Capital Gains Tax on Property: Planning Points I Consider
December 13, 2021
Refinancing a rental property and selling it are different transactions. A sale can realise a taxable gain. A straightforward remortgage, with ownership unchanged, raises a loan secured against the property. That distinction was the main point behind my December 2021 video about property and Capital Gains Tax.
The title was deliberately attention-grabbing, but the idea wasn’t a secret tax loophole. It was about considering whether I wanted to keep an investment and borrow against some of its value instead of selling it to release cash.
My preference in that video was strongly towards long-term ownership. However, the borrowing rates and tax rates I discussed were historical. The decision needs to be rebuilt using today’s terms, and the money released by refinancing must be understood as debt rather than tax-free profit.
You can also watch my original video about refinancing and Capital Gains Tax.
What refinancing actually does
A refinance replaces or changes the borrowing secured on a property. If the approved new loan is larger than the amount required to repay the old mortgage and cover relevant costs, some cash may be released to the owner.
The property hasn’t been sold in that straightforward example. The owner still has the asset, but also has a larger debt or a different financing arrangement. The lender expects the loan to be repaid under its terms.
That is why I separate a cash release from profit. If £50,000 arrives in the bank because the mortgage has increased by £50,000, the cash balance has risen, but so has the liability. The transaction hasn’t created £50,000 of new net wealth by itself.
It may still be useful. The owner can have access to funds while retaining the property, subject to lender conditions and the purpose of the borrowing. But the usefulness comes with interest, fees and ongoing risk, not a free withdrawal from the asset.
Why a sale creates a different tax question
When an individual disposes of an investment property, Capital Gains Tax may apply to the gain, subject to the relevant rules, allowable costs, losses, reliefs and available annual exemption. The calculation isn’t simply a percentage of the sale proceeds.
The mortgage balance is also a separate issue. Repaying a large loan from the proceeds affects the cash left after sale, but it doesn’t automatically reduce the gain by the same amount. Borrowing and the tax basis of the asset aren’t interchangeable.
A straightforward remortgage with the same ownership normally isn’t itself a disposal of the property for Capital Gains Tax. That explains why borrowing against it and selling it can have different immediate tax consequences.
But refinancing doesn’t reset the property’s original tax cost or erase a potential liability on a later disposal. If ownership changes alongside the finance, the analysis can also be different. I’d have an adviser assess the actual transaction rather than rely on the word remortgage alone.
The 2021 rates need to stay in their historical context
In the video, I discussed personal buy-to-let borrowing around 1.5% and used a 28% residential Capital Gains Tax figure in a simplified comparison. Those numbers explain the argument I made at the time; they aren’t current mortgage quotes or current universal tax rates.
For 2026–27, HMRC lists individual Capital Gains Tax rates of 18% and 24%, with the applicable rate depending on the calculation and the person’s taxable income. The annual exempt amount is generally £3,000 for individuals, with eligibility exceptions.
The official Capital Gains Tax rates and allowances should be checked for the relevant tax year. A property’s disposal date and the owner’s circumstances matter, so an old video percentage shouldn’t be applied automatically.
The interest-rate side also needs a fresh quote. A mortgage that looked inexpensive in 2021 doesn’t tell me the cost of borrowing now or at the next refinance. The decision changes when the price and availability of finance change.
Why the simple tax-versus-interest comparison has limits
I illustrated £100,000 of borrowing at 1.5%, giving £1,500 of annual interest before fees. Comparing £28,000 with £1,500 produces about 18.7 years. That arithmetic helped explain why cheap borrowing looked attractive to me in the original discussion.
However, the comparison is too simplified to settle a real decision. A £100,000 loan isn’t necessarily equivalent to a £100,000 taxable gain. The tax calculation may include costs, losses and allowances, while the loan has its own fees, conditions and repayment obligation.
It also assumes the borrowing cost remains constant over a long period. A short fixed-rate product doesn’t promise the same rate for eighteen years. Refinancing may involve new fees or different lending criteria, and the property still requires management and maintenance.
So I’d use that historical example to understand the principle, not as a current rule saying refinancing always wins. The proper comparison needs the actual sale proceeds after costs and tax, the actual finance proposal and the consequences of continuing to own the property.
Start by deciding whether the property is worth keeping
My preference for refinancing came from wanting to retain investments with good long-term fundamentals. If I believed in the location, the rental demand and the property’s role in the portfolio, selling simply to access some money could feel unnecessary.
But I also acknowledged reasons to sell. The area might no longer fit the plan, the income might disappoint or the investment might involve more difficulty than expected. Avoiding an immediate tax bill doesn’t turn a poor asset into a good one.
I’d ask whether I would still want to own the property on its current numbers. What rent can it realistically collect? What work is likely? What does the financing cost? How much attention does it require, and how does that compare with other uses of the capital?
