Share this content

Invest in ''buy to let'' property

Invest in ''buy to let'' property

Didn't find your answer?

Good evening all,

A client, who is the sole Director of a profitable Ltd company is looking to invest in property and then rent it out.

My question is what is the best or most tax efficient route to go about this?

Is it:

A.To take a director's loan and buy the property as a sole trader.
B. To set up a subsidiary company and have his current ltd company as the parent company and buy the 
property via the sub?
C. Any other tax efficient way that you can think of.

Many thanks in advance.

AJ

Replies (46)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By carnmores
11th Dec 2014 22:37

well it ain't A
B possible , but why not use current company if not borrow money personally but not from his company but say a bank

Thanks (0)
Maytuna
By DJKL
11th Dec 2014 23:08

Big picture

 

 As examples, have you considered whether using  either the existing company or a subsidiary of same will alter/ change the position re ER and/or BPR?

What about vat and possible partial exemption issues (You do not say if commercial/residential and of course we have no indication re quantum of possible rentals)

Should he consider a stand alone company and a loan from Exist company to new company, this will not initially erradicate ER issues and BPR issues, should they subsist, but if repaid over time by paying dividends from existing Limited to the individual who then lends funds to newco to assist with the inter company loan repayments, it might correct the BPR/ER issue for the future.

If commercial property does a SIPP work for client as the purchasing entity.

There are a million and one ways of looking at the issue, the starting point is often to find out exactly why the client wishes to make the current investment, discuss his time horizon, long term goals and then devise a plan that as best as possible covers his priorities.

All anyone on here can do is make suggestions without being in possession of all the facts, imho transaction tax planning always involves taking a big step back from the immediate issue and then formulate the plan looking at the big picture with as many facts and aims known as possible.

Aims and objectives may conflict, they may be uncertain, the client may not think past next week; that is what makes it all so challenging and why we sometimes earn large fees.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AJ05
12th Dec 2014 10:22

Residential property letting

Thank you both for your comments.

He is looking to invest in residential properties. sorry I did not specify.

He will be 48years old next year and basically looking to diversify by investing in properties.

A long term investment. The plan is to get that first property and if successful get the next one. The funds required is only for the deposit amount of say £20K maximum amount (mortgage), Property value of say £200k maximum. He is hoping to get it furnished and rent it out at a good rate, to be able to cover the monthly mortgage repayments.

Many thanks in advance.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carlh
12th Dec 2014 11:33

 

 

set up a remuneration/asset trust, ltd company gifts the capital to the trust to purchase the BTL's then trust collects the rental,  

main benefit is assets are fully protected ie 'bomb proof against creditors, divorce, litigation.

side benefit = no CT, no IHT, no CGT, no tax from rental income. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Martin B
12th Dec 2014 15:21

Invest in ''buy to let'' property

Flagging

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr Hankey:
avatar
By AJ05
15th Dec 2014 12:33

Is that all you've got to say?

 

What are you flagging?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Adrian Exeter:
avatar
By Kirkers
16th Dec 2014 13:52

Flagging

AJ05 wrote:

 

What are you flagging?

Flagging is just a way of saying "I'd be interested to see what the answer is to this questions, so I'll comment in order to receive notifications from further comments."

 

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr Hankey:
avatar
By bobbuilder
16th Dec 2014 16:49

Or

Martin B wrote:

Flagging

Or for a less intrusive approach, click on the link that says, "receive updates when someone comments"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
13th Dec 2014 16:14

bombproof

i dont think so

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By carlh
15th Dec 2014 13:13

your statement = not researched

carnmores wrote:

i dont think so

really, i think if you look into it deeply you would come round to that also, its about doing the research fully. 

i have used these for years

whats makes you think they are not? 

Thanks (0)
Replying to sculptureofman:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
16th Dec 2014 17:32

Gifting of capital

carlh wrote:
whats makes you think they are not?
The gift of the capital to the trust by the company would appear to be the main issue. It is extremely unlikely that the Mem and Arts would allow outright gifting of capital in this way.

