UK expats to pay tax on their rented houses back home

[rayongchelsea]

It will 100% based on value once the rule is in place. Gains will be from April 2015, tax legislation is not implemented retrospectively.

well obviously you know better tunas me after all I've been doing property for only 60+ years and gone through numerous tax changes so what do i know

Well see but your totally wrong on this one they dont tax retrospectively but that does not mean they use values at time of tax change

but obviously your a great tax expert

Source: tax accountant Ernst and young. What's tunas got to do with it.

There is no logic in your answer. How will they determine price, what about capital improvements made..there are 2 many imponderables..tax accountants would have a field day..

I have properties in London I am well exposed to changes in the law but you are over re-acting.

There have been numerous changes in income tax, vat, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc..none have been retrospective none have asked for details going back decades as maybe the case you are implying..

Look at when your residence no longer is your main residence it is valued at the time it is no longer your main residence..look at the implementation of tax rules in Australia in relation to capital gains none have gone back in time..

I like Tuna any recommendations.

People who own properties are not by default tax experts..

Again it is still in consultation..the loss of allowances is more probable ..

[Bazle]

Look at when your residence no longer is your main residence it is valued at the time it is no longer your main residence.

You might want to check that out!

[alfieconn]

I have read the links, now I want to see if I have grasped the implications.

If I sell the two properties I rent out in the UK before 5 April 2015 I will pay no CGT? ( I have been out of the UK 10 years)

If I do not sell them then I will not only be liable for CGT when and if I do, but also I will be taxed at 20% as my personal allowance will have gone from 10,000 pa to NIL

Have I got this right?

You will only be liable for CGT on any appreciation after April 2015.

The government recognises that this change is not straightforward to introduce. For this reason, the charge will apply from April 2015, and only to gains arising from that date. We will ensure, as far as possible, that the extended CGT charge is fair and sustainable, without imposing unnecessary or intrusive burdens on non-residents.

As for them withdrawing the personal allowance, this has not been decided yet on how and whom this is going to effect !

maybe maybe not details have not been real eased yet its very open to interpretation form that date could easily just mean only for property sold after that date and does not necessarily mean only gains from that date. Its a very dangerous assumption to make that your interpretation is one which will be used.

anyway i prefer safe than sorry and my this wife has already sold 2 of her UK properties even at low price id prefer to have bird in hand than 2 in bush. One she has in London she bought for 5000 pounds in 1976 and sold last year (when this was proposed) for 235,000 and recently resold for 325,000. Market is crazy in London and soon only billionaires ail lbw able to buy decent housing in London or foreigners. Crazy prises in London have been largely due to foreign buyers but this change may put a swift stop to that. Anyway IMO its a total bubble and as I said better bird in hand than 2 in bush.

It is not my interpretation !

The government recognises that this change is not straightforward to introduce. For this reason, the charge will apply from April 2015, and only to gains arising from that date. We will ensure, as far as possible, that the extended CGT charge is fair and sustainable, without imposing unnecessary or intrusive burdens on non-residents.

This consultation seeks views on the proposed design of the charge. It is an opportunity for stakeholders to feed in their views to ensure that the policy change works effectively to achieve its objectives. The government welcomes responses and engagement in the consultation process from all interested parties.

David Gauke Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury

[GavinK]

"...and only to gains arising from that date."

Semantics maybe, but gains will 'arise' from that date since that is the date that the new charge or rule applies. Let's hope that they mean gains will be calculated from the valuation on that date, not gains calculated from some past valuation...

[liddelljohn]

They also have plans for making people pay Inheritance tax before they actually Die !!!!!its meant for the super rich but as usual HMRC will use it on everyone .

[shoppeacenquiet]

They also have plans for making people pay Inheritance tax before they actually Die !!!!!its meant for the super rich but as usual HMRC will use it on everyone .

They seem to be looking at out lapwing trusts altogether. Treat it just as a means to avoid tax like the offshore and company loan type "aggressive avoidance" schemes the elite and certain celebrities were using. Fair enough maybe? I wonder how about company ownership- ie off shore company owns the asset- maybe they will declare all companies must declare the beneficiaries/ owners are and if not then a huge extra tax whacked on.

Just the beginning of all this I think. The governments are in huge debt and overspending at an exponential rate. Higher taxes and further money printing on the way no matter which political party comes in.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Europe go the way of USA and decide to tax citizens earnings no mater where they live, on or off shore, taxed elsewhere or not.

[Eneukman]

Be careful about selling and repurchasing any property you may own in the UK as there is likely to be a time limit in which this will be treated as being tax avoidance and therefore not allowed. In that event the Inland Revenue would treat the original purchase price (after allowing for any improvements) to be the purchase price for capital gains tax purposes rather than the new, higher, purchase price.

