ARCH said:...if the property was to fall only slightly all you may have lost is the tax you would have paid if you sold now.
Of course it isn't. Why would anyone pay CGT at all if you could do this? CGT is due on the difference between the purchase price (plus capital expenditure) and the sale price. It has nothing to do with balance left on the mortgage. What ARCH suggested is rubbish.Is this possible?
Is this legal?
ARCH said:You could also think about holding on to the property refiancing and extract 70K you still have the property you still have an increased equity stake and you have avoided having to give the tax man a 20% share of your profit.
THis of course does have a risk to it but if the property was to fall only slightly all you may have lost is the tax you would have paid if you sold now.
I think it worth a taught.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?