Nick Wright discusses the key factors determining when property portfolio incorporation makes financial sense, from interest relief restrictions to estate planning benefits.
Property portfolio incorporation is a hot topic currently, with various tax incentives to hold property within a corporate structure. However, transferring properties to a company presents numerous tax challenges, in particular capital gains tax (CGT), and stamp duty land tax (SDLT) (or its equivalents in Scotland and Wales). There are also commercial hurdles, such as novating mortgages and tenancies to a new legal entity.
The decision requires careful evaluation of individual circumstances, financing arrangements, and long-term cash extraction and wealth accumulation strategies.
Corporation tax benefits
The primary attraction of corporate ownership lies in potentially lower tax rates on rental profits. Corporation tax applies at 19% for profits up to £50,000, rising to 25% for profits exceeding £250,000, with marginal relief for intermediate amounts. This alone can represent significant savings compared to personal income tax rates of 20%, 40%, or 45%.
For higher rate taxpayers, the corporation tax saving proves particularly attractive. A landlord generating £50,000 rental profit faces income tax of £20,000. The same profit in a company attracts corporation tax of £9,500, generating immediate savings of £10,500.
However, this is not the full picture; corporate profits face a second layer of taxation: corporation tax, followed by income tax on extraction through dividends or capital gains tax on liquidation.
Extracting profits as dividends
Dividends are paid after corporation tax at a rate of 8.75% (basic rate), 33.75% (higher rate), or 39.35% (additional rate) for individual shareholders.
Consider a property company generating £50,000 profit. After corporation tax of £9,500, £40,500 remains for distribution. A higher rate taxpayer faces dividend tax of approximately £13,669 on this distribution, receiving net proceeds of £26,831. This compares to £30,000 after income tax in personal ownership, suggesting corporate ownership is less desirable if all profits are to be extracted on an annual basis.
However, this analysis assumes full profit extraction. Where profits can be retained and reinvested, corporate ownership proves more attractive. The £40,500 post-corporation tax enables greater reinvestment compared to £30,000 after personal taxation.
Directors' loan accounts are often used to manage the number of dividend declarations required throughout the year. This must be continually monitored to ensure loans to participator charges (under CTA 2010, s 455) do not apply inadvertently.
Capital gains on liquidation
Alternative extraction strategies include company liquidation, potentially converting income profits to capital gains, and suffering lower tax rates. Basic rate taxpayers pay CGT at 18%, whilst higher rate taxpayers face a CGT rate of 24%.
However, the ‘anti-phoenix’ rules in ITTOIA 2005, s 396B restrict serial liquidations where individuals continue similar businesses. These provisions can convert liquidation distributions back to income tax, eliminating the capital gains advantage.
In considering these strategies, we must also consider basic rate taxpayers who are only liable to tax on dividends at a rate of 8.75%; in other words, for basic rate taxpayers operating via a limited company, extracting profits as dividends will be more tax-efficient.
Interest relief advantages
The restriction on mortgage interest relief for individual landlords significantly enhances corporate ownership, especially for highly geared property portfolios. Under ITTOIA 2005, s 272A, residential property landlords receive only basic rate tax credits for finance costs rather than full deductions against rental income.
This restriction particularly impacts higher rate taxpayers. Consider a property generating £50,000 rental income with £30,000 mortgage interest. An individual faces tax on the full £50,000 rental profit, receiving only a 20% tax credit on the £30,000 interest, effectively £6,000 of relief instead of the £12,000 deduction that a 40% taxpayer would historically have claimed.
Corporate ownership eliminates this restriction. Companies can claim full relief for finance costs under the loan relationships rules (in CTA 2009, Pt 5), meaning the analysis of personal vs corporate ownership may change again.
Timing of profit extraction
Owning property within a company also provides flexibility in the timing of dividend receipts.
This flexibility can prove particularly valuable for landlords with volatile income streams or those managing tax-efficient extraction strategies.
Non-tax costs of operating a company
Despite the potentially favourable tax outcome of corporate ownership, it is not uncommon for that benefit to be marginal. When the additional costs of running a company are also considered, the scales may, again, tip in the other direction. Additional costs will include preparation of annual accounts, corporation tax returns, confirmation statements, and, in some larger cases, potential audit requirements.
