G
GeoffreyOD
Guest
Been looking at various Section 23 like schemes over the last few months and talking to people involved in operating some of these schemes and I've begun to question the logic behind this tax break.
Rural Renewal Scheme seems to be bringing some really dodgy property to market that would never have been built but for the TAX relief.
e.g. Apartments in rural areas which flood and where the foundations aren't solid.
Apartments that you couldn't swing a mouse in much less a cat.
Developers pocket the TAX relief, rather than the investor through higher purchase prices
.
Town Renewal Scheme which increases the value of derelict property to such an extent that it is almost uneconomic to develop it and in order to compulsorily acquire the land under the derelict properties act the local Co. Co. must pay the owner a higher price because of the tax reliefs attached to the property which increase it's percieved worth.
TRS doesn't seem to be working in that the only villages that are being developed are the ones that have real potential as dormer towns, not the one horse towns out in the middle of nowhere with nothing going for them. The dormer towns which qualify for TRS would be developed without the tax reliefs anyhow.
I put it to the group that section 23 relief benefits
1) the owner who never bothered to improve their property or area
2) the developer
3) the auctioneer
and doesn't deliver the goods in that we don't get the appropriate type of development.
On top of that the scheme is inherently unfair in that only the asset rich can benefit from purchasing section 23 property.
Rural Renewal Scheme seems to be bringing some really dodgy property to market that would never have been built but for the TAX relief.
e.g. Apartments in rural areas which flood and where the foundations aren't solid.
Apartments that you couldn't swing a mouse in much less a cat.
Developers pocket the TAX relief, rather than the investor through higher purchase prices
.
Town Renewal Scheme which increases the value of derelict property to such an extent that it is almost uneconomic to develop it and in order to compulsorily acquire the land under the derelict properties act the local Co. Co. must pay the owner a higher price because of the tax reliefs attached to the property which increase it's percieved worth.
TRS doesn't seem to be working in that the only villages that are being developed are the ones that have real potential as dormer towns, not the one horse towns out in the middle of nowhere with nothing going for them. The dormer towns which qualify for TRS would be developed without the tax reliefs anyhow.
I put it to the group that section 23 relief benefits
1) the owner who never bothered to improve their property or area
2) the developer
3) the auctioneer
and doesn't deliver the goods in that we don't get the appropriate type of development.
On top of that the scheme is inherently unfair in that only the asset rich can benefit from purchasing section 23 property.