Avoid the Capital Gains Tax hike

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 12 May 2010  |  Comments 33 comments

The Conservative/LibDem government will raise Capital Gains Tax from 18% to, say, 40%. Here are six tricks to beat this new tax rate!

Avoid the Capital Gains Tax hike

So, after days of nervous horse-trading, we have a new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. (I’ve already abbreviated this to the ConDem government, ho ho!)

New government, new taxes

Without delay, the ConDems have got cracking on their new tax policies. Predictably, they’re following in Labour’s footsteps by going after the rich in order to provide tax breaks to low earners.

One of the very first proposals is for Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to be ‘increased significantly’ for non-business assets. Currently, CGT is charged at 18% above an annual tax-free allowance, which is £10,100 for the 20010/11 tax year (but only £5,050 for trustees).

It’s expected that the coalition government will bring CGT in line with income-tax rates. In other words, people making profits above the annual allowance could see their tax rate rise from 18% to, say, 40%, in line with higher-rate tax. What’s more, the 1% of workers who earn over £150,000 a year could see their CGT almost triple to 50%, but this isn’t likely just yet.

The money raised by higher CGT collection will be used to raise, over time, the yearly personal allowance for income tax above its current level of £6,475 to as much as £10,000. This will take effect from April 2011, and could completely free 3.6 million people from the tax net.

A let-off for business owners

The good news for owners of small businesses is that they should not lose the CGT break they currently enjoy. This gives entrepreneurs a concessionary CGT rate of just 10% on the first £2 million of lifetime gains (increased from £1 million on 1 April 2010). Although this ‘entrepreneurs’ relief’ may well be reshaped, it is likely to remain on broadly similar terms.

Related how-to guide

Become a buy-to-let landlord

How to pick the right property, get the right mortgage, take out the right insurance, choose the right letting agent and most importantly, unravel all that red tape!

To me, this seems like a sound idea, as taxing business owners too heavily would discourage entrepreneurs from wording harder and taking more risks in order to make higher profits and hire more staff.

Bad news for investors and landlords

However, for investors in shares and property (including owners of second, holiday and overseas homes), CGT could leap from 18% to as much as 40-50%.

This will make investing in listed businesses and buy-to-let property far less attractive.

What’s more, it will hit the housing market, as property owners rush to sell before the new CGT rate takes effect.

While small-time property entrepreneurs across the UK are crying into their cornflakes, early sellers should get the best prices if this year’s “spring bounce” appears.

Nevertheless, higher rates of CGT will alter the investment equation for BTL landlords, making it much harder to generate sufficient profits to compensate for low or negative rental yields after paying expenses and mortgage interest.

How you can dodge this tax

There is an obvious knock-on effect from this announcement: owners who are sitting on large capital gains will rush to sell their assets -- particularly property and shares -- before the CGT rate rise takes effect. Thus, in the days ahead, I expect to see a flood of sales of shares and investment properties going on the market.

Without further ado, here are six ways that you can avoid paying higher rates of CGT:

1.     Take profits now

There may be just weeks before the new CGT rate is introduced; it could happen in a proposed Budget on 24 June. Thus, it makes sense to ‘crystallise’ some capital gains now, in order to minimise your tax liability.

Therefore, root through your portfolio to find gains that could be realised now via asset sales that minimise your exposure to CGT. Don’t forget that gains totalling £10,100 or less this tax year are not subject to CGT (which means that hardly anyone pays much CGT these days).

2.     Exploit your spouse

By this, I don’t mean treating him or her badly!

What you should do is make full use of your spouse’s yearly CGT allowance. Transferring assets between spouses (or same-sex Civil Partners) does not attract CGT, so you can gift some assets to your partner, who can then use his/her allowance to avoid CGT on a further £10,100 of gains. Simples!

3.     The ‘Bed and ISA’ trick

Find out the easy way to invest your ISA and beat the returns on cash

One neat trick is to crystallise some gains now by selling assets (such as shares, investment funds, bonds, etc.) and then buying them back inside a tax shelter known as an Individual Savings Account (ISA).

You can invest up to £10,200 this tax year inside an ISA.

However, you can do this by selling existing holdings, rather than putting new cash inside this tax shelter.

