To ask seller to reduce asking price due to stamp duty increase

No, this isn't the house sellers problem. You are seriously deluded.

The OP should listen to whoever is collecting the money for giving advice.

Would the OP pay the stamp duty when she sells the house she is about to buy some years down the road to help the buyer out? This entire situation makes me mad. I wish this daughter bought a house and let her parents live with her.

Op has a beneficial interest in mothers house

• OP does not own any other property
• she paid the deposit to purchase it and paid off the mortgage
• the property is owned as tenants in common with her parents - I have lost track if there is a post confirming what exact % split is in place and whether that is formally documented as declaration of trust
• SDLT if legal ownership is uncertain then one also looks at who has beneficial interest in a property if not named on the deeds (irrelevant in this case as OP is on the deeds)
• if Op buys another property then she going from having 1 to having 2 properties. Higher rates SDLT will apply to purchase of property 2 because.
• the fact property 2 is her only / main home is irrelevant as she has NOT REPLACED an existing main home by SELLING it since her parents remain living there

If OP wants to avoid the higher rate than she needs to remove her beneficial interest.
However OP is resistant to that as she wants has an awareness of a) the profit from the property when it is sold after her parents death and b) not unreasonably she does not want to lose her own money invested in it if parents are forced to sell it to fund their own care home fees.

In terms of care home if there is a declaration of trust in place confirming her exact % ownership of parents then that share cannot be taken to fund care home fees. Similarly her investment is projected as the declaration means she gets the stated % when it is sold

The bottom lines remains however OP must pay higher rate because she is not selling her main home and replacing it with a new one

The only way to change that circumstance is to come off the deeds and remove her beneficial interest ie lose her right to a % of the sale
As long as she stands to profit from the sale she has an interest in the property that counts against her for SDLT when buying a further property

Obviously to protect her money she needs to convert the amount currently "invested" in her parents home (deposit + mortgage payments) into a LOAN for a fixed sum of money - NOT a % share of the property.

That loan would be registered as a charge against the property and therefore would be preferentially repaid first when the property is sold. She would NOT get any profit from that sale, but she would get her money back
As the loan would mean she did not have a beneficial interest in parent's property, the higher rate SDLT would not apply when purchasing her new main home

In coming off the deeds OP would be making a "disposal" of a property for CGT purposes, however, unless I have missed a post, it seems OP has herself lived in the property as her main home for the entire time she was on the deeds.
Thus CGT main home rules dictate that she would be entirely exempt from any CGT on its disposal

a win win outcome, standard rate SDLT and money still protected (although without any element of eventual profit, so exposed to loss by inflation)

no they have not - possibly you do not understand the marriage rule

property B was the main home for both of them by virtue of their marriage
property B was sold and replaced by property C
standard rate applies to C

property A, owned in husband's sole name, is irrelevant in that precise set of circumstances

what is your point?
the process is easy:
own a home that you live in
own a property you do not live in.
You own 2 homes

Scenario 1
buy a 3rd property which will be your new main home - SELL the old main home on/before the completion date of the purchase - that is classed as REPLACEMENT and therefore the standard rate SDLT applies to the new purchase

Scenario 2
as above except the sale of the old place completes after the purchase of the new > a refund is claimable if the sale completes within 3 years of the sale of the old since you have them met the replacement criteria

scenario 3
you own one property which you live in as main home
you buy another property and let it as BTL
you have purchased an additional property which is not your main home, additional rate SDLT applies to that purchase

your circumstances are very different and your advice unreliable as your post clearly shows you do not understand the processes in play and therefore what rules apply in what circumstances.

All of the cases exempt from the higher rate satisfied the conditions, ie the disposal of a main residence.

Not sure why this topic is consuming me, finding it interesting.

Don't think it will help OP but May do others:

www.blakemorgan.co.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax-3-surcharge-replacement-of-only-or-main-residence-and-the-three-year-rules/

Different scenarios set out here where the 3% surcharge does not have to be applicable so makes sense for what my scenario was.

So basically, you want to ask complete strangers to fund your house purchase? Because that's what you would be doing! You will be asking complete strangers to pay for you to have the privilege to own two houses. Good luck with that....

This is correct.

If you are named as an owner on a residential property and purchase another residential property, the number of properties you own increases from 1 to 2 and so you are liable for the higher rate. The first property's occupancy as tenanted, vacant or as a main residence is irrelevant.

The only exception is when you are selling a property that is your main residence and purchasing another to replace it as your main residence.

I agree with @TigerSteak People are forgetting ‘disposal of main residence’ aspect is required to avoid the SDLT surcharge. This means you avoid the surcharge ONLY if you replace your main residence with another property on the same day.

If you own a rental property and then buy a main residence, you still pay the additional property surcharge.

Interesting.

What if you're a landlord and go onto buy your first main home, which rules apply in that scenario, out of curiosity..?

If you're in England and purchased a residential property recently, yes they were wrong.

The liability is with you to pay the correct amount, conveyancing solicitors can advise and give you their interpretation but the fact stands that if you or your husband are named on another property worth over £40k and do not sell that property within 3 years of your new purchase, you are liable to pay the higher rate.

Replacing or creating a 'Main residence' is not a exemption criteria on its own merit, only when combined with a sold property:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property

@TigerSteak so you're saying two solicitors that do not work together advised me incorrectly and i went on to be undercharged?

You have been incorrectly advised.

My husband was named on a property for his family (let's call it property A) but moved and lived with me after we married (property B).

We lived in property B together for 5 years, I then sold that house and we purchased another house, property C, with both our names on the mortgage and deeds. We have been in this house for 4 years and his name is still on the mortgage and deeds for property A.

We still paid the normal stamp duty rates because his main residence was in the new property.

I remember being very worried about the extra rate but my friend is a conveyancing solicitor and informed about the main residence aspect while I made sure my solicitors were aware of from the beginning.

I wouldn't have agreed to be on a mortgage that wasn't my own. I'd be asking your parents to help.

The time frame for a refund is 3 years, but in certain circumstances it can be longer.

I’m not getting the bit about not having to pay the 5percent.

We bought a house, and paid stamp duty. We bought another house and paid the higher rate of duty,and I believe had we have sold the first home within a certain timeframe - we can get a refund

Why don’t you remove yourself from the deeds and transform your equity into a loan payable on sale or death like the equity release firms?

Why are you still on the parent’s house. Can’t you quit the ownership? Or do they have years left to pay it off?

You will be liable for the higher rate stamp duty, the posters saying you won't be liable are incorrect.

Whether one, both or neither properties are your main residence makes no difference whatsoever.

You should never have been on your parents home to begin with. Save more money before buying a second place for you to live in yourself. OMG.

Well I didn’t listen to my solicitor as they gave me incorrect advice. I had to show them the wording in my situation. So please don’t call me an idiot. If I had listened to my solicitor I would have paid for stamp duty I didn’t owe. I think it’s worth questioning.