You might also be interested in
Replies (3)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
How will this actually help?
Let's see if I've got this straight ...
On the purchase of property, the buyer (the "current owner") can get a statement from the last taxpayer to have owned the property ("the past owner") - a person with whom he has never had a contractual relationship - of that person's CA disposal value.
Who is going to give the information to the current owner? The past owner has no reason to do it. The past owner's accountant won't be allowed to do it (unless instructed to do so by his client). The non-taxpayer vendor in the current sale - the awkwardly styled "purchaser from the past owner" probably doesn't have the details, as it had no interest in getting them in the first place. It of course did have a contractual relationship with the past owner, but that may have been years and years ago, and again there is no reason for the past owner to release the figures now.
Utterly useless.
A bit of a fudge
I think you could be right Alistair but this is the situation that many capital allowances claims companies face at the moment anyway in trying to establish what has been claimed for in the past.
I think all this will just spell the importance of the commercial conveyancing solicitor giving the proper advice at the time of acquisition / disposal so that these issues are clarified and captured in a section 198 election agreement. Even if the organisation is a non tax payer they will want to be able to pool the capital allowances just to be able to pass them onto a new purchaser,
I can't wait until April 2014 when the situation is going to become even more complex.
J Plumridge
You are quite right, plummy1. It is a common problem already, but my point was that this new "relaxation" is unlikely to help anyone.
And yes, non-taxpayers such as pension funds and charities may well want to enter into S198 elections where there is a worthwhile amount of CA involved. Just how important that will be in their purchase negotiations remains to be seen. They will not benefit directly, after all.
The concept of a non-taxpayer with no CA pool somehow pooling its expenditure is a bit odd, but I suppose it is clear enough what it means in practice!