Assuming this can somehow be engineered, if the director benefits from the trust, then there is likely to be a benefit in kind issue at least. If neither the director nor the company benefit, then the whole point of the exercise fails. (to make beneficial use of the company funds)

Bomb-proof against divorce/creditors/liquidation does not sound right either. If the director has a beneficial interest in the trust, then I cannot see why that would be excluded from any actions against him. If he doesn't have such an interest, then see previous comment about missing the point of the exercise.

Perhaps rather than making grand statements about how easy this is to achieve, you need to go into a bit more detail of how it genuinely and legally avoids these issues.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Martin B
16th Dec 2014 13:17

AJ05- Flagging

Will save the post in my comment list for future revisit /reference. If alternative easier method than let me know.

Thanks (0)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
16th Dec 2014 13:53

Oh

So it is not at all like [***] after all.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By tonycourt
16th Dec 2014 14:09

Portia - Ooh you are awful.......

.....if you remember Dick Emery you'll know what came next.  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AJ05
16th Dec 2014 17:55

Thank you

Kirkers and Martin B- Thank you for clarifying what flagging means -:)

Thanks (2)
avatar
By AJ05
16th Dec 2014 17:51

Carlh-I like your plan

The Phrase ''Bomb Proof'' is just brilliant and i like the idea :).

But Stepurhan has made some very relevant points too.

It seems we may need the help of an expert in this area just to be 100% sure.

Feel free to DM me if you're interested.

 

Many thanks

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
16th Dec 2014 18:05

exactly

the use of trusts is not as simple as made out , we had no idea of what was to happen to the income and to say that they are IHT or IT proof is nonsense, HMRC is challenging use of quasi EBT etc, youare obviously a master of tax avoidance

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AJ05
17th Dec 2014 11:17

tax avoidance

@ Carnmores, what is wrong with legally avoiding tax? From my understanding, legitimate tax avoidance is perfectly legal, whereas tax evasion is illigal.  Can someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Many thanks

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Duhamel
17th Dec 2014 13:52

AJ05
I believe carnmores was expressing scepticism of the trusts suggestion. Tax avoidance becomes a greyer area by the day.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carlh
17th Dec 2014 15:49

certain IP

 

I am neither an accountant or IFA or a tax specialist but it appears I have more knowledge about this planning than most (i use them personally)

you have to understand a few things here

1. they have been around for 22 years, 12000 companies used them last year.

2. 4 challenges made by HMRC in this time  all have been thrown out  i understand they dont have any more ideas on how to challenge this now.

3. you also have to understand legal identities. each one is a separate legal identity (UK individual, Director, Shareholder, Ltd company) with separate legal responsibilities.

4. also not DOTAS also not GAAR either.

@stepurhan -  where does it state in mem & articles that you cannot do whatever with the profits of a company if the directors so wish it. (as long as its in your accounts and filed with HMRC) oh and btw this also covers you for disclosure with HMRC.

@stepurhan - the mistake you are doing is thinking that the director/company/trust are one legal entity here. 

please tell me all you accountants do know of a UK ltd company that is exempt from all UK taxes. this should be accountancy 101.

@AJ05 @carnmores  - Bomb proof yes, (offshore trust is very simple) how can somebody come after it if you dont own it. the trust owns it not you. you just control/use it. example. i gift my house into a trust i do not own it now, but i still live there, however my wife decides to trade me in for a younger model (btw it happened)  she wants half of the house, i say sorry love i dont own it now go forth and multiple.  

THINK OUT OF THE BOX!!!!!

i have left a few steps out (IP). but am i happy to talk any of you privately briefly. send me your questions.

Dont forget all accountants job is to cut & save clients finances (re Hossien Mehjoo vs Harben Barker) you all need to start knowing about this stuff really.

some examples to think about

a) duke of westminster (grovenser estate)

b) Ian Cameron (Davids father)  Panama & Geneva trust

c) Bernie Ecclestone (Wife?? German Trust??) 

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
By johngroganjga
17th Dec 2014 16:10

Trust

carlh wrote:

 i gift my house into a trust i do not own it now, but i still live there, however my wife decides to trade me in for a younger model (btw it happened)  she wants half of the house, i say sorry love i dont own it now go forth and multiple.  