  • You buy 1,000 shares in Great Company plc for £5 each, a total of £5,000.
  • Great Company plc lives up to its name, doubling its share price to £10.
  • You decide to crystallise your profit of £5,000 by selling your 1,000 shares for £10,000.
  • You then immediately buy back your 1,000 shares for £10,000 inside your ISA.

In summary, you have made a gain of £5,000 and repurchased your entire holding of £10,000 inside an ISA, safe from future tax grabs. Do bear in mind that ‘Bed and ISAing’ means paying selling and buying commissions and, possibly, stamp duty at 0.5% of the purchase price.

4.     The ‘Bed and SIPP’ trick

Another variation on the ‘Bed and ISA’ trick is the ‘Bed and SIPP’ method. Instead of selling assets and then buying them back inside an ISA, you buy them back inside a Self-Invested Personal Pension. The end result is the same: you crystallise a gain and, safely inside your SIPP, future profits become tax free.

5.     Offset losses against gains

Capital losses offset capital gains, so a gain of £20,000 combined with a loss of £10,000 gives you a net gain of £10,000 -- which is below the CGT threshold. Therefore, by crystallising losses alongside gains, you can minimise your total exposure to CGT.

6.     Grab income-tax relief

By investing in special tax-efficient schemes which provide capital to small businesses, you can claim back much of the income tax and CGT which you have previously paid. These schemes, known as Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) and Enterprise Investment Schemes (EISs) can be extremely risky, so they are best left to the most experienced and wealthiest investors.

Recent question on this topic

Finally, it would make most sense for the new CGT rate to come into force on 6 April 2011. However, the ConDem government could be sneaky by backdating any increase in CGT to today or the beginning of this tax year on 6 April 2010. However, this would be most unfair on investors who have sold before this announcement, so I hope the ConDems don’t get greedy and go for this ‘retrospective’ clawback.

More: Start saving inside an ISA | What a new government means for you | House prices are going to crash again

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (33)

  • Holywellpunter
    Love rating 0
    Holywellpunter said

    The CGT tax level for non business assets is being quoted as around 40% to fall in line with income tax. What if profits are say £30,000 which would mean £20,000 taxable after taking into account the £10,000 CGT annual allowance. Assuming no other taxable income would this £20,000 be taxed at standard rate of 20% or go straight onto the 40% being qouted ?

    Any clues on this would be appreciated.

    Report on 12 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • supasap
    Love rating 19
    supasap said

    40 per cent is simply too high and will encourage second home owners to move into the second home for a reasonable period of time to make it qualify as main residence and then sell it as CGT free............. it is a bit of a clart on but if you are sitting on a profit of say £100k on your holiday home and view this as a major part of your retirement plan then to suffer a jump of more than 100 per cent in a tax hit is not palatable - I thought Brown had it right on this........ people don't mind paying about a fifth in taxes whether it be income or VAT or CGT but once it starts going to 40% then it is too much for people and they are incentivised to dodge it. I think we should all pay our taxes but it is not fair that some people who have invested in property on a long term basis (because they were not confident about shares and pensions) to be hit with such an increase. I think if I owned a second home I would go through the effort of selling up and then moving into second home and then selling that later to realise profit but at 18 or 20 per cent tax rate I would probably just pay up. It is all about what is a reasonable amount to be hit by.

    Report on 13 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Holywellpunter
    Love rating 0
    Holywellpunter said

    Absolutely agree with you supasap, we don't mind paying reasonable levels of tax but 40% is too high when we have bought these properties to provide for our retirement.

    I am considering selling a BTL flat that I bought in 1996 to clear current mortgages and set me up for retirement so I was interested in hearing you talk about moving into the property as a main residence to avoid CGT. Do you know how long you would have to live in and designate it as a main residence for. Also would your existing home become a holiday home to revert to main residence when investment property is sold.