Legal costs are also likely to increase. Property acquisitions often require corporate conveyancing, director resolutions, and enhanced due diligence. Mortgage arrangements may also be more complex or carry higher interest rates. These cumulative costs can erode tax savings, particularly for smaller portfolios.
Portfolio size
It is often the case that the benefits of incorporation are greater with larger portfolios, especially where there are significant mortgages attached to the properties.
Smaller portfolios, especially single properties, rarely justify incorporation costs and complexity. The administrative burden and professional fees often exceed tax savings for portfolios generating less than £30,000 annual profit.
Highly geared portfolios particularly benefit from corporate ownership due to unrestricted interest relief. Where mortgage costs represent substantial proportions of rental income, the interest restriction for individuals can prove decisive in favouring incorporation.
However, corporate borrowing costs must be factored into calculations, and indeed, the costs of refinancing. Where corporate lending rates significantly exceed personal mortgage rates, the financing disadvantage may outweigh interest relief benefits. Market conditions and individual credit profiles will influence these calculations.
Timing of incorporation
If corporate ownership is the preferred structure, the simplest and cheapest route is to establish that structure from the outset. This way, there are no costs associated with transferring the properties and no additional tax charges to be concerned about.
Where properties are already owned personally but with little or no gain, the CGT exposure will be limited (or eliminated). However, SDLT is likely to apply. Even where a property has been purchased personally and is then transferred to a company the next day, SDLT is likely to apply on the transfer. For this reason, careful consideration as to the appropriate structure should be made prior to acquiring a property.
Further analysis of the CGT and SDLT exposure will be explained in a future article.
Estate planning advantages
Estate planning is, perhaps, one of the main drivers for incorporating a property portfolio, even where the income tax benefits are negligible.
Holding properties via a limited company means a share structure can be implemented that allows the existing value of the portfolio to be frozen, with those shares held by the older generation and any future growth in value allocated to a separate class of shares (often imaginatively referred to as ‘growth’ shares).
Commonly, the freezer shares will have voting and dividend rights, while the growth shares will not have voting rights (or limited voting rights) and may or may not have dividend rights.
This allows the older generation to have full control of the portfolio and income during their lifetime while ensuring the growth in value remains outside of their estate. The freezer shares (along with the voting rights) are only passed down on death.
However, property investment companies rarely qualify for business property relief, limiting inheritance tax mitigation opportunities.
Key points to consider
The decision as to whether to incorporate depends on several critical factors:
-
portfolio size and profitability levels determine whether corporate tax rates provide meaningful savings;
-
the amount of interest relief restriction;
-
the requirement to extract profits for personal use or whether they can be retained within a corporate structure;
-
mortgage arrangements and the costs of refinancing;
-
ongoing costs of running a limited company;
-
CGT and SDLT exposure on transferring properties to a limited company; and
-
professional fees associated with transferring properties.
It is also worth bearing in mind that incorporation is a relatively one-way decision. The costs of disincorporating back to personal ownership are likely to be significant.
Future tax changes may mitigate the current benefits of incorporation. What if, for example, a corporate interest relief restriction was introduced for companies owning residential properties? Would the benefits of incorporation still exist?
We have seen numerous other changes in recent years, including annual tax on enveloped dwellings charges, non-resident surcharges, and the abolition of the furnished holiday let regime.
Conclusion
No two portfolios are the same, nor are the individuals running them. Whether incorporation is desired for income tax planning, family wealth and succession planning, or any number of commercial purposes, the benefits of incorporation must be carefully considered alongside an often significant number-crunching exercise.
The decision requires detailed analysis of individual circumstances, portfolio characteristics, and personal objectives. Whilst corporate structures offer genuine advantages, particularly for larger, highly geared portfolios held by higher-rate taxpayers, they are not always the most suitable option.
Perhaps the most important point is that any incorporation decision must be a result of comprehensive analysis rather than headline tax rate comparisons, particularly given the risks associated with incorrect choices and the irreversible nature of incorporation.
