I'm not disputing the factual position – I really couldn't have any clearer on that point.
If I take out a loan to purchase a premises from which I intend to operate my business that is clearly not a BTL (buy to let) loan. I'm not buying the property with a view to letting it to anybody.
Look at the example that I quoted in my last post above (post 124). Yes you did! It was an inane example of how not to purchase tax efficient commercial property. The obvious thing to do to reduce your liabilities, would be for you to rent your recently purchased commercial premises (with the commercial mortgage) to your business.No, I didn't. I really couldn't have been clearer on that point -
No Ides, I didn't. However, I would like to thank you for the unsolicited tax advice - very helpful I must say.Yes you did
Your more than welcome, looks like you need it if you intend to dip your beak into any commercial property venture. Ha!No Ides, I didn't. However, I would like to thank you for the unsolicited tax advice - very helpful I must say.
So, after all that we still seem to have contradictory views as to whether loans secured on non-residential property are in scope. Hopefully Dan will clarify the matter with the Central Bank and report back to us.
Red Onion,CBI have clarified that commercial loans (whether mortgage or not) are in scope where the loan is secured against a home. That brings a lot of small business loans into scope. It may also bring cross-collateralised into scope.
Hi Sarenco,I appreciate that flatly contradicts what Ides is saying but there it is.
It also contradicts what Jim Stafford is saying?
It's extraordinary that there is still such confusion. It's also extraordinary if non-residential properties are excluded - as in, why would the Central Bank not wish to protect the Consumer - all Consumers (as per their definition)?
In advance of writing to the Central Bank, I've been doing a bit of research. When I complimented RedOnion earlier, it was out of gratitude for providing the link to the Finance Committee link which I was in the middle of reading. My understanding of this is that the Governor said that commercial mortgages should be included!! The caveat is that he did not use those precise words but that certainly was my understanding of what he was saying.
Curious and curiouser.
Sorry a bit rushed - need to head out....