Buy-to-Let through Ltd Co. ?


D

David Floyd

Any ideas on the pros and cons of running a Buy-to-Let business through
a Limited Company rather than a 2 person partnership.

Size about 30 plus small properties (approx value £1.5m) loans &
mortgages approx £1.2m, Net Profit approx. £40K.

Other than the tax advantages of Ltd Co status, are there any pitfalls
in taking this route.

TIA
David
(Return address is invalid)
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

David said:
Any ideas on the pros and cons of running a Buy-to-Let business through
a Limited Company rather than a 2 person partnership.

Size about 30 plus small properties (approx value £1.5m) loans &
mortgages approx £1.2m, Net Profit approx. £40K.

Other than the tax advantages of Ltd Co status, are there any pitfalls
in taking this route.
That's rather an unfortunate turn of phrase. You make the tax advantage
sound like a pitfall. Perversely, see below, it may well be.

Is this an existing business or a proposed one? If proposed, you will
find it more difficult to get mortgage loans, let alone to 80% LTV, or
as cheaply, as a company than as individuals. If existing, you will
incur a CGT hit on transferring the properties into the company.

Suppose you are higher rate taxpayers. Corporation tax on £40k profit
is £7125. Paying yourself the remaining £32875 as dividends will cost
you £8219 in income tax. Bottom line: You each get £12328 in your
pocket. As partnership, you'd pay IT+NI at 41%, and keep £11800 each.
So the benefit of using a company is only £528pa each.

If, however, you're standard rate taxpayers (and assuming for ease of
calculation that you already have at least £6575 of other income), then
the company method will see you losing only £7125 CT and no extra income
tax on the dividends: £16437 in each of your pockets. But as partners,
you'd pay 22%IT + 8%NI on £20k each [*] leaving you £14k each, so the
company route would save you £2436.

If you're border line standard/higher rate, the saving will vary
on a sliding scale between those two values.

[*] Not sure at the mo' whether the first £4615pa of self-employed
income are NI-free in addition to the first £89pw of employment
income. If so, you'd save an extra £369 each.

But as a company you may well end up paying loan interest at a higher
rate than as individuals. If the difference is as much as 1% (it may
well be much less, but let me exaggerate for effect here), your profit
would drop by £12k, more than enough to wipe out the tax advantage
(which with lower profits, will be less anyway).
 
D

Doug Ramage

Ronald Raygun said:
David said:
Any ideas on the pros and cons of running a Buy-to-Let business through
a Limited Company rather than a 2 person partnership.

Size about 30 plus small properties (approx value £1.5m) loans &
mortgages approx £1.2m, Net Profit approx. £40K.

Other than the tax advantages of Ltd Co status, are there any pitfalls
in taking this route.
That's rather an unfortunate turn of phrase. You make the tax advantage
sound like a pitfall. Perversely, see below, it may well be.

Is this an existing business or a proposed one? If proposed, you will
find it more difficult to get mortgage loans, let alone to 80% LTV, or
as cheaply, as a company than as individuals. If existing, you will
incur a CGT hit on transferring the properties into the company.

Suppose you are higher rate taxpayers. Corporation tax on £40k profit
is £7125. Paying yourself the remaining £32875 as dividends will cost
you £8219 in income tax. Bottom line: You each get £12328 in your
pocket. As partnership, you'd pay IT+NI at 41%, and keep £11800 each.
So the benefit of using a company is only £528pa each.

If, however, you're standard rate taxpayers (and assuming for ease of
calculation that you already have at least £6575 of other income), then
the company method will see you losing only £7125 CT and no extra income
tax on the dividends: £16437 in each of your pockets. But as partners,
you'd pay 22%IT + 8%NI on £20k each [*] leaving you £14k each, so the
company route would save you £2436.

If you're border line standard/higher rate, the saving will vary
on a sliding scale between those two values.

[*] Not sure at the mo' whether the first £4615pa of self-employed
income are NI-free in addition to the first £89pw of employment
income. If so, you'd save an extra £369 each.

But as a company you may well end up paying loan interest at a higher
rate than as individuals. If the difference is as much as 1% (it may
well be much less, but let me exaggerate for effect here), your profit
would drop by £12k, more than enough to wipe out the tax advantage
(which with lower profits, will be less anyway).
Most BTLs are investments and thus not subject to NI. The landlord would
have to provide significant services for the activities to be a trade.
 
D

David Floyd

If proposed, you will
find it more difficult to get mortgage loans, let alone to 80% LTV, or
as cheaply, as a company than as individuals.
Thank you for that opinion.

I am fully aware of tax implications, but:
[*] Not sure at the mo' whether the first £4615pa of self-employed
income are NI-free in addition to the first £89pw of employment
income.
Yes, employment (Class 1 NI) and Self employment (Class 4) limits are
separate and relate to the relevant source.

But as a company you may well end up paying loan interest at a higher
rate than as individuals. If the difference is as much as 1% (it may
well be much less, but let me exaggerate for effect here), your profit
would drop by £12k, more than enough to wipe out the tax advantage
(which with lower profits, will be less anyway).
Thanks for that opinion. That was what I was fearing some-one might
point out.

David
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Doug said:
Most BTLs are investments and thus not subject to NI. The landlord would
have to provide significant services for the activities to be a trade.
Shit. Of course. Sorry for failing to take that into account
in my answer, it is something I know fine well, being a landlord
myself.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

David said:
Thanks for that opinion. That was what I was fearing some-one might
point out.
It strikes me it might be possible to get around this by buying the
properties as an individual and giving mortgages as an individual,
but then transferring beneficial ownership to the company without
the lender's knowledge, because paper ownership is retained as an
individual.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Doug Ramage

Ronald Raygun said:
It strikes me it might be possible to get around this by buying the
properties as an individual and giving mortgages as an individual,
but then transferring beneficial ownership to the company without
the lender's knowledge, because paper ownership is retained as an
individual.
Stamp Duty may be due.
 
D

Doug Ramage

David Floyd said:
If proposed, you will
find it more difficult to get mortgage loans, let alone to 80% LTV, or
as cheaply, as a company than as individuals.
Thank you for that opinion.

I am fully aware of tax implications, but:
[*] Not sure at the mo' whether the first £4615pa of self-employed
income are NI-free in addition to the first £89pw of employment
income.
Yes, employment (Class 1 NI) and Self employment (Class 4) limits are
separate and relate to the relevant source.

But as a company you may well end up paying loan interest at a higher
rate than as individuals. If the difference is as much as 1% (it may
well be much less, but let me exaggerate for effect here), your profit
would drop by £12k, more than enough to wipe out the tax advantage
(which with lower profits, will be less anyway).
Thanks for that opinion. That was what I was fearing some-one might
point out.

David
Also, the borrowings could attract a higher rate of interest relief - up to
40%, rather than CT rates.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

Doug said:
Stamp Duty may be due.
"May" leaves room for doubt. Could you elaborate? What nuances
of circumstance would cause fate to fall on the "will be" side and
which on the "won't be" side?

On the face of it, SD is a tax on conveyances of legal title.
In what I have in mind there is no such conveyance, nor is there
a lease involved, just a transfer of benefit for no consideration.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Better to buy as Ltd Co or Assets Only 4
Let to Buy 3
Buy to Let 10
buy to let 10
Buy To Let 1
Buy-To-Let?? 11
Buy to Let 8
Using Ltd Co Losses 4

Top