What is Stamp Duty Land Tax used to fund? According to the gov.uk website, UK residents need to pay Stamp Duty Land Tax when they buy a property over a certain value. Where does this money go and what is it used to fund?
It goes into the Consolidated Fund and thereafter is used the same way as the rest of the government's money; there's no special destination for this particular set of tax receipts. That was also the case for its predecessor tax, stamp duty (which still exists for some other transactions other than the ones in land covered by SDLT). Without tracing the legislative history too far, the Finance Act 2003 created SDLT as a tax, and provided for it to be collected by HM Revenue &amp; Customs the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 says that HMRC must put all their receipts into the Consolidated Fund, apart from certain exceptions which don't include SDLT As a matter of policy, HM Treasury strongly prefers the &quot;one big pot&quot; system. See the Government manual Managing Public Money, 2021 ed., at 5.6.3: Proposals to create new taxes in order to assign their proceeds to new spending proposals are rarely acceptable. Decisions on tax are for Treasury ministers, who are reluctant to compromise their future fiscal freedom to make decision. The general reason here is that if there is one big pot of money, the government has a freer hand than if there were (say) separate funds that could only be spent on road maintenance, or agricultural subsidies, or whatever. Additionally, within the context of the &quot;Exchequer Pyramid&quot; also explained in that document, the one big pot is used in overnight market operations by the Debt Management Office, and having more money available for that purpose is generally useful. While this particular facet of the system has been in operation only since 1998, the general pattern of having one big pot of money has been policy since at least the early 19th century. When &quot;stamp duty&quot; originated in 1694 (5 Wm &amp; Mary c. 21) it was one of several taxes created at about that time, and intended to fund the Nine Years' War (as we now call it; obviously not a label of the time). Over the next century, it was continued and expanded, since it was found to be convenient to administer, and capable of raising good sums of money. But that time period then brushes into the modernisation of the public finances, including the creation of the Consolidated Fund as mentioned. Rather than taxes being special affairs created for specific spending needs, we had a form of government with more predictable outgoings and an interest in being systematic about the management of the national debt. In the case of SDLT, its creation involved rationalising the aspect of &quot;stamp duty&quot; that was relevant to most people's lives (buying property). One policy aim was that by severing it from the former version of stamp duty, it would become easier to provide different rules for how it could work, specific to the nature of the property market. There is no particular policy need to have it fund any given aspect of public spending, including war with France. These days, war with France would be paid for out of general funds.
Yes, in england-and-wales the Criminal Finances Act 2017 introduced 'Unexplained Wealth Orders', which compel the respondent to provide a statement: (a) setting out the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property in respect of which the order is made, (b) explaining how the respondent obtained the property (including, in particular, how any costs incurred in obtaining it were met), (c) where the property is held by the trustees of a settlement, setting out such details of the settlement as may be specified in the order, and (d) setting out such other information in connection with the property as may be so specified. There a few requirements set out in section 362B, for example, the property must have value of over £50,000; there should be &quot;reasonable grounds&quot; for suspicion that the respondent would have been unable to obtain the property using their lawfully obtained income; the respondent or their connections must have either been involved in serious or organised crime, or be a politically exposed person, and so on. If the respondent refuses to make such a statement, the police may apply for a Civil Recovery Order to confiscate the property, with the property in question &quot;presumed to be recoverable property&quot; (section 362C(2)). Giving false information in such a statement is a criminal offence.
Summary: More information needed, but I have listed out some legal claims available to homeowners when they have similar concerns. There are several issues here which need elaboration before deciding if you can take legal action. The first is: "the destroyed some vegetation on my street." If the by "my street" you mean that the street is part of your property, you may sue the builders for trespass and/or damage to property. If the street isn't your property, but the vegetation is your property, you may sue them for destruction of your property. What you are probably looking for, however, is a prohibitive injunction. This is a court order forcing the builders to avoid doing something, e.g. An order forcing them to avoid using roads adjacent to your property. To obtain such an injunction you will have to prove that what they are doing is violating your rights, is somehow harmful to you or your property, or inevitably will do either of those things. One way to demonstrate this is if you can show that you have a claim under nuisance, or damage to property, or trespass. On the description you have given us, there isn't enough to say your rights are being violated, or that your property has come to harm or will come to harm because of their actions. You should also be aware of claims under nuisance. Nuisance is when someone is doing something that prevents you from "peaceful enjoyment of your land". It appears from your question that the actions of these builders have, in your mind, done this. However there are several aspects that have to be satisfied for this to amount to private nuisance: What the builder are doing must be a "continuing state of affairs." They may have annoyed you by trampling over vegetation, but if this is a "one-off" event, it is unlikely to amount to nuisance. A reasonable person must find the conduct to interfere with the enjoyment of their land. That is to say: it isn't enough that their conduct is making you unable to enjoy your land peacefully, you have to show that any reasonable person in the same situation would find this conduct unacceptable. Finally, the context of your neighbourhood matters: if the behaviour is something expected in a residential area, then it will not amount to a nuisance. For example, heavy drilling in an industrial location will not amount to a nuisance, while the same may do so in a normally quiet neighbourhood.
