House selling wierd offer ...

Christ.

How do people cope in the outside real world? Baffles me.

Just take it one day at a time Tummy -- you'll get the hang of it eventually trust me :)

Lol britboy4321.

Tell him to eff off and come back in 6 months if it's still on the market.

I couldn't think of anything more stupid than making such and offer. In fact I can, it would be accepting it.
 
deleted as realised its op talking about himself even if what hes suggesting is exactlly what weed farmers do
 
Last edited:
Although I doubt it'd ever actually happen, I'd take the deal. Sure he can cause you problems, but at the end of the day nobody had bitten, and you'll always own the land until he pays up.

Best case: you get half the value of your house for 6 months rent.
Average case: he buys it, you got asking price.
Worst case: he blows up (exaggeration) your house. Whatever he does, you'll probably make a profit, so wheres the downside?
 
Only britboy could dream such a thing up.

The very fact he did is more proof than you could ever really want to prove hes madder than Bonkers McLoony from Randomshire

Lets not even talk about long term business assets becoming fixed assets and only having a percentage of their cost charged to profit (eg 5 years life so 20% charged against profit each year). Of course they may qualify for 100% tax write off but that doesnt affect profit that affects tax calcs
(Grossly simplified for forum posting)

More detail in pretty clear english.
http://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/guides/tax-for-the-self-employed/capital-allowances/

Really I am just LOLBritboy

Of course its pretty possible Britboy has misunderstood his own accounts and is reading the profit as after tax allowances rather than pre. That would just make it another LOLBritboy for me
 
@britboy4321, being in a similar position myself you will find your mortgage lender will want to see 3 years worth of accounts so fiddling one years worth isn't going to make any difference.
 
You could have it written up as a 6 month rent to own agreement. They pay you rent each month with an option to buy the house at the end of the term minus a discount from the rent they have paid. I would ask if he would be willing to do that and if they say no it's probably something dodgy.
 
If its too good to be true it usually is.

this

he'll get your house half price and claim squatters rights or some crap like that. There is a common way of buyinig houses with only a % of the cash to hand....its called a mortgage. If he can't get on, thats immediate cause for concern.

run for the hills.
 
It is an offer which can be legally sealed. Ask them to pay the legal fee's and you are onto a winner. Unless they claim squatters rights.

this

he'll get your house half price and claim squatters rights or some crap like that. There is a common way of buyinig houses with only a % of the cash to hand....its called a mortgage. If he can't get on, thats immediate cause for concern.

run for the hills.

I'd take his money and run haha.

britboy4321 is the one who wants to buy in this fashion, he doesn't have someone offering him half the money upfront.

1) Yes it is surprising -- but mortgage companies don't give a flying monkeys in any way whatsoever about the 'fundamentals of your company' (I know as I've been on the phone to them all week!). They can't be bothered with it (for a mortgage my size). It's just 'tell us the profit. Tell us the profit. Tell us the profit'. They only asked for the type of company it was in passing, no details, not even the number of employees, nothing!!

That does sound very strange to me but as I say I know little about how mortgage companies assess your suitability for lending, I am definitely surprised if it is so far removed from the evaluation for an ordinary loan but maybe that's my naivety.

2) I DO think the link between reducing tax liability and evasion is FAR TOO A GREY AREA. For example if you run a computer company, you could try and buy a 60 inch 3D plasma TV to 'give demos of computer games you're trying to sell'. Then use it for 2 hours in your business, and basically shove it in your car, take it home and put it in your living room. Not income tax paid. No VAT (well, claimed back). No NI. Watch and enjoy.

- Will the inland revenue ever check .. almost definately 'nope'
- If they do check and you say 'No demos this week, it'll be back in the office for more demos in 2 days' will they be satisfied and no further action? Probably
- BUT could they say 'Nope this is a personal thing you've claimed through the business, see you in court' and next thing you're in the clink for 18 months.. MAYBE. ... it's a frustratingly grey area ...

It's blimin' grey -- and it winds me up. My brother is an accountant for a pub and he says the landlord claims his shampoo (as well as everything else) 'through the company' (no income tax, VAT etc) -- as 'his customers wouldn't put up with him having dirty hair so it's a business purchase'. It's not black line illegal, or black-line legal. It's whether the taxman is having a nice day or fancies being a badman and taking the landlord to court. It's a mentally gray area ... :(

It can be a grey area but unless the landlord is going through industrial quantities of shampoo (is he David Ginola? - just checking if the young 'uns know who he is) then I'd have hardly thought it worth claiming. HMRC are being oddly lenient if he's getting away with it though, my understanding was that you couldn't claim for things that you'd need in the ordinary course of life so while a boiler suit might be ok for a painter and decorator as you're not likely to wear it other than for work, to claim for a pair of jeans (for instance) would be unlikely to fly as an option. Shampoo for me would definitely class in the ordinary 'essentials' of life and therefore would be exempt from being able to claim - the only thing I can think of meaning that HMRC wouldn't bother is that it is de minimis rather than actually a bona fide expense to claim.

It would be nice if one of our resident tax experts could confirm or deny the above as tax is far from a specialty of mine.
 
Why not have a tenancy agreement for 6 months (house goes off the market) and when he has all the money you can initiate the house sale transaction?

That way he doesn't pay anything upfront, you get 6m rent (which you can agree to deduct from the sale price if all goes through ok) and reduce all complications? If he doesn't pay rent then you go through eviction but that could happen with any tenant.

Why turn down free money/deposit? If he's willing to pay cash up front then you've got a nice fat deposit to fall back on should it all fall through - whether or not you can exchange contracts 6 months before completion and simultaneously enter into a short term lease with the guy for those 6 months is another matter but if you can then you'll at least have more than the standard 10% to dig into should it all fall apart and you need to be compensated for legal fees etc...

