uk.finance

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:53:45 GMT,
Ronald Raygun < @ > wrote:
>
> You don't actually need to transfer 100% ownership to him if all you
> want is for him to benefit from rental income. I gather if you go into
> "partnership" with him, giving him a small share of the ownership, there
> is an automatic assumption that you will share the profits 50-50 unless
> you tell the taxman you want to split the profits other than 50-50.
>
I think the 50-50 assumption applies to husband and wife. And if you
don't share the profit/loss 50-50 then it has to be in the proportions
that the house is actually owned.

But in the OPs case it's father and son so the assumption will be that
the profit/loss will be shared in the proportion that they own the
house. However they can write to the taxman (there is no form for this)
to say that they will be allocating the money in any proportion they
like. (I don't really understand why there is this discrepancy - I
assume it's to do with the idea that one person might be providing most
of the capital and someone else most of managing and running the
investments in a partnership while a husband and wife "team" there isn't
such a clear division - especially as capital can trivially be
transferred backwards and forwards without any CGT becoming due)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

/ /