If the answers are weak, refinancing can prolong the problem and increase the borrowing attached to it. The tax question should be part of the decision, rather than the only reason for continuing.
My article on property price versus market value is useful when assessing the value side. An optimistic estimate shouldn’t be the sole basis for either a sale plan or a refinance.
Rental income must support the new borrowing
In the video, I liked the idea that tenants could provide income while I continued to hold the asset. But the gross rent isn’t all available for mortgage interest. Management, maintenance, voids, insurance and other property costs can come first or alongside it.
I’d rebuild the cash-flow forecast using the proposed new loan. If the debt increases, the previous surplus may no longer apply. A refinance that releases an attractive lump sum can leave much less monthly income than the owner expects.
I would also test a period with lower income or a larger bill. The lender’s assessment and my own comfort with the investment are related but separate. Approval doesn’t guarantee that the cash flow will feel comfortable in every circumstance.
My buy-to-let mortgage guide explains the broader financing considerations. The useful result is a loan the investment can support, rather than simply the largest amount a lender might offer.
A higher valuation doesn’t guarantee a cash release
An owner’s estimate of value is only the start. The lender will apply its own valuation and criteria, including the property, rental income and borrower. A target loan-to-value percentage isn’t an entitlement to borrow that amount.
The existing mortgage also matters. Early repayment charges, legal costs, valuation costs and arrangement fees can reduce the net cash available. I want the amount left after those items, not the difference between two headline loan balances before costs.
The intended use of the money needs to be acceptable under the lending terms too. It isn’t sensible to assume every lender treats every capital-raising purpose the same way.
That is why I wouldn’t commit the expected proceeds to another project before understanding the financing position. A lower valuation or a changed offer can leave a gap between the money anticipated and the money actually released.
Personal ownership and company ownership aren’t interchangeable
The original discussion focused largely on personally owned property. A company normally pays Corporation Tax on chargeable gains from disposing of assets rather than the individual’s Capital Gains Tax. The rules and calculations need to be considered in the correct ownership structure.
Money inside a company also isn’t automatically the director’s personal spending money. If funds are taken out, the method and tax treatment need their own assessment. Refinancing a company-owned property doesn’t make every subsequent personal withdrawal tax-free.
Likewise, the treatment of finance costs can differ between structures. I wouldn’t choose the ownership arrangement from one mortgage rate or one tax percentage without considering the wider position.
For an existing property, changing ownership can itself create consequences. It’s something to plan with appropriate advice, not a detail to alter casually because a different structure appears better in a simplified example.
Long-term ownership still needs an exit plan
In the video, I said I wanted to hold my portfolio for the long term and ultimately pass it to my children. That was a statement of intention, not proof that keeping property indefinitely removes every tax or financial issue.
A family succession plan involves more than deciding not to sell. Ownership, debt, management responsibilities and estate planning all matter. The people receiving the assets may have different circumstances or priorities from the person who built the portfolio.
I’d also review the plan over time. A strategy that suits an owner while building a portfolio may need adjusting later when income, health, responsibilities or appetite for borrowing change. Long-term thinking should allow sensible decisions, not forbid them.
The property itself also needs ongoing investment. Holding for decades doesn’t eliminate maintenance, regulatory changes or the need to keep accommodation suitable for tenants. Those are part of the cost of continuing to own the asset.
Compare the options using complete numbers
For a sale, I’d want an estimate of the achievable price, selling costs, loan repayment and tax, with the likely net cash clearly shown. For a refinance, I’d want the valuation, loan terms, all fees, net release and revised rental cash flow.
Then I’d consider what happens to that cash. Releasing money to invest elsewhere creates another decision with another set of risks. Releasing it to spend means the debt may remain after the cash has gone. Neither use should be hidden behind the phrase unlocking equity.
I’d also include a downside case: lower rent, higher costs, weaker value or more difficult refinancing later. If the plan only works with favourable assumptions at every stage, the immediate tax difference may be less important than the resilience problem.
Our property refinance calculator can help estimate a possible net release after entered fees and rental-coverage constraints. It compares interest-only borrowing and holds the current debt balance constant. It doesn’t calculate Capital Gains Tax or decide whether keeping the property is the better investment.
Why I still consider refinancing before selling
The attraction for me is flexibility. A suitable refinance can provide access to capital while allowing continued ownership of an investment I want to keep. That can fit a long-term property strategy, provided the borrowing remains sensible and the numbers work.
The essential distinction is that borrowing isn’t profit, and postponing a disposal isn’t the same as making every future tax liability disappear. I’d make the decision from the investment, finance and tax position together, using current information.
If you’d like to discuss how your property portfolio fits your longer-term plans, book a free 30-minute call. You can also explore the Starter Club or find out about Done For You.