     

     

    Report on 13 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • supasap
    Love rating 19
    supasap said

    Holywellpunter (my mam lives near a place called Holywell)..... I would consult an expert but my understanding is that you are only allowed one main residence for tax purposes so it sounds relatively simple if you sell where you live and then move into the holiday home and then sell that...... but if you don't sell your main residence then I suppose sometime along the line the Revenue will say well that was not your main residence all the time when you (eventually)sold it so we want x per cent of profit.......... so to avoid it I think you really have to move and sell, problem comes for those people that have got profits on say 10 houses....... it would take ages to avoid it and that's my point,,,,,, with CGT at about a fifth then most people are not going to be bothered to move and sell but at 40 per cent it will stick in a lot of people's throats especially when they believe that further capital growth is not going to happen for ages as some sort of compensation..... just seems a huge jump from 18 to 40 per cent........ but there may be other ways around it, I don't know but no doubt some experts will guide us

    Report on 13 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • stu531
    Love rating 9
    stu531 said

    I think 40% is entirely reasonable for what has been a basic profit off of house price inflation, based on very little effort. If it was actual work, a rate of return (still taxed at 40%) is huge if you bought your second house before the house price increases of the last few years.

    Not only that, but ethically, if this move means that more residents in rural areas are able to buy a house (rather than the empty second homes of city dwellers), that can only be a good thing longer term - the return of village communities. Personally I'm looking forward to a reduction in house prices and a return of home ownership, rather than holiday homes and investment properties.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • conwp1
    Love rating 2
    conwp1 said

    my understanding is if you stay in the property for a year (or say you stay in property ie. vote register) and sell it then you are not liable for CGT, then once sold change your main residence back to your origional home....please correct me if i am wrong?

    can they change CGT half way through a financial year, seems strange to me?

    spoke to tax advisor yesterday and he thought it was hard to do, again could be wrong?

    Question ....VAT 20% by september?

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • wernerburger
    Love rating 6
    wernerburger said

    I think the rise in CGT is long overdue and prevents income being siphoned off into capital gain as often happens. The government however are no mugs and raising CGT at this point is tipping the hat to the anticipated future rise in inflation that will occur some years down the line; and this is were the

    implementation of CGT is wrong. CGT should be index linked, otherwise

    the government profit from no effective rise in the value of the asset. Also the rate should be trimmed at your top level tax rate, be that 20, 40 or 50.

    As for housing, there shouldn't be any exemption on property main residence or not. Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with CGT on the sale. This would have the benefit of damping down socially unhelpful rises in housing costs and preventing the tax avoidance measures mentioned above.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Underdog320
    Love rating 0
    Underdog320 said

    @stu531

    Having been a reluctant landlord for the last 15 years, I can honestly say that it is more hassle than it's worth - unless it is your prime/sole business, then the rewards are virtually nil.

    My wife and I met as neighbours in a block of flats around 20 years ago. When it came time to move on and start a family we couldn't afford to take the double hit of negative equity that we were now both in. (Bought for 70K, flats in the last big adjustment selling for just over 40K!)

    We are both professional people and, with the help of our bank, borrowed to the hilt to buy our family house whilst renting out our flats - which were/are fully mortgaged.

    Most years, we have made absolutely zero profit from rental income, more often than not we make a loss - but yes, the rental does offset the mortgage interest somewhat, and in recent years we should have made a profit.

    But, we have now had 3 tenants do 'runners', owing large sums of money, and in 2 cases a significant amount of damage to the property has been caused too (resulting in a new kitchen in one, and a new water tank and complete new floors in the other!) Not to mention fending of the bailiffs from utility companies who also haven't been paid by these people. It used to be heartbreaking seeing what was once our homes being treated this way by some (not by a long way all, it has to be stressed), but we are long past these emotions.

    The plan had been to allow these properties to crawl out of negative equity and let our children inherit them as a way onto the property ladder. Situations change, and with one of our sons being severely disabled and who will never lead an independent life - we have decided to sell at least one of the flats, using any gains to fund a 'granny' extension to our house to allow him to carry on living with us in years to come.

    What I'm trying to illustrate, is that there is a human element of unintended consequences to much legislation. The plans we had put in place to secure our son's future could possibly be thrown into turmoil by what is seen by some as a fair tax on 'easy pickings'.

    Now, as others have said, 18% or so tax is a fair amount to pay. 40% is an amount that I will avoid in entirety by any legal means possible. So the government, instead of gaining a little from me will simply see it's returns diminish, which in the long term impinges on everyone, as the budget has to be balanced somehow. This in turn will create even more resentment between the 'haves' and 'have nots', as the 'haves' will be seen to be avoiding their collective responsibility.

    As far as the figures go, our flats cost 70K a pop in 1990, having just put one on the market, we are expecting to realise 140K, less fees, but to keep it simple, a 70K capital gain. So that's 3.5K per year, before tax, hardly a fortune, and certainly on the margins of being worthwhile for the effort involved.

