12th
Aug 2015
The online petition to the government, ‘Reverse the planned tax relief restriction on individual landlords’ has broken the 10,000 signatures barrier. The petition, as it has broken the mark, has to be responded to by the government.
Rual Uddin, the landlord who set up the petition is based in London and last week it did not bode well for the necessary support to gain a formal response from the government. However it has now stormed past the barrier with more than 10,000 supporters and still growing.
The government’s announcement in its Budget has received widespread condemnation from the industry. It proposes the introduction of the basic rate of income tax (20%) relief on mortgage interest and incurred fees for buy-to-let mortgages. This is going ahead irrespective of the rate of tax that any landlord pays, even if it is higher than the 20% bracket.
The industry is awaiting the government’s arguments in favour of the new rates and to carry on regardless.
However if 100,000 signatures can be achieved before the 26th January 2016 deadline, then there may be a chance of it being discussed in parliament, unfortunately there are no guarantees, even if this figure is achieved.
To sign up to the online petition go to:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104880
The petition states that:
"We operate as sole traders and incur costs in the course of running our business. The planned restriction will unfairly target us by preventing us from offsetting costs in the same manner as other sole traders.
"We ask that the planned restriction be reconsidered as it has unfair implications.
"The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated, in response to the Budget, that individual landlords are already taxed more heavily than other homeowners.
"The private sector is heavily reliant on individual landlords. The planned change is likely to result in higher rents due to landlords looking to offset higher tax liabilities.
"In some cases, employed individuals own buy to let properties as investments for retirement. The planned restriction would adversely and unfairly affect them."
News Archive »