When the acquisition price of an asset for capital gains tax was index-linked some 30+ years ago, you could elect (for all assets) to have the value for capital gains tax to be either the original purchase price or the value as at a certain date (6th April 1981 if my memory is correct). When indexation was subsequently removed, I think you were allowed to make a further election but my memory is a bit vague on that.

I suspect therefore that if the exemption from capital gains tax is removed for non-resident tax payers, there will be a similar option to elect for either the original purchase price or the value as at a specific date - perhaps 6th April 2015?

Alan

nonsense its perfectly legal and is tax planning. In any case i actually phoned and asked tax people person i spoke to as usual was some kid who knew nothing at all and put me on to someone else who stated it should prove no problem.

Many many ways to skin a cat you know.

If it ever came to it and it got to silly wed just sell all and not pay. They are hardly likely to pursue my Thai wife are they since we dont live in UK.

But might be better just sell it all and forget UK for investment purposes.

just because your paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get you.

Your idea they will give a choice is based on total misunderstanding of CGT rules over last 20 years. Ive been doing property in UK for over 60 years and in that time bought at least 80 + properties. When they removed indexation their was no such option since argument went they reduced CGT rate to account for it from 40% (long before it was 30%) to 18 or 28% depending on weather it put you into higher tax band or not. Taking away indexation was a very clever move since it effectively increased the CGT tax for a lot of people over long term.

I can't speak about buying and selling houses but when I first started working for the Bank of Scotland 40 + years ago, we would sell and then immediately buy back the same stock exchange investment to realise a gain fot capital gains tax purposes. That was outlawed so we started selling on day one and then buying back the same investment the following day. That too has been outlawed and I find it hard to believe that the same rule doesn't apply to the buying and selling of house

I accept that I was wrong about an option being available when indexation was done away with.

I latterly spent 25 years in a specialist department and on more than one occasion, I had to tell a solicitor (politely) that he was talking <deleted>.

Forgetting about investing in the UK is an option but I'm not sure whether or not I can take my pension fund from the Bank of Scotland and invest it elsewhere and even if I could I'm not sure exactly where would be the best option. If I had to leave my pension where it was then it would make no difference to me whatsoever if I retained my UK investment portfolio.

Alan

I'm fully aware of bead and breakfast for shares that used to occur but its different IMO as far as I know it was used for same shares. Selling one property and buying another is not same unless you sell say to a friend and then buy back from that friend. I did consider getting my wife to sell to me and then after APr next year id simply sell back to her but decided that while i believe legal might be subject to some form of clampdown but i doubt it particularly if few properties were involved and almost certainly not if it was only one. Selling some properties and then buying some different ones i doubt they would or could tax since one could argue you were only readjusting your portfolio particularly if you went from say low yield quality property to high yield low quality rentals or vice versa.

However I'm fed up with constantly having to be one step ahead of taxman in order to preserve for my wife and kids what I've sweated for all my life which is why I've over last 30 + years taken 75%+ of out wealth totally out of UK tax claws. Now i need to decide weather to just give up totally and advise my wife and kids to take out the rest. I probably reduce it further or rather get my wife and kids to reduce further and anyway future is in Asia not in west so perhaps its better.

re your pension fund ?? haven't the government said soon people will be able to withdraw their pension pot. Myself I've always said pensions are a waste of time and everyone should do their own since I was convinced and still am that one day government will steal those as well either directly or by inflation except of course our masters who ensure they have index linked pensions but IMO even those will be taken somehow.

Yes, selling one property and buying another one is perfectly OK. I suspect that buying a property from your wife and then selling it back to her would be caught under some regulations, such as a transaction between connected persons.

As far as my pension is concerned, the government is indeed bringing proposals from next year that will allow people to take the entire pot in cash. From what I've been able to gather, and I'm in the midst of getting an annuity set up for a second small pension. anything over and above the 25% tax free amount will be liable to income tax at your highest rate of tax. It's not therefore as attractive a proposition as I first thought. Also, my current pension arises from a non-contributory company pension so I doubt whether I could take the pot in cash even if I wanted to. I could take the whole of the 2nd pension in cash if I wanted to but would have to take the money out over 2 tax years to avoid a charge to higher rate tax.

Alan

[kimamey]

Do not forget you should be able to offset this against the tax you pay in Thailand under the double taxation agreements.

Seems the chancellor at last is cracking down on tax dodgers, not just the big ones like Starbucks and Amazon.

why would anybody pay tax in Thailand for rental income abroad?