    If it comes to the crunch, we'll simply keep hold of the flats, pay off the mortgages in 5 years time when the endowments pay up (ha!) - maybe then we'll see a worthwhile return - but the taxman will see very little. If CGT were to stay somewhere close to it's present level then I would not bother avoiding it and would be happy to 'do my bit'.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • supasap
    Love rating 19
    supasap said

    agree with you entirely underdog320............ it has to be recognised that a hike to 40% is simply too much, a big change in goal posts, underdog has planned for his family's future using property maybe because of the very poor performance of shares over the last decade or maybe because of the poor pension returns of money purchase schemes........ so property has been main choice of many....... all these people are doing is preparing for the future without the benefit of a gold plated index linked pension that the politicians have...... they don't have to worry about their standard of living when they retire, they know exactly what it will be, guaranteed by us taxpayers........ so yes entirely sympathise with underdog and holywell....... if it goes to 40% then owners will go through the hassle of moving or whatever it takes to legally avoid the tax but at 18% they are far more likely to just cough up...... the politicians need to think how they would feel if their retirement plans kept being placed in jeapardy eg one year it is 2/3 of final salary, next year they are told it is max of 1/3 of final salary with linking reduced to RPI less x per cent and then next year it changes to money purchase scheme etc........

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Underdog320
    Love rating 0
    Underdog320 said

    @wernerburger

    I feel the idea of CGT on ALL property sales has some merit. However, being taxed at 40%, just because you're just in the 40% income tax bracket is grossly unfair.

    A simpler, much lower tax, i.e similar to StampDuty would be better. No-one would bother trying to avoid it and the coffers of the treasury are swelled.

    It may have more unintended consequences though, as people try to recoup this tax, and may actually artificially increase house prices. Or maybe people will stay in their houses longer, so reducing supply and again house prices climb.

    I'm not saying that will happen, just that it's worth a pause for thought.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • stu531
    Love rating 9
    stu531 said

    I can see your points (Underdog) and that you've used property as a way of securing a future for your children, which is good and indeed noble. I think it's far more ethical that you've done it for that reason, rather than just making money out of others.

    However, what's unfair about the whole thing is that others will see their children bereft of a house, because they will never be able to afford one.

    For that reason alone, I think a hike in CGT may persuade people away from the 'BTL goldmine'. Ultimately, investments in shares, companies and pensions go toward helping the economy and people in general; investing in a property portfolio simply drives up demand, forces prices up and prevents families from getting onto the ladder.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mick James
    Love rating 25
    Mick James said

    It's hard to know how to avoid future CGT as other provisions of the tax will change as well. But it's worth pointing out that at the moment simply moving into a house and designating it as your main residence does not absolve you of all CGT liability, only a proportion relating to the period you live or have lived in it (but if you live in it at any point the last three years of ownership are currently disregarded, so it's worth doing)

    So in the example above only 12 of the last 20 years count for CGT purposes, so the taxable gain is £70k less "private residence relief" of £28k. There is also "lettings relief" equal to private residence relief (up to a maximum of £40k). So the taxable gain now would be £14k or £7k each--well below the CGT allowance.

    In 5 years time--all things being equal--you would start to be liable for CGT once the profit gets to about £90k.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Underdog320
    Love rating 0
    Underdog320 said

    @stu531

    I would agree that there have been many people enter into BTL that have been tempted by 'easy gains' - however, BTL is a vital part of the housing market, and destroying entirely the business model for it would, I think, be shortsighted.

    People still need a place to live whilst saving for the elusive deposits required to buy themselves. Many simply don't want to buy, as their employment may require a move every few years or so.

    We need a way of encouraging good landlords to stay in BTL and discourage rogues from milking money from their tenants and the taxpayers. Don't get me wrong, I don't think BTL landlords should be charities, there is more effort than many realise in running BTLs and this effort should be rewarded - what I think we're asking here is how much should those rewards be? - and on a wider scale, how do we penalise bad landlords (and how do we determine what makes a bad landlord?)

    I've already indicated that at 18% I will not bother trying to avoid CGT, but at 40% I certainly would. I suspect that up to around 25% most people would pay up - much more than that and the exercise for those that have going into BTL to make money either won't be worth it, or they'll simply find a way to avoid it entirely.

