"Buyers Commission May Be Required"
Scion
Thanks
Adrian
saying:
> Seen this phrase in estate agents listings - what does it mean?
Exactly what it says. The buyer may be required to pay the agent a
commission, probably a percentage of the purchase price.
Scion
Well that's a new one on me. I was under the impression it was *always* the
seller who paid the estate agent's commission.
Adrian
Depends on the agreement the seller & agent strike. There's certainly
nothing to say that the commission MUST ALWAYS be paid by the seller.
Either way, not sure it matters. The only figure that matters is the one
you end up paying - doesn't matter how it's made up.
GB
>
> Either way, not sure it matters. The only figure that matters is the
> one you end up paying - doesn't matter how it's made up.
Say the selling price is close to one of the SDLT thresholds, would you get
away with the concept that the estate agent is your agent (if you are paying
him) so the agent's commission falls outside the SDLT calculation?
--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
Scion
For sure that is the important figure.
Curious why it's worded that buyers commission "may" be required. When does
the buyer find out if it is payable, and how much it is?
Scion
> Adrian wrote:
>
>>
>> Either way, not sure it matters. The only figure that matters is the
>> one you end up paying - doesn't matter how it's made up.
>
> Say the selling price is close to one of the SDLT thresholds, would
> you get away with the concept that the estate agent is your agent (if
> you are paying him) so the agent's commission falls outside the SDLT
> calculation?
Well my previous house was priced a few Łk above a Stamp Duty threshold. I
paid (stamp duty threshold - Ł1) for the house and Ł[some]k for fixtures and
fittings.
Andrew May
> "Scion"<a...@b.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>> Seen this phrase in estate agents listings - what does it mean?
>
>>> Exactly what it says. The buyer may be required to pay the agent a
>>> commission, probably a percentage of the purchase price.
>
>> Well that's a new one on me. I was under the impression it was *always*
>> the seller who paid the estate agent's commission.
>
> nothing to say that the commission MUST ALWAYS be paid by the seller.
>
> Either way, not sure it matters. The only figure that matters is the one
> you end up paying - doesn't matter how it's made up.
How does HMRC view this though?
Scenario 1: Seller sells house for 257,500. Pays estate agent 3% =
7,725. Gets 249,775. Stamp Duty paid by buyer = 7,710.
Scenario 2: Seller sells house for 249,775. Seller get full 249,775.
Buyer pays agents 3% = 7,493. Stamp Duty paid by buyer = 2,497.
Agent looses just over 200 pounds if the commission remains the same but
tax man is out of pocket by almost 5 grand.
Ok, rather a contrived example but you get my point.
Andrew
Paul
> Adrian wrote:
>> "Scion"<a...@b.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> Seen this phrase in estate agents listings - what does it mean?
>>
>>>> Exactly what it says. The buyer may be required to pay the agent a
>>>> commission, probably a percentage of the purchase price.
>>
>>> Well that's a new one on me. I was under the impression it was
>>> *always* the seller who paid the estate agent's commission.
>>
>> nothing to say that the commission MUST ALWAYS be paid by the seller.
>>
>> Either way, not sure it matters. The only figure that matters is the
>> one you end up paying - doesn't matter how it's made up.
>
> For sure that is the important figure.
>
> Curious why it's worded that buyers commission "may" be required. When does
> the buyer find out if it is payable, and how much it is?
>
>
>
sort of estate disposal where the seller might be a bit savvy to paying
huge commissions to the estate agent, then the agent might try to get
his fee from the buyer,
Neil Williams
> Well my previous house was priced a few £k above a Stamp Duty threshold. I
> paid (stamp duty threshold - £1) for the house and £[some]k for fixtures and
> fittings.
I don't entirely understand why stamp duty isn't priced in the same
"incremental" way as income tax. That way this nonsense would be
avoided. By that I mean, say, 0% on the first £125000, then 5% on any
amount between £125000 and £250000, then 10% on any amount above
£250000, or whatever actual figures would make income the same as it
is at present.
Neil
Scion
> X-No-Archive:Yes
>
>
> "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:99c1bc68-01f0-4b3c...@d19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 11:45 am, "Scion" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>
>> threshold. I paid (stamp duty threshold - Ł1) for the house and
>> fittings.
>
> I don't entirely understand why stamp duty isn't priced in the same
> "incremental" way as income tax. That way this nonsense would be
> amount between Ł125000 and Ł250000, then 10% on any amount above
> Ł250000, or whatever actual figures would make income the same as it
> is at present.
>
> *********************************************
>
> ?????
>
> same thing surely...?
Not at all. At present when a stamp duty threshold is exceeded, the new
stamp duty percentage is payable on the entire price.
>
> There will always be a benefit to keep below a threshold for those
> properties that are valued *around* that threshhold.
Only because of the skewed way it is calculated.
> In your example, you would be mad to declare a property valued at
> Ł125,000 as the sale figure.... it will be Ł124.999, or something
> similar on the agreed sale price whatever the outcome of the
> sale....buyer and seller would be mad to not do so.
