Can husband claim 100% mortgage interest against his business on land owned jointly with wife?

Can husband claim 100% mortgage interest...

Didn't find your answer?

Husband & wife buy house and sizeable area of land and finance with a mortgage.

Husband runs a business on the land, after aportioning the mortgage between the area of land he utilises is he allowed to claim 100% of the apportioned mortgage interest as it is for business use or would it be restricted because his wife actually owns half of the land.

In future the obvious answer would be for the wife to gift him the land as this would also be advantageous for CGT purposes but I am wondering whether in the meantime I am OK to allow the full apportionment of the mortgage interest against his trading income.

Not too confident but living in hope....

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By ACDWebb
25th Aug 2010 18:13

I believe full relief ought to be due

It is an ancient Tax bulletin, but see Tax Bulletin Issue 2 - HERE This would suggest that relief may be due in full

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bstock
25th Aug 2010 20:26

Is the ownership of the land relevant?

Thanks but I was concerned about the ownership of the land that the husband's business was on as it is owned by husband and wife. Does it make a difference?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TaxationPete
26th Aug 2010 10:39

Apportioning

Have you apportioned the mortgage interest onby area or value. It is only the portion of the mortgage that equates to the value of the land used W & E for the business. Regards Peter

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bstock
26th Aug 2010 11:27

After apportioning according to value ...

Is the portion of the mortgage interest that equates to the value of the land used W & E for the business wholly allowable in husband's business or is it restricted because the actual land is owned by husband and wife?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TaxationPete
26th Aug 2010 11:43

In Full

In full.  Regards Peter

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bstock
26th Aug 2010 12:03

Cheers.

Thanks Pete that was really puzzling me.

Thanks (0)