    If you want to stop BTL in it's tracks then more 'social housing' seems to be the key - but that's a whole different can of worms.....

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Holywellpunter
    Love rating 0
    Holywellpunter said

    Thanks guys, beginning to get some clues on which way to go with this. (avoiding CGT if it comes in at 40%) If 20% ok, no problems I will pay it.

    The anti BTL group seem to think we all get rich out of this. Not so, we take risks in re-mortgaging our homes as in my case to hope that we can run a successful rental business for a few years whilst accumulating capital hopefully for our futures.

    Renting out homes is not always a bowl of cherries as has been pointed out and it can be extremely stressful at times so I feel we are entitled to some profit; which of course will prevent us having to fall back on the state in our retirement.  

    I run my five BTL properties abiding by the law at all times and maintain them to a high standard. I mainly provide homes for people on housing benefit who are unable to provide for themselves for whatever reason. mental health problems, unfit for work etc. 

    I consider this to be a socially acceptable way to provide for my future. Please don't say that all BTL are responsible for housing shortages or high prices, we provide a necessary service.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Underdog320
    Love rating 0
    Underdog320 said

    @Mick

    Thanks for the ideas, we will be talking to my wife's accountant over the next few days on how to proceed. I have no beef with paying tax, I just want to pay a fair amount and not be taken for a bottomless pit that the government seems inevitably determined to bleed dry (I have children for that!)

    Indeed, the idea of trying to avoid tax entirely upsets me, I think I'm a conservative with a 'small c'. Having seen the dedication of many people looking after my son, many of whom are not far off the minimum wage I willingly give my fair share in order to provide for that service, not just for my son, but for others in similar (and worse) positions. It is my hope that Mr Cameron, having been touched by similar tragic circumstances will always strive to look after people less fortunate and unable to look after themselves. Paying taxes for that, I happily do - there are other things I am less than happy to pay for though - and again I digress.......!

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Burningham
    Love rating 0
    Burningham said

    I think there is a real problem in the advice given to sell now to avoid the increase in CGT. The main issue I see is that I consider it would be almost impossible to have different rates and allowances applying to Capital Gains Tax for different parts of the same tax year. It would create enormous problems for all software including that used by HMRC and also with the design of the Tax Return to be issued to cover this year. As we are still reasonably early in the tax year I cant discount the possibility that the increase may be backdated to the start of the tax year in which case its already to late !!!

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • matchmade
    Love rating 38
    matchmade said

    How about transferring property assets into a company? There's little advantage in CGT terms with transferring a straight investment portfolio, but if you can modify your investments so they are mainly an active renovation and development business, rather than pure BTL, then the company's activities qualify as "trading" and you will be eligible for entrepreneur's relief. If CGT does go back to 40% with no indexation, I would recommend that any long-term BTL investor should look seriously at setting up a property company. One book I found very useful on this topic is Carl Bayley's "Using a Property Company to Save Tax", published by Tax Cafe.

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • djmozy
    Love rating 0
    djmozy said

    I've got a good idea. If capital gains is based on your rate of income tax then if you have a major capital gain then take a 6 month holiday if you are in 40% bracket so that your annual income is in the 20% bracket. Also with regards to shares, if you want to avoid capital gains tax then sell your shares and spreadbet them for the same amount which is capital gains tax free.

    Harel

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • djmozy
    Love rating 0
    djmozy said

    You can also make payments to your pension to keep yourself in the 20% bracket

    Report on 14 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • unsworthsteve
    Love rating 22
    unsworthsteve said

    Lots of people here who I suspect have never suffered the pernicious effects of higher rate taxes. Welcome to our wonderful world where you give back 40% to the nation of every pound you earn over say 40 grand (shortly to be half of stuff over 150k). No wonder many of us are planning on decamping. [Good riddance I hear some of you foolishly say, as our spending power evacuates the country to the benefit of some other nation like Oz, Thailand or Cyprus]

    The low CGT rate was meant to partly compensate for the inflationary effects on assets and indexation relief was removed at the same time as the CGT rate reduction to 18%. If the rate moves to 40% with no indexing we really would be back to the bad old years of the 70s where investment income was seen as evil and taxed at a top rate of 98%. Dear oh dear - pass me another beer please!