You don't seem to have caught up with Petrodel and Prest.

 

Thanks (4)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
17th Dec 2014 16:16

Evidence please

carlh wrote:
1. they have been around for 22 years, 12000 companies used them last year.

2. 4 challenges made by HMRC in this time  all have been thrown out  i understand they dont have any more ideas on how to challenge this now.

3. you also have to understand legal identities. each one is a separate legal identity (UK individual, Director, Shareholder, Ltd company) with separate legal responsibilities.

4. also not DOTAS also not GAAR either.

Got any evidence to back that up? Case references for cases in which you say HMRC have had their challenges thrown out would be a good start. Because it very much sounds like you are talking about someone enjoying all the benefits of an asset whilst stating it isn't theirs for any purpose. That sounds like the very definition of a sham which would be exposed under GAAR.

Quote:
@stepurhan -  where does it state in mem & articles that you cannot do whatever with the profits of a company if the directors so wish it. (as long as its in your accounts and filed with HMRC) oh and btw this also covers you for disclosure with HMRC.
I was thinking of ultra vires, but will grant that has pretty much been done away with in the last Companies Act. I'd still be interested in how you'd record "company gifts a load of money" for accounts purposes though.

Quote:
@stepurhan - the mistake you are doing is thinking that the director/company/trust are one legal entity here.
I'm really not doing that. I'm saying that if the effect is such that there is no practical distinction in arrangements then the legal distinction won't help you.

Quote:
@AJ05 @carnmores  - Bomb proof yes, (offshore trust is very simple) how can somebody come after it if you dont own it. the trust owns it not you. you just control/use it. example. i gift my house into a trust i do not own it now, but i still live there, however my wife decides to trade me in for a younger model (btw it happened)  she wants half of the house, i say sorry love i dont own it now go forth and multiple.
Again, you are talking about someone enjoying all the benefits of an asset without it being recognised as theirs. Again, cases of this actually working as described please. 

Quote:
c) Bernie Ecclestone (Wife?? German Trust??)
The key word in this sentence is not "trust" but "wife". Also the trust she (not Bernie) put things into was in Liectenstein, not Germany. If anything, this goes contra to your "bombproof from divorce" assertion. The assets were under the control of his wife, so Bernie would lose everything on divorce.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
17th Dec 2014 16:36

thank you guys

isnt it symptomatic of the age that carlh should commenst as he does , he knows best it seems, talk about  hubris

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carlh
17th Dec 2014 17:44

gained experiance

would you like me to type out the intellectual property step by step here for you? 

really its so easy to do the research on this, i will give you a start  dextra 2005 & sempra 2008 

if you are really interested please pm me or even better lets setup a meeting.

@carnmores - i commenst on this as, I know best about this as I personally use trusts/pmc for my assets and company profits for several years and the sky has not fallen. i do not profess to be an accountant / solicitor / IFA / tax specialist, but what i do know about is my wealth planning / taxation / asset structure .

HMRC know & accept this, WHY, because every year i tell them what i am doing.

but to be honest who cares, please do as you want to, its a free world, i only offered an alternative to the ops question.

in the end i will still be wealthy/ier and so will the people around me who had an open mind and gave me the opportunity to show them a different view. 

cheers

have a good xmas and new year

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
18th Dec 2014 06:39

No evidence then

carlh wrote:
would you like me to type out the intellectual property step by step here for you?
No, I'm simply asking you to back up what I consider wild statements with some proof.

There's not a lot of point in telling me to do the research myself. If I don't think something works, then I'm not expecting to find any proof that it does. I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for something I don't believe exists. You claim that HMRC have lost in court. Referencing a case of them losing in court (which would be a matter of public record) would hardly be laying out your whole IP would it.

As it stands, I see your unwillingness to provide even the smallest piece of evidence as proof you are talking rubbish. If you have genuinely been successful yourself then, as others have said, I suspect it is more a case of the law not being enforced, not that your actions are legal.

