To buy or Not to buy - that is the question!

If she is dumb enough to sell her house for 70% of it's value then I'm sure she has lots of "very dear" friends.

If you were a real friend you would suggest a more eqiutiable arrangement to her.

I guess there really is one born every minute..

Adrian Smith

She should ask him to accept staged payments.

If she wants to stay in the house it would seem reasonable that she makes the effort to get a reasonable income.

I'll offer 80% of the value, cash, for starters. Tran

A reasonable income is enough to pay for what she wishes to spend.

People who take time out to study and reduce their present income have to accept that they don't have the spending power of people who are performing paid work for longer.

I'm not sure why you think you should take on this role. Is she incapable of doing this?

What are they?

This seems a wild statement. I see from your reply to Adrian that you turn to insults when you don't get the approval you crave:

"Obviously Adrian Smith you are not quite as switched on as you would like to think you are!"

"Yep, there really is one born every minute - you are proof of that!"

"Neither of us are that dumb but obviously you are!"

You have access to your posts. Can't you answer that question yourself?

"Miss Moneypenny" wrote

also:

"Miss Moneypenny" wrote (in a different reply)

and:

"Miss Moneypenny" wrote

OK, keeping just to the financial side - you won't forget to disclose properly the value of the "other benefits" when you complete the Stamp Duty Land Tax form, will you?!

Don't be so crude. You can't put a monetary value on love and friendship (which seems to be what's behind this), and even if you could, it wouldn't be subject to sdlt or any other tax.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

If that is really what the "extra benefit" is, then can you suggest why it would be witheld if the house sale didn't go through?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Yes, but "assets" given in exchange for (part of) land/property, *are* subject to SDLT!

Where was it said that that would be the case?

Is undying gratitude an asset, in the technical sense?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

For instance: > > "Miss Moneypenny" wrote > >> ... gain in some other way from this sale, ...

For her to be "gaining" the benefit from the sale, requires her *not* to receive said benefit if the sale doesn't occur...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Dunno! - but I expect not.

But it need not be a matter of the benefit being *given* from one party to the other, it could simply *arise* as a side effect, and moreover be mutual.

So the other person would *also* be gaining or not gaining said benefit, whatever it might be. Proximity, perhaps, with the ensuing ability to enjoy each other's company more easily, i.e. with less travel overhead, and therefore also probably more frequently.

From that point of view there would be no question of it being "withheld" if the sale did not proceed, it would simply be a case of the side effect not happening. Since the benefit, if it went ahead, would be mutual, so would the lack of it be if it didn't, and hence it would be tax neutral because there would be no *transfer* of value involved. Either both parties gain, equally, or they don't.

In message , Miss Moneypenny writes

So you are buying it at 70% of value and need to borrow 85% of the 70% being 59.5% of the value, is that right?

You could certainly do it but I suggest that the vendor sells it to you at 100% value but lends you the remaining 30% secured by a second charge over the property. there is every possibility that she will lose benefits as a result of this transaction.