> Same for the other threshhold breaks..
> It gets more problematic as the price/value of the house drifts from
> the threshhold price levels and in which some manouvering *might* be
> possible by selling fixtures and fittings separately to the house
> price.. ...but they are on to under declaration by upping fixtures
> and fittings to levels that are, well, just about impossible..
Again, wouldn't be an issue if stamp duty was calculated more fairly.
Scion
Why not just a fixed %age regardless of value?
Geoff Berrow
Much too simple. You'd have to get rid of an army of civil servants.
Hang on...
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
tim....
"Paul" <23...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qvh2t...@mid.individual.net...
It's quite common with repos that are being sold (especially multiple
agency).
It tends to be very much a low end thing where the normal, 2% of 20 grand,
wouldn't be worth the EA's time.
tim....
"Andrew May" <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qvdv4...@mid.individual.net...
> On 03/02/2011 10:05, Adrian wrote:
>> "Scion"<a...@b.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> Seen this phrase in estate agents listings - what does it mean?
>>
>>>> Exactly what it says. The buyer may be required to pay the agent a
>>>> commission, probably a percentage of the purchase price.
>>
>>> Well that's a new one on me. I was under the impression it was *always*
>>> the seller who paid the estate agent's commission.
>>
>> Depends on the agreement the seller& agent strike. There's certainly
>> nothing to say that the commission MUST ALWAYS be paid by the seller.
>>
>> Either way, not sure it matters. The only figure that matters is the one
>> you end up paying - doesn't matter how it's made up.
>
> How does HMRC view this though?
I suspect that if you can contrive to save SDLT this way, it's tough tittys
for the revenue.
tim
RobertL
>
> news:99c1bc68-01f0-4b3c...@d19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Poorly phrased legislation I think, but it's now entrenched that
nobody can think of changing it. The tax vs price curve should be
continuous of course, not have jumps in it.
Robert
Scion
Heh, imagine if you got a pay rise that took you to the 40% income tax
bracket and it was applied to your total salary :-)
Robin
> Poorly phrased legislation I think,
That really is rather unfair to Parliamentary Counsel - generations of
them given the antiquity of the stamp duty. The "slab" system was very
deliberately kept despite very many representations for change to a
"slice" system.
> but it's now entrenched that
> nobody can think of changing it. The tax vs price curve should be
> continuous of course, not have jumps in it.
>
One (cough) advantage of the present system is that the headline rates
of stamp duty are not so high. If the system were changed as discussed
here from the "slab" to a "slice" basis on a revenue neutral basis then
either the headline rates would be higher.
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com
Neil Williams
Presumably for the same reason income tax isn't like that either,
i.e. that progressive taxation is typically "loaded" on the rich.
Neil
--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK
S
Someone, I don't remember whether a politician or taxman, once
defended it on the basis that it is easy to calculate, which is the
lamest reason in the computer age. Interestingly, this principle is
not applied to income tax or benefits.
Peter Crosland
And if HMR&C find out the penalties will be much higher than the potential
saving.
Peter Crosland
Scion
> have to pay their agent a commission, and that payment would be over
> and above any offer/purchase price. It does not imply that the
> listing/selling agent, the one who made that quoted statement, might
> claim some money from the buyer. The commission of the
> listing/selling agent will be paid by the seller, and usually
> directly by their solicitor out of the proceeds of the sale.
If that is the case it seems an odd thing to put in the particulars. It's a
bit like putting "buyer may have to pay removal fees".
Roland Perry
Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Scion <a...@b.invalid> remarked:
>>The commission of the
>> listing/selling agent will be paid by the seller, and usually
>> directly by their solicitor out of the proceeds of the sale.
>
>If that is the case it seems an odd thing to put in the particulars. It's a
>bit like putting "buyer may have to pay removal fees".
There are many odd things in Estate Agents particulars.
Like the expression "Vacant possession", which they appear to think
means "the property is empty at the moment", rather than "once you've
bought it you'll discover an absence of tenants".
--
Roland Perry
tim....
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6YCdnY307OzitNbQ...@brightview.co.uk...
I don't think there's any suggestion that anyone is trying a fiddle.
They are asking if it a correct legal interpretation (and ISTM that it is)
tim
Nick Odell
Sometimes people commission an agent to find them a property to a
specification or to arrange the purchase of a specific property that
might not currently be up for sale. Surely a buyer's commission would
be reasonable in those circumstances?
Nick
Scion
Of course. I was specifically talking about properties listed by the seller
through the agent and should have made that clearer.
Andrew May
if the seller had decided that they were not going to pay the agents
fees as a result of which the price paid was lower what would be the
grounds for prosecution?
Andrew
Man at B&Q
> "Andrew May" <andrew_d_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Has any law been broken? Tax avoidance is perfectly legal.
The buyer has paid a third party (who also happens to be an estate
agent) to find them a house and bought the house from the buyer for an
agreed price which happens to be just under one of the stamp duty
thresholds.