    I always thought CGT was a very low revenue generator for the Government - no way is this going to provide an appreciable chunk of funding for a £10,000 lower tax limit (which I agree wholeheartedly with).

    The only hope is that the new Governement produces a complete overhaul of our arcane taxation system and removes the need for the phallanxes of experts to interpret and work around every little tinkering that Gordon liked to do.

    My guess is that CGT will go to say 25% with no indexation relief (Please dear god keep us away from indexation relief - too complicated) and most of the lower limit funding will come from VAT increases - thus taking back a chunk of what has been handed out to the lower paid, but keeping a juicy headline gimme for the new coalition.

    Report on 15 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • n123bc
    Love rating 0
    n123bc said

    40 % is too much all the Brits will look to other countries for investing,should it not be an encouragement to bring money into the UK?

    I have a question and not sure if any one knows where I stand as not to clued up on all the tax stuff.

    I am Expat currently in Spain, moved here end of 2006. I havea property still in the UK and have been renting here in Spain ever since..thank god i never brought like may brits here in Spain! any way will the 40% CG tax hit me on the propert thaty my wife and i currently rent out in the UK, if say we sell next year or in a few years time? are they likey to sting me with tax in another way too??!! we have still a mortgage on this property (only have this property and was previous home in the uk) , but obviously not lived in it since end of 2006. alsowill I need to move back to the UK for a short while before selling to not be affected by 40%??

    lets hope this 'new' goverment does not push all brits (like me) away from the UK in order not to get striped of all there assests in the future

    Report on 15 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • geedoubleu
    Love rating 1
    geedoubleu said

    What I find strange is we accept high percentages on higher earning as acceptable.

    It an outrageous way of taxing.

    People on a 100k paying the normal 20% would be paying 20k in tax. Compare this to someone on 20k, who is only paying 4k in tax. This is already a tax on the rich.

    To then double their tax rate to 40% on higher earnings is just outrageous.

    If they stopped charging 40% and higher tax rates then the rich would stop avoiding it.

    Why do successions of governments not do this, what am I missing? 

    Report on 16 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • wilde21
    Love rating 0
    wilde21 said

    I decided to move abroad a year ago for the simple fact I could only see things moving in one direction and that direction would in every sense be detrimental to me and my personal gains. It just doesn’t seem right that I have dedicated my life to educate myself, to work hard to gain the best possible financial position possible to allow me to provide for my future family. All the while I’m doing this it seems the government are happy to acknowledge my hard work and to reward for my contribution towards our economy they will take more of my hard earned money and give it to the low earning families. I’m not saying that there isn’t a proportion of low earning families that do deserve a helping hand and families that have difficult circumstances like a disabled child that needs help and support. We also have a problem with over helping the low earning families that don’t deserve constant handouts, the families that choose to have 5 children although they couldn’t provide for one of them with their own earnings? I’m talking about being irresponsible and expecting us high earners to then help them out.

    You can probably tell I don’t have a particularly good view of the Uk which is why they no longer get a penny of my money. Instead choosing to live abroad, I still have a property I rent out in the Uk but because I have a NT tax code you can then apply to pay no capital gains on Uk property.

    I do hope to return to the UK at some point but I can’t see it being any time soon.

    Report on 16 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Holywellpunter
    Love rating 0
    Holywellpunter said

    Geedoubleu asks the question "why do high earners pay a higher rate of tax"

    Methinks it is because it is politically acceptable as the voting masses like to see them paying more than their fair share.

    I think there is a common theme coming through on this thread which is that folks who have worked hard to earn a bob or two want to hang onto some of it although they don't mind paying the same tax rate as everyone else. This is because Governments are seen to spend huge amounts of it on underserving people.

    We have a distant relative who has eight children and a husband. They are not unintelligent people nor are they Catholics (sorry any RC amongst you) Needless to say it is their lifestyle choice. They have applied for another larger home so that they won't be overcrowded and no doubt they will get it.

    The original theme of this thread was how do we alleviate what may be potentially up to 40% CGT on property disposals. This makes me even more determined to find a legal way or worst case scenario hang onto a property I would rather sell.

    It makes me very angry and this is why grafters don't like paying excessive taxes.

    Report on 17 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mknee
    Love rating 6
    mknee said

    Any indication how employee stock options will be affected??

    I wonder if we will be lucky enough to be considered "business assets"?