Thanks (3)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By BananaMan
18th Dec 2014 12:25

I hope

carlh wrote:

and so will the people around me who had an open mind and gave me the opportunity to show them a different view. 

 

I hope your insurance policy is a good one.

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By BananaMan
18th Dec 2014 14:05

If

carlh wrote:

i do not profess to be an accountant / solicitor / IFA / tax specialist, but what i do know about is my wealth planning / taxation / asset structure .

 

If you are not an accountant, IFA or tax specialist then why are you offering financial planning services and have £2m PI cover?

 

As an aside, I think you may have bored everyone else with your shouting

Thanks (3)
avatar
By tonycourt
17th Dec 2014 22:32

Legitimate or just uninforcable

I found this interesting thread for more than one reason, initially it was the tax angle since that was the crux of the OP. However other legal and moral issues have overtaken that and I can't help but comment .

Regarding carlh's comments

I have no axe to grind over tax avoidance, although I think most of the population would agree that there is a sizable grey area which at some point, regardless of legality it becomes unacceptable. It is then beholden on the government to step in and legislate. It's easy to deride their efforts as too often they seem to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 

While making no excuses for the government it's fair to say they have a difficult task especially in the face of the clever and ingenious avoidance industry which carlh is championing. I accept there can be entirely legitimate and good reasons for using such arrangements, but when they unfairly deprive a legitimate claimant, whether an estranged spouse or the exchequer, I hold no truck with them.

I do not know the circumstances in which carlh uses the arrangements and so I am not making a judgement. However I am saying that he may be confusing legitimacy and legality with the inability to enforce the law.

For example, if one spouse alienates assets from personal ownership say,via a trust (overseas or UK) and those assets grow in value during the marriage, in the event of a divorce a court would almost certainly treat them as relevant in any financial settlement order - consider the case of the tragic Scot Young. Enforcing an order is a different matter if the assets are under the control of a foreign jurisdiction. There is probably little chance of success although, for example, despite their fierce independence from mainland UK the Jersey courts have sometime gone along with an order from an English court - caveat emptor! Something is only bombproof until someone comes up with a bigger and better bomb!  

In a similar vein the lack of a challenge from HMRC to entries, or lack of entries, on a tax return indicates virtually nothing and certainly not acceptance. Carlh can be forgiven for not appreciating that point because, as he makes very clear, he is not a tax expert. 

To reiterate - I am not against tax avoidance, but there is a point beyond which I would not go - I only wish I had enough income or capital sloshing around to worry about where that point might be.

And there endeth my rant.

Thanks (1)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
18th Dec 2014 09:53

You do all realise

That it is VERY disrepectful to keep arguing with somebody far more clever than you?

Thanks (3)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By andrew.hyde
18th Dec 2014 11:00

Bring on the panto season

Portia Nina Levin wrote:

...it is VERY disrepectful to keep arguing with somebody far more clever than you?

Oh no it isn't.

Thanks (0)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
18th Dec 2014 11:27

Andrew

You are a VERY naughty boy!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By carlh
18th Dec 2014 11:33

@stepurhan 

@stepurhan 

how do you know it does not work if you don't know what it is and don't look - this is a wild statement!! 

i spent the time and effort with an open mind and found it and it has helped me over the past several years.

 

@tonycourt MORAL ISSUE why do i do this - i want to keep my money to make more money, how i do this - i create a another company and employ more people (PAYE crowd - this is the UK tax backbone = 29% of all UK tax) as long as i employ people. my 45% is not even going to make a nano dint in the UK tax pool. 

someone has to employ the workers!!!!!!! someone has to keep the accountants with work.

the example with the ex wife was probably bad. i looked into this after i got divorced and vowed it would never happen again, but its a unfortunate side benefit of trusts.

 

if you get chance - read Whatever You Think, Think the Opposite by Paul Arden (ISBN: 9780141025711) its a very good read

 

@stepurhan - i am sure either you or your clients could benefit from this planning, you want evidence/proof/eyes opened then lets set up a meeting and give me 2 hours.

in fact i will open this up to anybody on accountingweb.co.uk 

Thanks (0)
Replying to marks:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
22nd Dec 2014 09:58

Just one case reference

carlh wrote:
@stepurhan 

how do you know it does not work if you don't know what it is and don't look - this is a wild statement!! 

i spent the time and effort with an open mind and found it and it has helped me over the past several years.