Until the estate is settled and the interest in the house is definitively resolved, the estate has to pay property taxes. There is no requirement for the house to be insured, unless there is a mortgage and insurance is mandated by the lender. The duties of the personal representative generally include taking reasonable steps to protect the assets of the estate, which would include reasonable insurance coverage -- which the estate would pay for. Necessary maintenance would also be included in the things that are to covered by the estate, for example the cost of repairing a broken water pipe (which can cause serious loss, if not repaired). Freshening up the paint in preparation for selling the house, assuming that the house is to be sold and the assets divided, would also be covered by the estate. Utilities, on the other hand, are not within the realm of things that need to be done to protect the interests of the beneficiaries: that is a benefit to whoever lives there, making it their responsibility. The question is foot-dragging is a separate issue, one that should be resolved with the aid of your lawyer. I do not understand why he would maintain that the estate is responsible for paying the utilities.
If I need to pay property tax on the house, are there any exemptions, based on the fact that I have no income? No. There may be property tax exemptions for other reasons, but there is not a property tax exemption for lack of income. The most common property tax exemptions in New York are listed here. They are: STAR (School Tax Relief) Senior citizens exemption Veterans exemption Exemption for persons with disabilities Exemptions for agricultural properties The stunningly long full list of property tax exemptions can be found here. The long list mostly reflects, however, a variety of property exemptions for non-profits and governmental entities, enacted in a piecemeal fashion. Given that you are relying upon a home search website, rather than official records, I suspect that the gaps are simply due to incomplete data for the website.
Because an owner cannot tell another owner what they can and can't do with their own property The quoted paragraph clearly sets out some of the things the leasehold arrangement allows: &quot;... set out the rights and responsibilities of the residents, such as funding the maintenance of the building and placing restrictions on antisocial behavior.&quot; When you own land, you own it; and no one can tell you what you can and can't do with it, not even your co-owners (governments excepted). Want to run chickens? Sure: it's your land. Spinal Tap your stereo to 11 at 2 am? Sure: it's your land. Become a hoarder? Sure, it's your land. When there's a single dwelling on the land, none of that is a problem. When there are multiple dwellings on the land, as in a block of flats (apartments for the Americans among us) then some of these are likely to be problematical. But they aren't problems the law cares about because you all own the property. Different common law jurisdictions have arrived at different solutions to this problem but the UK has particular difficulties because people have been owning land there for a long time. A lot longer than in the USA, Australia or New Zealand. This is quite an elegant solution: all the owners own the land but each of them have a lease over their own flat and that is a contract the law will enforce.
In general, you still need to pay for the drink. If you had purchased the drink (on credit, ie a tab or similar as you appear to have done), and you had offered the vendor CASH, and he had refused, [if you can prove you offered him cash] he would be unable to pursue you for the debt (technically you would still owe it to him, but as he had declined government issued tender the government won't act on his claim, so he has no remedy available to him to extract payment - although he can refuse to serve you in future etc). Paying through a debit card is not the same as paying cash - although the money goes out of your account and into his, its not "legal tender" in the same way cash is.
You can purchase any expensive item for cash, if the seller will accept it. In the US and many other jurisdictions, a seller is not required to accept cash, but many will. In the US and many other jurisdictions banks are required to report large cash deposits to government authorities, to help combat money-laundering, drug-dealing, and tax-evasion. Such a report may trigger an investigation, and during that investigation a person who bought an expensive item for cash may well be asked about the source of the cash. Whether an answer is legally required will depend on the law in the particular place. But even if it is not legally required, refusing to answer such questions may trigger additional investigation.