    I doubt it :-(

    Report on 17 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MixedCase
    Love rating 2
    MixedCase said

    I'm not that worried about the CGT rate, but any change in the threshold: I have a fair chunk of my savings in bond that should pay out a capital gain of £7500 after the fixed term, with three years to run. For me that is effectively tax free.

    But if I pay CGT on anything over, say, £1000 I would have been better off keeping it in a series of one year bonds and paying income tax, particularly as I'm not a top-rate tax payer.

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • BarryinCornwall
    Love rating 0
    BarryinCornwall said

    I believe it can also be avoided by selling your "home" first. Capital Gains Tax is not payable on your "principal residence" or home. Then sell the second property after living in it for at least six months. Register with a GP in the area, get on the electoral role, bank accounts, council tax etc etc. When the second dwelling is then sold you are legally selling your "home". It would be very difficult for the Inland Revenue to argue it isn't your "principal main residence" if it's the only property your currently own. We are all entitled to a roof over our heads, after all!!

    Report on 25 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • fourorsix
    Love rating 0
    fourorsix said

    What happens when you live in a house for ~10 years, then move and rent it out for ~3 years? Do you pay CGT on the whole amount of gain between when you bought it ~13 years ago and now?

    I'm asking as I'm in the early stages of buying from someone in this situation and I am scared they will pull out when the budget comes out!

    Report on 27 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • lobbylud
    Love rating 0
    lobbylud said

    This my scenario... I bought a house in Devon on a mortgage in 2002. A year later I had to move to australia temporarily and so let the house out. A year later I sold it to my tenant and at the same time bought a house in Norfolk, also on a mortgage (all this while I was living in Australia). I then let out the Norfolk house. Four years later I bought another house in Devon, again on a mortgage and again letting it out. I am returning to the UK permanantly end of this year and move into the Devon house. Some time in 2011 or later I will sell the Norfolk house and use the equity to reduce the mortgage on the Devon house.

    Any advice on how to deal with all this re CGT? I should add that I have never nominated either home as a main residence, though I do have plenty of docs (the occasional utility bill, bank staments and insurance etc) in my name for that address since owning it. I have not been required to pay tax on either lettings income as my net income in the UK allows for 100% relief in that respect. I am now wondering whether a) I am not liable because I have been out of the country, b) in any case, on return declare, if I am still allowed to, that the Norfolk house is my main residence? Also, I saw mentioned somewhere about 40,000 pounds being allowed as tax relief on lettings: I'm not sure what this means or whether it is relevant to the CGT issue.

    Report on 27 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • lobbylud
    Love rating 0
    lobbylud said

    Sorry, to clarify the lasdt part of my earlier posting...

    The docs relating to my UK property are for the Norfolk property (the one I will wish to sell). The query over liability because of being out of the country as a nonUK resident in the last paragraph, refers to CGT. There may, however, be a tautology here: can I claim I was not a UK resident (in order to avoid CGT - assuming this is possible) or should i claim main residence on the Norfolk house using the docs I have (again, to avoid CGT)? 

    Report on 27 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • allotts
    Love rating 0
    allotts said

    The Capital Gains Tax hike to 40 percent is one tax increase too many - so lets do something about it! Join like-minded business people, pensioners and concerned parties who want to stop this 'Dick Turpin' tax by supporting the campaign against this daft Coalition Government proposal. Go to www.stopcapitalgainshike.org and register your opposition to this tax hike by contacting your local MP. Only by taking direct action can we persuade the Coalition Government to halt this highway robbery of our pensions and investments.

    Report on 07 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • eLJay
    Love rating 76
    eLJay said

    Legal means to avoid CGT - I would expect these to be closed up before you can actually action them.

    And don't forget the fines and legal fees for tax avoidance could easily bankrupt most people.

    Report on 24 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Jahnavi
    Love rating 1
    Jahnavi said

    But we have had three tenants 'brokers' because of large sums of money, and in two cases a significant amount of property damage has been done well (which gives a new kitchen in one, and a new water tank and complete new floors in the ushers others!) away Not to mention utilities that have not been paid by them. Previously, it breaks my heart to see what was our home are treated in this way by some (and not by a long way together, we must emphasize), but long these emotions.

    Thanks

    Capital Gain Tax Rate

    Report on 23 August 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3