I have  asked you to quote just one case where HMRC have challenged an arrangement you describe and lost. You claim they have done this lots of times, so there must be plenty of such cases available. At the same time, such case reports will be part of the public record, so you would not be giving away anything not already in the public domain.

I really don't understand your reluctance to do this if what you say is correct. Because repeating your assertions in a more and more strident manner just convinces me more that there is no substance to your assertions. By all means PROVE me wrong. Simply repeatedly telling me I'm wrong, and being quite rude while doing it, is just wasting both our time.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
18th Dec 2014 12:16

carlh
Any decent tax lawyer is aware of such EBT (you probably call it remuneration trust) planning under s239 TCGA and s28/13/86 IHTA. It is not rocket science. I agree it is outside GAAR (unless a moneybox deathbed situation) and outside DoTAS (at least until next July).

Thanks (0)
Maytuna
By DJKL
18th Dec 2014 14:08

We should list all the "ideas" we have had offered

@carth

Each to his own re tax planning, some arrangements come unstuck years after implemented, counsel's opinion is just that, an opinion, and have never heard of anyone peddling these arrangements who offers a money back guarantee; will you do that for my clients, if they try your trust? Full indemnity basis.

If all posters here listedt all the "ideas" we have had offered to us over the years and then tracked what has happened to them, it would make sorry reading:

Green Box

Gilt stripping

SHEPS

Something, I cannot remember the name, which involved  aim shares and gifts to charity

Film Partnerships (Worked until rule changes)

Enterprise Zones- that most plain tax planning tool, not offensive to HMRC, but involved debt finance;- and with the downturn, tenants falling out of bed and the banks started selling their loans to others, some syndicate members found themselves facing a nasty tax surprise if the sale of the lesser interest not dealt with post seven years and a private equity debt holder controlling the process and not caring about the tax position of the syndicate members.

The one thing all accountants learn, and anyone who studies business finance learns, is that reward operates with risk;there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Carth, do not assume that we are not keen on schemes through lack of knowledge, it may be, for some of us that our experiences over a large number of years makes us more risk averse; we have seen at first hand the damage that can happen when these become unpicked.. After all whoever sold the Ranger's EBT schemes to them looks, at present vindicated (though I think HMRC are to appeal again), but somewhat pointless as  the existence of the schemes within the club and the uncertainty they and the other "lesser" tax matters caused, led to nobody being willing to pay anything worthwhile to David Murray for the club, a £1 I think, and of course the whole  process re that sale is coming to a court near you soon.(Criminal, not civil- 2 accountants, a lawyer and Mr Whyte)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carlh
18th Dec 2014 13:43

am i banging my head here!

@justin yes correct RT, it is only for directors/owners/high net worth individuals, so yes forget EBT's

however RT's have been around for 22 years created 1993, THIS ALONE MAKES A STATEMENT, 22 years!!!!!!!!     how many of those that @djkl mentioned been around!

@bananaman, yes there is £2million PI (with UK's no1 insurance company) this covers any fees you have paid, should HMRC ever challenge and win. Because of disclosure (yes you tell HMRC every year what you are doing) they cannot penalise you, you will only be at the same stage as you would if you had not done the wealth planning. so as a backup why not save the tax you should have paid in the previous tax year into a deposit account and hey presto should they god forbid ever win send them the money)

i started all this to protect my assets i have built up, so no one ever again could take them (my legacy) it just so happens that a side benefit is the tax planning. HOWEVER heres the crux of the matter IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STILL PAY YOUR TAX SHOULD YOU SO WISH, there is nothing stopping you from doing this even if you do the wealth planning, its voluntary. 

i dont think i have said this enough so

YOU TELL HMRC WHAT YOU ARE DOING EVERY YEAR IN YOUR LEGAL DOCUMENTS, THEY KNOW THESE RT'S!!!!!