I assume he means you can offset it against tax you pay in Thailand but not that you pay tax in Thailand on UK rental income. At least that's how I read it.

I think you have to pay tax in Thailand on income gained in the UK if it's brought into Thailand. I think this is if it's in the same year. I don't know how this works if you have savings and bring those across and leave the rental income until the following year. This is just what I've gained from reading this thread so it could well be wrong. As for offsetting against Thai income that assumes you have Thai income. I don't know if you can count the remitted income from the UK as Thai to offset against. I'm certain you understand it better than me.

I'm in the situation that I've just sold my house in the UK and whilst I could just live off it until my state pension arrives (unless they introduce a residency test for it) and I inherit some money I would rather use some to gain some income to offset this. I haven't got enough to get an income sufficient to cover my expenses so I need to keep some back and invest the rest. Bank interest being what it is I considered buying something small to let in the UK but I might end up losing some of this without the personal allowance.

I did think about myself or my wife buying in Thailand but the yields look pretty bad in my area so maybe in a tourist location but that could be just as bad.

[kimamey]

Good. Time for the BTL brigade to cough up. They've been screwing the younger generations out of affordable housing and tax dodging for far too long.

Hope interest rates rise too. Should see an end to the madness of the price bubble.

Flame away. I'm not changing my views.

EDIT: I don't mean those folks renting out their only home in Blighty.

It's the single home owners/ renters who will feel this the worst.

Thailand- no capital gains tax, no council tax, no inheritance tax, Same like numerous other countries - why do we need so much tax on us in the UK/ west? Is the population any happier for all the "benefits" they receive? Are crime levels better or worse?

The difference in housing costs between Thailand and the UK is not about tax ; Thai tax is minimal; it is about over regulation and planning laws stifling / obstructing the UK market mechanism.

Interest rates may play a part but if rates rose all of a sudden now it would just make bargains for the cash rich, rental funds etc, while the average youth would still be unable to afford the home because the loans would cost more than their disposable income- especially with the real wage declines and high cost of living.

So the desired results of more private housing available and affordable (which I agree is needed and would welcome) is not achievable by crashing the market; it is only possible by increasing the supply and maintaining economic health at the same time. A construction boom should do wonders for the economy, employment etc too; could force the unemployed work shy to get trained up and build low cost housing.

To answer the first part of your post I don't know if people are happier but there are benefits from the taxes. Roads and footpaths are better. In the UK I could drive out from my house and never slow to walking pace or have to use both sides of the road to find a way through. I never in over 40 years had a tyre wrecked by a pothole as I did by one here which was just one of many potholes on the way to Phayao a couple of weeks ago.

I used to wheel my late wife's wheelchair around on footpaths in the UK. I wouldn't stand a chance here. The crime is probably less as more is probably reported but more detected. there's definitely less road deaths even without the strange reporting rules here.

The planning laws can seem strict and maybe sometimes they are too strict but at least you don't get the free for all you get here. The UK government was saying a few months back that councils were using planning laws to stop building but they pointed out there were several hundred thousand plans approved but delayed due lack of funds. The government has tried to help by giving cheap money to the banks to lend but that's caused the interest rates for savers to stay low. That's the reason I'm thinking of buying somewhere to let out.

This removal of PA will affect those with single properties most as anyone with multiple properties will be paying tax on most of the income anyway but if they're looking after their tenants and charging a fair rent I don't see the problem. Where does MJP think rental properties come from if they aren't bought or inherited? Nobody complains about Avis or other car hire companies buying cars to rent out. BTL is like any other investment like shares, property, P2P lending or just bank savings,you put money in and hope to get some out. Usually the greater the risk the more the return and often linked to supply and demand. BTL landlords aren't avoiding tax they're just getting a personal allowance on their income like anyone else

What I find particularly annoying about these changes is the dishonest way they're presented. The changes to CGT are to remove the discrepancy between resident and non resident where residents pay and non residents don't. I can see the sense in that. The removal of PA specifically creates a difference where none existed.

[Eneukman]

They also have plans for making people pay Inheritance tax before they actually Die !!!!!its meant for the super rich but as usual HMRC will use it on everyone .

Gifts into certain types of trust (such as a discretionary trust) have always been liable to inheritance tax when made. Thus even if the gift was within the lifetime exemption as at date of death, gifts made within the 7 years prior to the gift into the discretionary trust would need to be taken into consideration when calculating any tax that may be payable by the trust. Any gifts made more than 7 years prior to date of death would be wholly exempt from inheritance tax but they could still detrmine whether or not the trust had a liability on the date it was made.

