - Even if her husband bought the new property in his sole name the surcharge would be due – because they are married.

“This isn’t the intention of the law at all,” Ms Glen said. “The rules are confusing and contradictory. It’s been incredibly frustrating and stressful.”

Other advisers have pointed to different parts of the rulebook suggesting the surcharge would not apply.

Thank you for putting my mind at rest

bd6759
Posts:4262
Joined:Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: Should I have got married?

Postby bd6759 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:16 pm

That article is incorrect. In the circumstances described, the higher rate would not apply. The "replacing main residence" exclusion applies if a person or their spouse has replaced a main residence. So even although the wife might be treated as being a purchaser of the new property, her ownership of another proeprty is irrelevant because her spouse has disposed of a main residence.

maths
Posts:8507
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Should I have got married?

Postby maths » Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:56 pm

The article is incorrect and thus misleading.

The problem with the press is they like to sensationalise pretty well at any cost [viz recent Panorama on the so-called Paradise Papers]. Legislation is often complex and those who write for the press are often ill informed and are not too bothered with the fine print of the legislation.

Sadly this means that those not specialising in the particular area under review quite reasonably presume/accept that what the press or indeed the BBC say must be correct.

Re bd's post he is I believe referring to FA 2003 Sch 4ZA para 3(6)(b) [apologies for being a clever dick !!].

bd6759
Posts:4262
Joined:Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Re: Should I have got married?

Postby bd6759 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 am

Not at all.

I also found the Panarama programme quite puerile. I put that down to the rush to get it out quickly, but sensationalist reporting on quite legitimate and reasonable expense mitigation diluited its effect. They did however make some serious allegations. It will be interesting to see how they pan out.


Return to “Stamp Duty, Stamp Duty Land Tax, SDLT”