No - can't see any benefit in incorporating. Even if the properties were mortgaged the figures wouldn't justify it. And with 2 properties, it'd be difficult to convince HMRC that they were incorporating a business in any event.
I'd like to think that the partner has misunderstood what their accountant is saying. If not, you may have fun pointing out to them just how wrong they are.
Thanks for your question - it has reminded me to post my own s223 query here on accountingweb.
Yes - they're talking about the opening up of s162 relief for property businesses following on from the Ramsay case. But also, yes, for the property letting to be a business it needs to be substantial and the owners will need to be a devoting a good amount of time to running the property business. From what you've said, I doubt that your clients would qualify.
On the SDLT side, transfers from individuals to a connected company are likely to be liable to an SDLT charge. Transfers from a partnership would fare better.
Thanks - I think that the mother falls out of the equation because of the parental order obtained by the two Dads. But you may well be right that there'd be an immediate US domicile of origin followed by a domicile of dependency based on one of the Dads once the parental order is out in place.
Thanks for the pointer - I should do more research into what the "extinguishing" of a surrogate's legal parentage following a parental order actually means.
Yes - from tax point of view the child being born in America isn't great as there's now US reporting to do. But I'm guessing that there must have been advantages from the surrogacy point of view.
I'm pretty sure, well sure-ish, that the child doesn't have a US domicile as the parental order by the two Dads removes the birth mother from the domicile equation.
I've not seen anything beyond the exceptional circumstances in Annex B of RDR3. B11 may help you, but if the day count excess is substantial then maybe not.
Nothing necessarily fictional about the partnership - SA400/401s all done.
It is certainly a lot cleaner if you have current joint ownership of property that you change into a partnership. The s162 is requested for the partnership.
And not running away from the client - doing all of this with a past, current and future client and talking through the process/refinancing with the current/alternative lender.
My answers
No - can't see any benefit in incorporating. Even if the properties were mortgaged the figures wouldn't justify it. And with 2 properties, it'd be difficult to convince HMRC that they were incorporating a business in any event.
Thanks for that - very helpful
Feels like revenue to me even if it is a one-off transaction. Bought with intention to sell, no investment motive, etc.
You are entirely correct.
I'd like to think that the partner has misunderstood what their accountant is saying. If not, you may have fun pointing out to them just how wrong they are.
Thanks for your question - it has reminded me to post my own s223 query here on accountingweb.
Yes - they're talking about the opening up of s162 relief for property businesses following on from the Ramsay case. But also, yes, for the property letting to be a business it needs to be substantial and the owners will need to be a devoting a good amount of time to running the property business. From what you've said, I doubt that your clients would qualify.
On the SDLT side, transfers from individuals to a connected company are likely to be liable to an SDLT charge. Transfers from a partnership would fare better.
Thanks - I think that the mother falls out of the equation because of the parental order obtained by the two Dads. But you may well be right that there'd be an immediate US domicile of origin followed by a domicile of dependency based on one of the Dads once the parental order is out in place.
Thanks for the pointer - I should do more research into what the "extinguishing" of a surrogate's legal parentage following a parental order actually means.
Yes - from tax point of view the child being born in America isn't great as there's now US reporting to do. But I'm guessing that there must have been advantages from the surrogacy point of view.
I'm pretty sure, well sure-ish, that the child doesn't have a US domicile as the parental order by the two Dads removes the birth mother from the domicile equation.
I've not seen anything beyond the exceptional circumstances in Annex B of RDR3. B11 may help you, but if the day count excess is substantial then maybe not.
Thanks - that's cheered up my Friday lunchtime.
Round of applause for the judge.
Nothing necessarily fictional about the partnership - SA400/401s all done.
It is certainly a lot cleaner if you have current joint ownership of property that you change into a partnership. The s162 is requested for the partnership.
And not running away from the client - doing all of this with a past, current and future client and talking through the process/refinancing with the current/alternative lender.