Unlike other trusts, discretionary trusts are not aggregated with the value of the deceased's estate when calculating the total tax payable though any income distributed is liable to income tax at a higher rate (30%?) than normal.

Alan

[Eneukman]

I have read the links, now I want to see if I have grasped the implications.

If I sell the two properties I rent out in the UK before 5 April 2015 I will pay no CGT? ( I have been out of the UK 10 years)

If I do not sell them then I will not only be liable for CGT when and if I do, but also I will be taxed at 20% as my personal allowance will have gone from 10,000 pa to NIL

Have I got this right?

You will only be liable for CGT on any appreciation after April 2015.

The government recognises that this change is not straightforward to introduce. For this reason, the charge will apply from April 2015, and only to gains arising from that date. We will ensure, as far as possible, that the extended CGT charge is fair and sustainable, without imposing unnecessary or intrusive burdens on non-residents.

As for them withdrawing the personal allowance, this has not been decided yet on how and whom this is going to effect !

maybe maybe not details have not been real eased yet its very open to interpretation form that date could easily just mean only for property sold after that date and does not necessarily mean only gains from that date. Its a very dangerous assumption to make that your interpretation is one which will be used.

anyway i prefer safe than sorry and my this wife has already sold 2 of her UK properties even at low price id prefer to have bird in hand than 2 in bush. One she has in London she bought for 5000 pounds in 1976 and sold last year (when this was proposed) for 235,000 and recently resold for 325,000. Market is crazy in London and soon only billionaires ail lbw able to buy decent housing in London or foreigners. Crazy prises in London have been largely due to foreign buyers but this change may put a swift stop to that. Anyway IMO its a total bubble and as I said better bird in hand than 2 in bush.

It is not my interpretation !

The government recognises that this change is not straightforward to introduce. For this reason, the charge will apply from April 2015, and only to gains arising from that date. We will ensure, as far as possible, that the extended CGT charge is fair and sustainable, without imposing unnecessary or intrusive burdens on non-residents.

This consultation seeks views on the proposed design of the charge. It is an opportunity for stakeholders to feed in their views to ensure that the policy change works effectively to achieve its objectives. The government welcomes responses and engagement in the consultation process from all interested parties.

David Gauke Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury

Thank you for posting that. I believe that confirms what I suggested earlier.

When I was working, I had access to various tax books which gave a tremendous amount of information on every UK quoted company including capital changes, take overs, mergers along with the value of each company as at 6th April 1965 when capital gains tax was introduced and as at 30th March 1982 when indexation was introduced. We also had books with complete indexation tables so any the reduction for inflation could be calculated quickly for any sale Indexation could also be used to increase a loss made on the sale of a share.

Must take a note to remind me to record the value of my investments as at 6th April 2015 to ensure I don't make the mistake of making too big a gain in one any one tax year - a possibility if I sell 2 or more investments at present.

Alan

[GavinK]

A company in sole ownership would also be much safer than puttin things in trust, and the gov also announced recently they want to put a stop to trusts also.

I am not an expert but am looking in to the options just now personally. Am I missing something? Thoughts welcome.

I suspect they want to make it less desirable for company ownership. The GBP 2M property value on company owned property that attracts ATED reduces to 500,000 in April 2016. They may well reduce it further so that more company owned properties are caught by this tax.

[shoppeacenquiet]

A company in sole ownership would also be much safer than puttin things in trust, and the gov also announced recently they want to put a stop to trusts also.

I am not an expert but am looking in to the options just now personally. Am I missing something? Thoughts welcome.

I suspect they want to make it less desirable for company ownership. The GBP 2M property value on company owned property that attracts ATED reduces to 500,000 in April 2016. They may well reduce it further so that more company owned properties are caught by this tax.

Can you elaborate on that please? What is the ATED?

Thanks

[shoppeacenquiet]

I heard of a higher rate stamp duty for company ownership over 2 million pounds.

15% or something?

But that is paid at purchase time no? So if buy with a company prior to implementation and plan to hold for a long time or pass on to kids then one gains the benefits of company ownership with out the drawbacks of new rules?

[GavinK]

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ated/basics.htm

"A" being 'annual' and "T" being 'tax'...

Edited August 21, 2014 by GavinK

[shoppeacenquiet]

Thanks

Interesting.

UK is such a pain the back side and looks like only going to get worse. Not worth the hassle any more.

Regards potholes and roads etc. if you look at the budget / spending most of it goes on NHS and Welfare.

Potholes and infrastructure is a tiny amount. And now it is crap worse than Thailand in many places. Norfolk, even rural Sussex many streets have been given up on.

