|
Post by goldservice on Feb 13, 2015 16:20:06 GMT
Some say that the buyer rate for parts on the secondary market is worse than it looks if you are a tax payer. For example:
blender: Yes, but after that, do you pay income tax? You will pay more tax if you have paid a cash premium for a higher taxable interest rate. (5 February 2015)
blender: If an income tax payer, then consider that the buyer rate does not account for tax. The interest that you receive to pay off the premium is taxed, so if a basic rate taxpayer add a notional 20% to the premium you pay to cover the extra tax on the interest. (20 August 2014)
lendr: If you pay the 3% premium, this is not taxed on the seller at all and is not tax deductible for the buyer. So, in simple terms, if you are a 20% tax payer, gross it up as 3.0%/0.8 = 3.75% and if you are a 40% tax payer, gross it up as 3.0%/0.6 = 5.0%. (20 August 2014)
I passed my quantum mechanics paper many years ago but I have struggled to understand this tax issue to do with premia, an issue that has been mentioned a few times over the last year by several of you.
I should be soooo grateful if one of you could explain this issue not in words of one syllable but in words of extreme clarity. Perhaps a worked example might help me?
One particular thing that I don’t understand: why pick on the “interest that you receive to pay off the premium”? Isn’t this just interest, to be used like any other income - it doesn’t have to be used to pay the premium? I could instead pay the premium with my general funds? And why not also say that as the main cost of the part has been bought with my general funds, most of which have been taxed, the price of the part should really be /0.8 or /0.6?
Sorry if I’m missing the obvious - treat me gently!
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Feb 13, 2015 17:28:02 GMT
Suppose you've got 2 otherwise identical loan parts available to buy, each with a capital value of £100, and no accrued interest as of today.
One has an interest rate of 10%, and the other has an interest rate of 12%, but is offered at a 3% premium, which, today, makes the "buyer rate" equivalent to 10% [1]
For the first loan part, you'll pay £100 today, and will receive £17.65 of interest over the lifetime of the loan. For the second loan part, you'll pay £103 today, and will receive £21.18 of interest over the lifetime of the loan. (for a £18.18 profit, which is 17.65% of your original £103 investment)
Before tax, in both cases, you're in the same relative position, having received an amount 17.65% more than your original investment, so for a non-taxpayer they're essentially equivalent (assuming the loan runs to term).
However, suppose you pay tax at 20%.
20% of £17.65 is £3.53, leaving you with a £14.12 gain net of tax (14.12% of the original £100, an annualised after tax rate around 8%) 20% of £21.18 is £4.24, leaving you with a £13.94 gain net of tax (13.54% of the original £103, an annualised after tax rate around 7.7%)
[1] (for purpose of the analysis I've tweaked the numbers representing the interest received so that this 10% buyer rate is "exact", and the ratio of interest received is directly proportional to the gross rates reported... in reality the true numbers will probably be slightly different. Due to the complications caused by the premium, this didn't end up with the nice round illustrative numbers I'd originally intended...)
Edit: and taking on board blender's following comment, I'll further clarify that the above is an illustration, and is neither intended as tax advice, nor would I be qualified to give such advice. It ignores many other important effects such as fees and risk of defaults, and assumes a specific interpretation of the tax rules that doesn't necessarily apply to your own personal circumstances, and even if it does this year, may not necessarily apply in the future tax years in which you may be receiving the income.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 13, 2015 17:37:03 GMT
Hi Goldservice, The problem with extreme clarity is the danger of giving more specific tax advice that one is qualified to give, or, if qualified, of stepping outside of the purpose of this Forum. The general idea of such comments as you quote is to draw your attention to the possible tax implications of your choices. If you wanted someone to advise whether you should declare your gross interest or the interest net of the service fee, there might be a deafening silence other than a suggestion that you read you tax statement, make a decision, and get professional advice if needed. And that's a simple question. Best I can do is point you to FC's own FAQ on tax. If you have read it, sorry. If not it should help answer the questions you raise. I am assuming that your account is held as an individual, not through a company, and that you probably pay income tax. support.fundingcircle.com/entries/22557912-What-are-the-tax-consequences-of-lending-as-an-individual-Edit: I missed sl75's reply - which is an excellent example. But first you need to understand what is taxable, and what to income and what to capital gains. Edit2: Sl75 has not accounted for the 1% fee (perhaps to avoid my second para?)
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Feb 14, 2015 11:21:50 GMT
sl75: that's really helpful - I'm absorbing it slowly ... - many thanks - have a gold star!
|
|