Having said that, I can't think of a reason why someone (from the perspective of the buyer) would want to do this.
 
i had the exact same offer! half in cash now and the other half in illegal narcotics 6months down the line!

i said no incase the line got snorted
 
semi-pro waster said:
It would be nice if one of our resident tax experts could confirm or deny the above as tax is far from a specialty of mine.

'sup.

2) I DO think the link between reducing tax liability and evasion is FAR TOO A GREY AREA. For example if you run a computer company, you could try and buy a 60 inch 3D plasma TV to 'give demos of computer games you're trying to sell'. Then use it for 2 hours in your business, and basically shove it in your car, take it home and put it in your living room. Not income tax paid. No VAT (well, claimed back). No NI. Watch and enjoy.

There would be a benefit in kind on your use of the TV.

britboy4321 said:
- Will the inland revenue ever check .. almost definately 'nope'
- If they do check and you say 'No demos this week, it'll be back in the office for more demos in 2 days' will they be satisfied and no further action? Probably
- BUT could they say 'Nope this is a personal thing you've claimed through the business, see you in court' and next thing you're in the clink for 18 months.. MAYBE. ... it's a frustratingly grey area ...

It's not grey at all. That you are unlikely to get caught doesn't make the law "grey".

britboy4321 said:
It's blimin' grey -- and it winds me up. My brother is an accountant for a pub and he says the landlord claims his shampoo (as well as everything else) 'through the company' (no income tax, VAT etc) -- as 'his customers wouldn't put up with him having dirty hair so it's a business purchase'. It's not black line illegal, or black-line legal. It's whether the taxman is having a nice day or fancies being a badman and taking the landlord to court. It's a mentally gray area ... :(

No, it's black line illegal. Sorry to break it to you, but I do actually know what I'm talking about here. There is case law on this. Purchases that you would make in the ordinary course of your life can not be deducted as business purchases. One of the more pertinent cases on this matter, for there are many, concerned a female lawyer who attempted to claim a deduction for business suits and shoes that she needed to wear in court. She even argued that she wouldn't wear those sorts of clothes but for her job as a lawyer in court. The judge refused the claim on the basis that she would have to wear clothes regardless, for reasons of comfort and decency, so she couldn't claim them as a business expense. Ditto your brother's pub landlord's shampoo.

You can read all about it here. Good luck in finding a loophole for shampoo.
 
Last edited:
So basically you are a cheat and a liar, toavoid tax you cheated and lied, and now you can't take advantage as you've claimed to the govt to have less than you earned.

Good work britboy, proved once again the deceipt and deception in your character.

Hold on Tiger.
A really good accountant knows all the tricks and it doesn't mean for one second that any defrauding, deceipt or deception have been done.
If the Taxman thinks a wrong has been committed they will want proof and I know from experience they will want all the dots matching up.
 
I was actually the one who was considering making the offer. My house has sold, but I can't get the mortgage required for half of this bigger house until early next year as my accountant has done such a good job of making my business accounts look bad to lower my tax bill that at the moment the books are lolworthy (this is actually a good thing until someone other than the taxman is interested in how your business is doing). My year end is December, at which point the accountant can definately make my company look good enough to get the mortgage with THOSE books (which ironically will make me liable for a lot more tax .. but whadya' gonna do?).

Right, so you claim to be operating via a company, yes?

A company is required to pay tax 9 months after the year end, so if you are using a December year end then your most recent tax liability will have been for the year ended 31 December 2010, which would have been due on 1 October 2011. If that is the case, then your accountant will have to have filed your accounts by 30 September 2011, so the accounts should already be closed, unless they're going to be filed late and you're going to pay the Companies House penalty.

If you're talking about accounts for 2011, then those obviously won't be closed yet, but if that's the case then you won't have been required to pay any tax yet, as that won't be due until 1 October 2012, unless you are a large company and subject to quarterly instalment payments, but frankly I find that so laughably improbable that I'm not even going to entertain the notion any further, though I will note that paying artificially low quarterly instalment payments in an attempt to defer your payment is a criminal offence.

Or maybe you're actually self employed?

If that's the case, then you don't have a company, you have a sole trader business. Under self assessment, you pay your tax in two instalments - one by 31 January during the tax year in question and one by 31 July in the following tax year. There is then a top up payment on the following 31 January (along with the instalment for the next year) to make up any difference between what you've paid to date and what your tax return, which you'll be filing by that 31 January, shows. For a given fiscal year, your taxable profits are those for the accounting period ended within that fiscal year.

So, we're probably talking about the year ended 5 April 2011. Your taxable trading profits for the period would be those for the year ended 31 December 2010. You would have paid instalment payments on 31 January 2011 and 31 July 2011, each being half of your prior year tax liability, unless there was good reason to expect they'd be markedly lower than that, though again note that claiming they will be lower when you know they won't be is again a criminal offence. In any case, the instalments of tax that you are paying for the profits for the year ended 31 December 2010 bear no relation to the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 as they are based on your total tax charge for the year ended 5 April 2010, which is based on your accounts for the year ended 31 December 2009. Your accounts for the year ended 31 December 2010 don't need to be filed with HMRC until 31 January 2012, sure, but given that HMRC won't even be seeing your accounts until that point, there is zero benefit in your accountant cooking the books for you. In any case, any self assessment income tax that you will have been paying recently will bear no relation whatsoever to any accounts for the year ended 31 December 2011, which appear to be the ones that you are intending on being glowing so that you can get a stupendous mortgage.

In short, I think you're making this up as you go along. The alternative is that your accountant is taking you for a ride charging you for cooking the books to "keep your tax instalments low". I don't know which is more likely or more amusing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom