Tax experts say that an attempt to levy higher purchase tax on holiday lets and second homes in one part of the UK could backfire and may not even work.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation is commenting on the Welsh Government’s proposal for its version of stamp duty - Land Transaction Tax - to be increased sharply in different localities as a disincentive to the purchase of second homes and short-term holiday lets. This would be in addition to the current extra council tax charge on such properties.
The CIOT says it is likely to be harder to implement and less effective to use a transaction tax for this purpose than using a recurring tax based on ongoing occupation, such as council tax.
The Welsh Government is concerned about the impact of second homes and short-term holiday lets on the affordability and availability of housing for people who permanently live in the area, or wish to continue to do so – particularly young people.
The Welsh Government will introduce legislation to increase council tax on second homes and long-term empty properties to 300 per cent, effective from April 2023.
However, the Welsh Government also suggests higher LTT rates varied locally or regionally might act as an extra disincentive and thereby reduce the number of future purchases of residential properties as second homes and holiday lets.
The aim of the proposed LTT policy is not to increase revenues, the Welsh Government says.
Higher rates) of LTT are already in place (subject to exemptions) when a company purchases a residential property, or an individual purchases a dwelling and they, or certain related persons, already own another. These higher rates increased to an additional four percentage points in December 2020. Local variation in LTT as proposed would be on top of all this.
Lakshmi Narain, chair of CIOT’s Welsh Technical Committee, says: “The Welsh Government may find that a second home supplement on council tax is less problematic than one on a transaction tax such as LTT.
“Producing a workable test on what a buyer intends to do with a second home will be difficult and unsatisfactory. The buyer’s intentions may not be fully formed at the date of purchase, and what happens if the intention changes?
“There are also widely recognised economic arguments that transaction taxes such as LTT disincentivise people from moving house, reducing the tax take and reducing mobility. While the tax is levied on the purchase, much of the real economic burden falls on the seller who wishes to move.
“Reducing the availability of short-term holiday lets may also impact local tourism economies, employment opportunities etc. The interaction with any tourism levy will need careful consideration.”
He adds that applying additional rates based on local areas could create boundary issues and local anomalies. On the other hand, rates set on the basis of local authority areas – some of which are huge – would not allow for specific targeting of communities. To be effective, there will be a need for a regular appraisal of the criteria used for determining properties within the scope of the scheme.
He continues: “A system of charging local rates of LTT in addition to the existing national rates would add significant complexity to the administration of LTT and to the conveyancing process in terms of how and when it will apply, with different rates in specific areas and on different types of usage, as well as complicating how such a system will be managed and enforced.
“In areas where additional LTT rates are introduced, an early and comprehensive public awareness campaign is essential for taxpayers, conveyancers and estate agents in the areas concerned.
“Clearly, if a cost-effective system cannot be designed to administer a localised system of different rates, then that strongly calls into question whether localised rates are sensible in the first place.”
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Wales, with Drakefool in charge, is a foretaste of Labour in charge of England. Shudder!
This idea that proposed and higher taxes are implemented to disincentivise is just laughable. Yes I know it's technically true economically speaking, and that it's the narrative they use, but it's so overly simplistic that I have no doubt that the politicians who play these games know it isn't going to play out that way in real life.
The vast majority of these communities have nothing, and will have nothing if they don't have tourism. What's going to keep them going? The farming and fishing that has done traditionally? If you think that then you're an idiot, and for anyone who wants to see what happens to a place that has it's industry taken away and doesn't have tourism to fall back on, I'd recommend they take a drive around the ex mining villages in the North.
Governments know all this. They know that people will STILL invest because there is so much money to be made. It doesn't work as a disincentive. It's like the congestion charge... as though a tourist in London cares about the 20 quid charge once they've spent £500 on a hotel, £50 on parking and spent God knows what on food and drink over the weekend. It's just a grab for revenue in the first instance, and after that, a simple and age old case of those in the know being able to maipulate markets and invest with greater assurance.
Normal bog standard stuff. Right, left, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, whoever. They're all the same.
Actually max,you don't have to go to northern England it's all across Britain, excepting London and the home counties. Further on most Welsh council estates hardly anybody works ! Wales is a refugee sanctuary, so their is an infintessimal demand for property. All Drakefords communist administration is paid for by the English. None of whom got a vote on a Welsh parliament.
Hilarious. They want to massively increase tax on rental homes - to dissuade rental properties - whilst being ‘concerned’ about the ‘affordability and availability’ for people who might want to rent long term.
I see.
Please login to comment