[shoppeacenquiet]

Also the pavements/ side walks, in Thailand is not mess because of a lack of budget, it's more of a cultural issue.

[shoppeacenquiet]

I see Thailand is considering a 10% inheritance and gift tax on anything over 50 million bht.

- bk post this morning

[jacky54]

But that will not apply to everyone of course

[kimamey]

Thanks

Interesting.

UK is such a pain the back side and looks like only going to get worse. Not worth the hassle any more.

Regards potholes and roads etc. if you look at the budget / spending most of it goes on NHS and Welfare.

Potholes and infrastructure is a tiny amount. And now it is crap worse than Thailand in many places. Norfolk, even rural Sussex many streets have been given up on.

Norfolk and Sussex need to get their act together then because it's not as bad as Thailand anywhere I've been. It's worse than it was because of the financial position but as you can claim for damage due to lack of maintenance there's an incentive to at least try to keep up.

At the moment of course it's difficult to know what's going to happen as this is just a consultation and there's an election coming up so if the government changes their priorities might be different.

[icare999]

Some people seem to have trouble differentiating between "consultation" and the finished law.

so true a lot of ignorant folk here but I'm glad we sold some before it comes into force just in case they dont let you revalue at April 2015 Id rather bet on certainties than maybes

[icare999]

maybe maybe not details have not been real eased yet its very open to interpretation form that date could easily just mean only for property sold after that date and does not necessarily mean only gains from that date. Its a very dangerous assumption to make that your interpretation is one which will be used.

anyway i prefer safe than sorry and my this wife has already sold 2 of her UK properties even at low price id prefer to have bird in hand than 2 in bush. One she has in London she bought for 5000 pounds in 1976 and sold last year (when this was proposed) for 235,000 and recently resold for 325,000. Market is crazy in London and soon only billionaires ail lbw able to buy decent housing in London or foreigners. Crazy prises in London have been largely due to foreign buyers but this change may put a swift stop to that. Anyway IMO its a total bubble and as I said better bird in hand than 2 in bush.

It is not my interpretation !

The government recognises that this change is not straightforward to introduce. For this reason, the charge will apply from April 2015, and only to gains arising from that date. We will ensure, as far as possible, that the extended CGT charge is fair and sustainable, without imposing unnecessary or intrusive burdens on non-residents.

This consultation seeks views on the proposed design of the charge. It is an opportunity for stakeholders to feed in their views to ensure that the policy change works effectively to achieve its objectives. The government welcomes responses and engagement in the consultation process from all interested parties.

David Gauke Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury

Thank you for posting that. I believe that confirms what I suggested earlier.

When I was working, I had access to various tax books which gave a tremendous amount of information on every UK quoted company including capital changes, take overs, mergers along with the value of each company as at 6th April 1965 when capital gains tax was introduced and as at 30th March 1982 when indexation was introduced. We also had books with complete indexation tables so any the reduction for inflation could be calculated quickly for any sale Indexation could also be used to increase a loss made on the sale of a share.

Must take a note to remind me to record the value of my investments as at 6th April 2015 to ensure I don't make the mistake of making too big a gain in one any one tax year - a possibility if I sell 2 or more investments at present.

Alan

I can just see you in 5 years say assuming you even have any property at all after getting a huge CGT tax bill

But but you protest in 2014 David Gauke …………………………

IR inspector “yes silly a lot of people misunderstood it was only at consultation stage but law is clear and what he probably really meant was it wont be charged retrospectively on properties already sold If you read it carefully it was in the one sentence. Now if hed been clear and said the taxable base will apply uising values as at April 2015 that woiuld be clear.

You but but but

IR Inspector – sorry I can only work on law as implemented

Meanwhile in a Telegraph article thousands of foreigners complain about implementation of new CGT rules for property and non residents ……………… Lord David Gauke (ex exxhequer secretary) apologises if his remarks were mininterprited but that was what he thought and admitted he should have been clearer

Readers comments were:-

Serves them right they are all parasite landlords

Government should care for its own not give tax breaks to rich foreigners

And in latest news (in future):-

The new wealth tax on assets over 500,000 GBP it is confirmed will include all property home and abroad.

The new labour government has announced it will no longer put up with landlords milking poor people with high rents paid from taxpayers so with immideate affect all properties let to DHSS tenants where government or council are paying the rent will be non shorthold and rents fixed for at least 5 years. In addition a 15% ta surcharge will be imposed from next April on non earned investment income including property rentals and from next April mortgage relief on but to let will be scrapped

[GavinK]

Didn't they rebase when CGT was recently introduced for uk property sales held by offshore companies ?