Are you saying that the fees for professional house finders are lumped
in with the purchase price of the house for stamp duty purposes?
MBQ
Mark
I wonder whether HMRC will be chasing this kind of thing at present
since they seem to be rather overworked currently.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Robin
> Of course. I was specifically talking about properties listed by the
> seller through the agent and should have made that clearer.
Properties in the UK? And not repossessions? (I ask as I thought it
was a practice more common abroad. I think I saw it here in connection
with repossessed homes - but they may have been being sold by auction.)
tim....
"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rf5ok6dj1imjsh697...@4ax.com...
> a
> seller pays the commissions for both the buyer's agent and the seller's
> agent.
But we are not in the US and no-one in the UK knows that it works that way
(I believe your answer to the question is wrong BTW)
tim
m...@privacy.net
"Robin" <s...@sig.sep> wrote:
> >
> > Of course. I was specifically talking about properties listed by the
> > seller through the agent and should have made that clearer.
>
> Properties in the UK? And not repossessions? (I ask as I thought it
> was a practice more common abroad. I think I saw it here in connection
> with repossessed homes - but they may have been being sold by auction.)
It /was/ the norm in one part of the UK about 30 years ago. I remember a
friend buying a property in Northern Ireland in the early 70s and paying the
agent's fees. When he came to sell in the late 70s he had to pay the agent's
fees again, as in the meantime they'd come into line with the rest of the UK.
I can't speak for Scotland, I believe the solicitors are also the estate
agent. Is that correct?
--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply
m...@privacy.net
"Scion" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
> Heh, imagine if you got a pay rise that took you to the 40% income tax
> bracket and it was applied to your total salary :-)
>
>
It does apply on low income. If you exceed the LEL for NI you then have to
pay on the full whack the NI (a tax by any other name) contributions. A
friend refused a pay rise to avoid this.
David McNeish
> I can't speak for Scotland, I believe the solicitors are also the estate
> agent. Is that correct?
Often solicitors do the marketing, but we also have plenty of
specialist estate agents.
Either way, I've never heard of the buyer paying any of the agents'
fees.
David
Robin
> It does apply on low income. If you exceed the LEL for NI you then
> have to pay on the full whack the NI (a tax by any other name)
> contributions. A friend refused a pay rise to avoid this.
I think you will find that "cliff edge" in NICs changed many moons ago.
See eg the 1998 Budget.
(Much as nuLabour like to pray in aid the name of Beveridge, they were
happy to ignore his guiding principle of flat rate contributions in
return for flat rate benefits.)
tim....
> that a
> buyer must pay the fees of his own agent.
No, I didn't misunderstand that at all.
> Buyer's agents are not uncommon with both British and foreign buyers of
> more
> expensive homes in London and where the buyers may have limited time to
> visit
> multiple estate agents and to access every list of sole agency properties.
But they are a very long way from the norm and I would suggest that an EA
would not add "buyers commission may be required" on the end of the details
just on the off chance that someone with a buyer's agent comes along as a
buyer.
So they must have done it for some other reason.
tim
S
Brown changed it many years ago. Refusing a pay rise for this makes
little sense, even if in the short term it means a reduction in take-
home pay. Was he intending to stay under the LEL forever? People at
just above the LEL got the best deal out of the state pension and
benefits requiring NI contributions. Did he not expect to get a state
pension at all or did he already have the contributions for the
maximum number of years? Otherwise the increase in state pension would
pay for the NI contributions at the LEL in a couple years.
Man at B&Q
> Seen this phrase in estate agents listings - what does it mean?
>
Perhaps an example will help? Very easy to find in Google, seem to be
mostly, if not all, flats and probably leasehold. E.g.,
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/13433394
MBQ
Man at B&Q
> Seen this phrase in estate agents listings - what does it mean?
>
> Thanks
Further to the example I gave, most of the Google hits seem to be
listed by one agent "Choices" who are a buyers agent.
MBQ
tim....
"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9001f904-7dc4-43c0...@o32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------
So why do they say "may be required" and not "will...."
tim
Roland Perry
2011, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>Further to the example I gave, most of the Google hits seem to be
>listed by one agent "Choices" who are a buyers agent.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>So why do they say "may be required" and not "will...."
Might be like a warning on a bag of Pecans saying "may contain nuts".
--
Roland Perry
Man at B&Q
> "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:9001f904-7dc4-43c0...@o32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 8:40 am, "Scion" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Seen this phrase in estate agents listings - what does it mean?
>
> > Thanks
>
> Further to the example I gave, most of the Google hits seem to be
> listed by one agent "Choices" who are a buyers agent.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So why do they say "may be required" and not "will...."
>
> tim
Some of them do indeed omit the "may be". If they introduce you to a
property you have already found yourself, and you go ahead and buy it,
then I doubt they would be able to charge anything.
MBQ
tim....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I've tried that. Usually when I get an email from a company that require a
buyer's commission, I can't find the same property any other way.
tim