Fulltime Landlords.

Always Learning said:
If your goal is is accumulate wealth, but not draw it down, then there are benefits to starting a company and keeping the properties in there
Click to expand...

Key Post - Is there any merit in setting up a company to invest in property?

Hi, I am currently looking at investing in property and hoping to buy and appartment/house in Galway. I am also looking at a property with some commercial potential but needs some work. What I am wondering if it is worthwhile purchasing a property via a Ltd company and if there are any...
www.askaboutmoney.com

Key Post: Company to hold investment properties

(This discussion took place on the old AAM in December 2000. I have reproduced it here so it can be marked as a Key Post. Tommy ============== Because it's an old post, some of the tax figures have changed and the decision is no longer as clear cut as it was. Don't make any decision until...
www.askaboutmoney.com
 
Always Learning said:
Please elaborate
Click to expand...
Every single bit of it is wrong as regards holding property through a company. It's like you ignored every single piece of tax legislation.

The instances where it makes sense for an individual to hold residential property through a company are so limited that its only theoretical.
 
RedOnion said:
Every single bit of it is wrong as regards holding property through a company. It's like you ignored every single piece of tax legislation.

The instances where it makes sense for an individual to hold residential property through a company are so limited that its only theoretical.
Click to expand...
Ok, my point was intended to discourage holding property in a company if you ever want to get the money out. The only possible scenario where it might make sense to have it in a company would be if you weren't drawing a wage from it. I don't think I'm wrong in regard.

I've clearly gotten the finer points of why it is not a good idea incorrect though. Maybe they should delete the post so as not to lead anyone astray, although this follow up should do that. I edited it to remove the incorrect information instead.
 
Always Learning said:
The only possible scenario where it might make sense to have it in a company would be if you weren't drawing a wage from it. I don't think I'm wrong in regard.

I've clearly gotten the finer points of why it is not a good idea incorrect though
Click to expand...
No, still wrong.

It makes no sense. Full stop. Ever. There are no finer points to it.

If you don't take the money out, the company will be subject to close company surcharge. Couple that with double capital gains tax treatment on any gains if you're still in doubt.
 
RedOnion said:
No, still wrong.

It makes no sense. Full stop. Ever. There are no finer points to it.

If you don't take the money out, the company will be subject to close company surcharge. Couple that with double capital gains tax treatment on any gains if you're still in doubt.
Click to expand...

Okay, there seems to be a very lengthy post in the link Club Man posted above which is debating the potential of holding property in a company if the goal is only to accumulate wealth. I don't know enough about it to comment so I won't get into it. I think everyone agrees on one thing, if the goal is to draw a wage, buy it personally.
 
RedOnion said:
Even if the goal is not to draw a wage, buy it personally.
When you get to the close company surcharge is, it will make sense.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to open up a bug debate again that has already been discussed. But I do have a query that maybe you can help with... a few years back, at the time that I sought professional advice on the matter (i was advised to do it personally and i did so ultimately its irrelevant but im curious), I don't remember the close company surcharge being highlighted. Obviously that's an important piece of information so im wondering why. However, I was a director in a company with more than 5 employees at the time. Am I right in thinking it is not applicable if you have a company with more than 5 employees?
 
@Always Learning
No. The number of employees is irrelevant. Its the number of participants (shareholders) that come into play.

There's no risk of opening a debate, it'll be very 1 sided.

Get yourself a better tax advisor. You need it based on the level of wealth you've mentioned in the past.
 
RedOnion said:
@Always Learning
No. The number of employees is irrelevant. Its the number of participants (shareholders) that come into play.

There's no risk of opening a debate, it'll be very 1 sided.

Get yourself a better tax advisor. You need it based on the level of wealth you've mentioned in the past.
Click to expand...
I wont go changing just yet, they've done good by us so far. There's every chance it was explained and I just didn't recall it, I have the memory of a goldfish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top