Edited August 24, 2014 by GavinK

[Eneukman]

I can just see you in 5 years say assuming you even have any property at all after getting a huge CGT tax bill

But but you protest in 2014 David Gauke …………………………

IR inspector “yes silly a lot of people misunderstood it was only at consultation stage but law is clear and what he probably really meant was it wont be charged retrospectively on properties already sold If you read it carefully it was in the one sentence. Now if hed been clear and said the taxable base will apply uising values as at April 2015 that woiuld be clear.

You but but but

IR Inspector – sorry I can only work on law as implemented

Meanwhile in a Telegraph article thousands of foreigners complain about implementation of new CGT rules for property and non residents ……………… Lord David Gauke (ex exxhequer secretary) apologises if his remarks were mininterprited but that was what he thought and admitted he should have been clearer

Readers comments were:-

Serves them right they are all parasite landlords

Government should care for its own not give tax breaks to rich foreigners

And in latest news (in future):-

The new wealth tax on assets over 500,000 GBP it is confirmed will include all property home and abroad.

The new labour government has announced it will no longer put up with landlords milking poor people with high rents paid from taxpayers so with immideate affect all properties let to DHSS tenants where government or council are paying the rent will be non shorthold and rents fixed for at least 5 years. In addition a 15% ta surcharge will be imposed from next April on non earned investment income including property rentals and from next April mortgage relief on but to let will be scrapped

Actually, if I had sold certain investments and subsequently been forced to return to the UK to live for whatever reason, I WOULD have been landed with a substantial capital gains tax bill. If they do make those with non-residence status liable to capital gains tax, I may have to rearrange my investments on a more regular basis to ensure that any gains made are within the exempt limit. It may enforce the sale of certain investments in this tax year where I have a substantial gain (albeit less than the exemption) in this tax year rather than waiting till next year.

Alan

[icare999]

I can just see you in 5 years say assuming you even have any property at all after getting a huge CGT tax bill

But but you protest in 2014 David Gauke …………………………

IR inspector “yes silly a lot of people misunderstood it was only at consultation stage but law is clear and what he probably really meant was it wont be charged retrospectively on properties already sold If you read it carefully it was in the one sentence. Now if hed been clear and said the taxable base will apply uising values as at April 2015 that woiuld be clear.

You but but but

IR Inspector – sorry I can only work on law as implemented

Meanwhile in a Telegraph article thousands of foreigners complain about implementation of new CGT rules for property and non residents ……………… Lord David Gauke (ex exxhequer secretary) apologises if his remarks were mininterprited but that was what he thought and admitted he should have been clearer

Readers comments were:-

Serves them right they are all parasite landlords

Government should care for its own not give tax breaks to rich foreigners

And in latest news (in future):-

The new wealth tax on assets over 500,000 GBP it is confirmed will include all property home and abroad.

The new labour government has announced it will no longer put up with landlords milking poor people with high rents paid from taxpayers so with immideate affect all properties let to DHSS tenants where government or council are paying the rent will be non shorthold and rents fixed for at least 5 years. In addition a 15% ta surcharge will be imposed from next April on non earned investment income including property rentals and from next April mortgage relief on but to let will be scrapped

Actually, if I had sold certain investments and subsequently been forced to return to the UK to live for whatever reason, I WOULD have been landed with a substantial capital gains tax bill. If they do make those with non-residence status liable to capital gains tax, I may have to rearrange my investments on a more regular basis to ensure that any gains made are within the exempt limit. It may enforce the sale of certain investments in this tax year where I have a substantial gain (albeit less than the exemption) in this tax year rather than waiting till next year.

Alan

the except amount is a mere 10,000 one property we sold end of last year for 190,000 was bought back in 1981 for 15,000 so a gain of 175,000. My ex wife's house in UK I bought in 1975 for 16,000 pounds it would now cost 2 million. and tax is on marginal rate of 28% if the gain is added to your income and it puts you into 40% rate.

[Eneukman]

I can just see you in 5 years say assuming you even have any property at all after getting a huge CGT tax bill

But but you protest in 2014 David Gauke …………………………

IR inspector “yes silly a lot of people misunderstood it was only at consultation stage but law is clear and what he probably really meant was it wont be charged retrospectively on properties already sold If you read it carefully it was in the one sentence. Now if hed been clear and said the taxable base will apply uising values as at April 2015 that woiuld be clear.

You but but but

IR Inspector – sorry I can only work on law as implemented

Meanwhile in a Telegraph article thousands of foreigners complain about implementation of new CGT rules for property and non residents ……………… Lord David Gauke (ex exxhequer secretary) apologises if his remarks were mininterprited but that was what he thought and admitted he should have been clearer

Readers comments were:-

Serves them right they are all parasite landlords

Government should care for its own not give tax breaks to rich foreigners

And in latest news (in future):-

The new wealth tax on assets over 500,000 GBP it is confirmed will include all property home and abroad.

The new labour government has announced it will no longer put up with landlords milking poor people with high rents paid from taxpayers so with immideate affect all properties let to DHSS tenants where government or council are paying the rent will be non shorthold and rents fixed for at least 5 years. In addition a 15% ta surcharge will be imposed from next April on non earned investment income including property rentals and from next April mortgage relief on but to let will be scrapped

Actually, if I had sold certain investments and subsequently been forced to return to the UK to live for whatever reason, I WOULD have been landed with a substantial capital gains tax bill. If they do make those with non-residence status liable to capital gains tax, I may have to rearrange my investments on a more regular basis to ensure that any gains made are within the exempt limit. It may enforce the sale of certain investments in this tax year where I have a substantial gain (albeit less than the exemption) in this tax year rather than waiting till next year.

Alan

the except amount is a mere 10,000 one property we sold end of last year for 190,000 was bought back in 1981 for 15,000 so a gain of 175,000. My ex wife's house in UK I bought in 1975 for 16,000 pounds it would now cost 2 million. and tax is on marginal rate of 28% if the gain is added to your income and it puts you into 40% rate.

Bear in mind that you will be able to increase your acquisition value by using indexation (when it was in force) as well as the cost of any renovations you may have done. Still a massive gain though.

I still think that of those of us who are currently non-resident for capital gains tax purposes will be allowed to use the value as at 6th April 2015 rather than the original acquisition value. I recall that when calculating capital gains tax when looking at gains made after indexation came into force that tax payers had an option of using the value as at that date OR the original acquisition value, whichever was higher, though whatever decision was taken had to apply to ALL assets. I still believe that this will be the case should this be introduced.

I currently have unrealised gains of around £30,000 on my investment portfolio though a more accurate calculation would be required as that is based on average values rather than the Last In First Out principle. I do have realised losses of around £25,000 but again a more accurate computation would be required as that is again an average over many years and a more accurate year by year computation would be required before that actual loss for capital gains tax purposes could be ascertained almost certainly requiring some messy indexation calculations for my holding in Bank of Scotland (HBOS when I eventually sold them).

Alan

Alan

[icare999]

I can just see you in 5 years say assuming you even have any property at all after getting a huge CGT tax bill

But but you protest in 2014 David Gauke …………………………

IR inspector “yes silly a lot of people misunderstood it was only at consultation stage but law is clear and what he probably really meant was it wont be charged retrospectively on properties already sold If you read it carefully it was in the one sentence. Now if hed been clear and said the taxable base will apply uising values as at April 2015 that woiuld be clear.

You but but but

IR Inspector – sorry I can only work on law as implemented

Meanwhile in a Telegraph article thousands of foreigners complain about implementation of new CGT rules for property and non residents ……………… Lord David Gauke (ex exxhequer secretary) apologises if his remarks were mininterprited but that was what he thought and admitted he should have been clearer

Readers comments were:-

Serves them right they are all parasite landlords

Government should care for its own not give tax breaks to rich foreigners

And in latest news (in future):-

The new wealth tax on assets over 500,000 GBP it is confirmed will include all property home and abroad.

The new labour government has announced it will no longer put up with landlords milking poor people with high rents paid from taxpayers so with immideate affect all properties let to DHSS tenants where government or council are paying the rent will be non shorthold and rents fixed for at least 5 years. In addition a 15% ta surcharge will be imposed from next April on non earned investment income including property rentals and from next April mortgage relief on but to let will be scrapped

Actually, if I had sold certain investments and subsequently been forced to return to the UK to live for whatever reason, I WOULD have been landed with a substantial capital gains tax bill. If they do make those with non-residence status liable to capital gains tax, I may have to rearrange my investments on a more regular basis to ensure that any gains made are within the exempt limit. It may enforce the sale of certain investments in this tax year where I have a substantial gain (albeit less than the exemption) in this tax year rather than waiting till next year.

Alan

the except amount is a mere 10,000 one property we sold end of last year for 190,000 was bought back in 1981 for 15,000 so a gain of 175,000. My ex wife's house in UK I bought in 1975 for 16,000 pounds it would now cost 2 million. and tax is on marginal rate of 28% if the gain is added to your income and it puts you into 40% rate.

Bear in mind that you will be able to increase your acquisition value by using indexation (when it was in force) as well as the cost of any renovations you may have done. Still a massive gain though.

I still think that of those of us who are currently non-resident for capital gains tax purposes will be allowed to use the value as at 6th April 2015 rather than the original acquisition value. I recall that when calculating capital gains tax when looking at gains made after indexation came into force that tax payers had an option of using the value as at that date OR the original acquisition value, whichever was higher, though whatever decision was taken had to apply to ALL assets. I still believe that this will be the case should this be introduced.

I currently have unrealised gains of around £30,000 on my investment portfolio though a more accurate calculation would be required as that is based on average values rather than the Last In First Out principle. I do have realised losses of around £25,000 but again a more accurate computation would be required as that is again an average over many years and a more accurate year by year computation would be required before that actual loss for capital gains tax purposes could be ascertained almost certainly requiring some messy indexation calculations for my holding in Bank of Scotland (HBOS when I eventually sold them).

Alan

Alan

I'm getting old so can't remember exactly but over years before i permanently left uk (wish id done it long before it would have saved me a fortune in CGT) i paid around 1/2 million gbp in CGT. First it was increased from 30% o 40% then they stopped indexation and put in flat rate but no indexation.

I certainly hope your right and they do allow it to be revalued from 2015 but i personally dont hold out to much hope on that.

its theft really consider buying a place for say mere 100,000 and over 20 years inflation is say 200% and property keeps up with inflation so you've made a gain of 200,000 gbp which at todays rate will (almost all of it) be taxes at 28% or 56,000 tax but what you have left 244,000 in real terms is only worth around 82,000 and you've lost nearly in real terms 20%. Nice one Mr taxman. And just because at moment inflation is low and property soaring IMO inflation over 20 years can easily be 20% or even 500% (i remember the 70's) and unless only super rich are going to own their own house prices have to correct back to normal. Of course you have rent for all that time. Improvements never account for much and most investors replace or call it replacement since it can then be offset against tax now not some time in future and you cant index improvements either.

I expect more and more taxes for landlords since they are an easy target and while I've made a lot over 50 years in property do feel good times will end in next few years but then id not buy stocks at moment so gold and silver are only alternatives IMO after all they can't tax that or its almost impossible to do so.

So we've gone form 100% property to 60% property (only 25% left in UK) 10% shares and 30% gold and silver (physical only)

[Eneukman]

I think you're right about more and more problems for landlords yet the opposite should be happening as it gets more and more difficult for young people to be able to afford to buy a house.

If the government don't allow a revaluation as at 6th April 2015, I may need to go back at least to the 2009/2010 tax year to see exactly what losses I have available to carry forward to future years.

Alan

Edited August 27, 2014 by Eneukman

[jhwest]

Any news of progress on the proposal, announced some months ago by the British government, to allow Brits resident in non-EU countries to receive free treatment under the NHS without having to return to their homeland for six months to qualify?

Many of us old 'uns are taxed at source on their state and private pensions (if they are lucky enough to have one) and are too long in the tooth to obtain medical insurance for Thai hospitals. Under current rules, if we need surgery or other expensive treatment on the NHS we either have fly back and wait half a year - by which time we could be beyond medical help! - or bear the full cost.

We seem to be getting less and less for a lifetime of paying taxes and National Insurance contributions and I have a nasty suspicion that the plan to restore our NHS rights was just one of those pre-election kites that will never fly.

Hi

My wife had been asking this very quiestion this morning and asked before and sorting out my State Pension forms and sending them off, but yes googled under "Brits abroad could have rights to free NHS treatment restored. Daily Telegraph 12 Sept 2013 and a huge consultancy and result in 2014 and can not see anything anywhere, but do remember reading someting about the 7 year of NI contributions and apparantly if you are at State Pension age to quote the article you are entitled to some benefits if you have 10 years continuous contributions in the UK.

Yes still nothing on the Personal allowances and think they will slip it in the next budget 2015/16 when no one notices it (yeah politicians the World over scum) and was under the understanding (my understanding dangerous!!!) that people with rental income or employment income would be targeted, but then thought they might just abolish it completely. So everyone will pay 20 per cent on everything!!!

Edited February 3, 2015 by jhwest

[yardrunner]

Do not forget you should be able to offset this against the tax you pay in Thailand under the double taxation agreements.

Seems the chancellor at last is cracking down on tax dodgers, not just the big ones like Starbucks and Amazon.

Please check the double taxation agreement between UK and Thailand, property is only taxable in the country it is earned in and private pensions are not mentioned in the double taxation agreement so you can not claim tax paid back. this from the legal department of the Thai revenue office