i dont think those in the back heard so again

YOU TELL HMRC WHAT YOU ARE DOING EVERY YEAR IN YOUR LEGAL DOCUMENTS, THEY KNOW THESE RT'S!!!!!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carlh
18th Dec 2014 14:38

head now caved in on a wall

@banaaman - i don't do the planning personally if you read from the beginning you would have noticed that i profess to be option A

a:) i am a user of the planing for several years

b;) and because of a: i am a testamonial of the planning

c:) and because of b: i am an introducor / refferer of the planning

 

with regard to the PI insurance i did say 'There is'  and not 'I have' however as i do own several companies i do have PI insurance for some of them just not this wealth planning as i did not create it, only the IP owner of the wealth planning has it.

 

i feel i have become forum troll bait and so I shall end it here, any one wishing to discuss further feel free to pm me.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to daviddaniels:
avatar
By BananaMan
18th Dec 2014 15:04

Can't but smile

carlh wrote:

in the end i will still be wealthy/ier and so will the people around me who had an open mind and gave me the opportunity to show them a different view. 

I appreciate what your saying, but the above quote reads as though you are promoting the scheme.

Call it what you want, but as a scheme promoter you must, presumably as a matter of law, have PI cover. You do not. As your previous post confirms.

So, back to my first post. "I hope your insurance policy is a good one" ... Good Luck!...

 

 

carlh wrote:

head now caved in on a wall

 

Maybe, with all that wealth, you could buy yourself a new one?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
18th Dec 2014 15:57

carlh
I note that you have decided to stop commenting, but in case you read this I am guessing that you introduce for Baxendale-Walker's supplier benefit trust version of the planning, in which case there is not much more to be said anyway.

Thanks (0)
Replying to klambert:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
18th Dec 2014 17:00

Justin, are you saying

Justin Bryant wrote:

I note that you have decided to stop commenting, but in case you read this I am guessing that you introduce for Baxendale-Walker's supplier benefit trust version of the planning, in which case there is not much more to be said anyway.

That you should never trust a man with a large willy?

Thanks (1)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Maytuna
By DJKL
18th Dec 2014 18:12

Surely it is not the existence that causes doubts

Portia Nina Levin wrote:

Justin Bryant wrote:

I note that you have decided to stop commenting, but in case you read this I am guessing that you introduce for Baxendale-Walker's supplier benefit trust version of the planning, in which case there is not much more to be said anyway.

That you should never trust a man with a large willy?

I suspect the trust aspect pertains more to the claims, whilst unsubstantiated,  rather than to the  validity of the structure's existence. Strikes me that there is an obvious similarity with Trusts; nobody doubts they exist but some are doubtful re the benefit

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AJ05
18th Dec 2014 16:50

Back to the original post

@Carlh your scheme/the scheme you're involved in seems to be working for you so far and therefore, you're within your rights to still believe in it. I probably would have done the same if I was in your shoes. Whether it will workout the same in years to come is another matter.

Also thank you to everyone that has commented on this thread so far.

 

Now back to the original post. Any more suggestions/ideas?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AAProperties
18th Dec 2014 22:52

Carth

Ow, that was interesting reading, and I for one love people who think outside the box, good to go Carth!! Also most of the replies were excellent, just thought I'd say. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
22nd Dec 2014 10:18

How about

This extract from the link below: “It is clear from counsel’s advice that the original advice from Baxendale-Walker was completely wrong and that inheritance tax remains payable on the assets in the Trust in the event of the settlor’s death….” http://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreportedjudgments/documents/display.... There are other similar cases, as well as ones like this: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/1378.html

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carnmores
23rd Dec 2014 10:13

its staggering isnt it

i suppose ifr you asked this bloke to make a christmas cake, he would say start with a nice trust  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AAProperties
26th Dec 2014 14:50

Problem I have here (and I may be wrong), is that how can a trust purchase a btl with btl providers? In my case I bought my btl's with btl mortgages. Normal route is buy a btl with small deposit, remortgage after 6 months, use remortgage profit to buy another btl. 

Thanks (0)
Share this content