stamp duty clawback ftb

The solicitor will always explain that there are stamp duty implications and that your status as a purchaser has said implications. I generally direct my clients towards the Revenue SD10A.

I am fascinated at the (implied) idea that the implied failure of a solicitor to explain the implications of changing from being a FTB to being an investor would somehow make the solicitor liable for the clawback!

Is there anything that the solicitor is not responsible for?

"The misconception is that renting out your house isn't a business decision and so can be treated lightly."

I think Howitzer has hit the nail on the head here - many of my clients preface their instructions to me with the notion that in some way they cannot be held responsible for any tax/legal situations that arise in their lives. I call it the "shurely shomebody elsh should be reshponible for this" concept.

mf
 
mf1 said:
I am fascinated at the (implied) idea that the implied failure of a solicitor to explain the implications of changing from being a FTB to being an investor would somehow make the solicitor liable for the clawback!
Click to expand...

Has this been implied anywhere in this particular thread? If so, by whom?

Or are you just talking in general terms?
 
Fair enough-I agree-too many people buy without thinking about what they are doing (stamp duty, management company, interest rates.....), and I would even go so far to say that even if everyone was advised of the consequences of renting out within the first 5 years, it wouldn't make much difference, i.e. it wouldn't stop people from buying and then trying to rent out and keep it quiet if their 'circumstances change'

Anyway, it looks as if this issue will lose relevance over time with the aboloition of stamp duty for FTBs.
 
CCOVICH said:
Anyway, it looks as if this issue will lose relevance over time with the aboloition of stamp duty for FTBs.
Click to expand...

Err, don't you mean the opposite.

With the abolition of stamp for FTBs anyone who changes their property from PPR to investment will still have to pay the clawback, the likelihood is that MORE FTBs will have bought 2nd hand properties, and at higher prices, making their liabilities higher.

The abolition of stamp for FTBs has made the FTB status incredibly valuable, possibly up to 50 - 60 K if you decided to ignore the whole ladder waffle and just save up till you could buy your ideal property @ 500K with no stamp liaibility.
 
I think a sticky on the subject may be in order. If this point has to explained to one more Moma's boy who suddenly finds himself with a massive tax liability I won't be held accountable for my actions.

Not to mention the perfect storm that is a FTB renting out an Affordable Housing home. The financial implications of this are scary. 100K stamp + council clawback anyone? You'll need to be getting some amount of rent off Oleg and Tatiana to cover that.
 
"If this point has to explained to one more Moma's boy who suddenly finds himself with a massive tax liability I won't be held accountable for my actions."

You want company when going ballistic ? I'm with you.

mf
 
Howitzer said:
I think a sticky on the subject may be in order.
Click to expand...
Will there be a stamp duty clawback

 If you buy a new property to live in it, you will be exempt from stamp duty. If you rent it out within 5 years, you must pay the full stamp duty you would have paid on it had you bought it as an investment.
Click to expand...
What more can we do? :( At some stage people need to take a bit of responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming the likes of the meedja, solicitors etc...
 
ClubMan said:
What more can we do? :(
Click to expand...

Agreed-the stamp duty issue is discussed frequently on AAM and the same advice/opinion is given ad nauseam.

I am in the process of doing a FTB sticky, hopefully that will address this and many of the other issues/pitfalls people should be aware of when buying a property for the first time.
 
CCOVICH

The Revenue website has a very good section on FTB's that would be worthwhile linking to. Unfortunately, I am technically illiterate ( its my age) so I can't link you to it.

mf
 
The Revenue site is horrible to search, but is [broken link removed]? I have linked to it many times on AAM.

(Tip-to link to a page on the Revenue site, hold shift while clicking on the link, then copy the link from your browser and use the 'link' icon to hyperlink in AAM, or just paste the link directly into your post)
 
(Tip-to link to a page on the Revenue site, hold shift while clicking on the link, then copy the link from your browser and use the 'link' icon to hyperlink in AAM, or just paste the link directly into your post)

Sorry - I really am terminally illiterate with techie/computer stuff. That makes no sense to me at all. I

That is not the page though - if you search the Revenue site and do "first time buyers" it brings you to the page where the information below is set out.

Sorry - I feel really stupid but I am doing my best!

mf

Edit-I found the link

[broken link removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ClubMan said:
Yes - but when does non-occupancy lead to loss of PPR status? And is "sick granny/grandad" a euphemism for something (e.g. tax evasion) by any chance? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A property would lose its PPR status obviously when the house is no longer a person's principal private residence, e.g. i if they rent it out other than just the "Rent-a-Room" scheme, and of course if it sold (although selling does not trigger a clawback of stamp duty relief). This has been tried and tested by several people i know.

No the sick granny is not a euphemism for anything - I was just giving an example of a person going off and living their lives, going on an extended holiday or going to stay with relatives, sailing round world, you name it - the clawback is not triggered by any of this - it is the renting out of the property over and above the Rent-a Room scheme that does it.
Also as regards the lovely compliant taxpayers i referred to - by joining Fianna Fail they could turn the party into a class act!
 
Last edited:
Howitzer said:
I think a sticky on the subject may be in order. If this point has to explained to one more Moma's boy who suddenly finds himself with a massive tax liability I won't be held accountable for my actions.
Click to expand...

Well now a "Moma's" boy is a huge insult isn't it - given the status of women in "modern" Ireland. No doubt if he was a "Papas" boy he would understand all that tax stuff.
 
It's doesn't matter how often the SD clawback is mentioned, the more often the better coz people like me are learning everyday. Was able to tell sister that her new husband will be liable for 4.5 K in clawback in the FTB house he has as they are now going to buy a house together and he has been renting under the rent a room scheme but he's moved into her place and will need to now change his FTB house to normal rental/investor etc.

Mega shock to sis was the amount of the clawback and I explained about interest/penalties etc, she can't believe it, I even attached bits from the Revenue website - "Ring me, I can't read that, explain it to me in English etc" Told her best bet is call into local Revenue office and get the form and they'll help her to fill it out - I hope.

She has a point, while I find the Revenue website helpful, it is vast, complicated and incomprehensible to most people.

Maybe some of you guys think it's ignorance or stupidity but really my sister and partner just have no clue when it comes to taxes etc. I believe if I had never said anything they would have never have known about it. Many of you on AAM seem to think that the person who doesn't know their tax obligations deserve to get fined/penalised but life is not that simple.
 
Aileen2 said:
Many of you on AAM seem to think that the person who doesn't know their tax obligations deserve to get fined/penalised but life is not that simple.
Click to expand...
I think that's very unfair given the voluntary time and effort many people put into attempting to explain the rules to others. I don't believe that people want to see others unnecessarily penalised/fined (if you have evidence to the contrary then please post it) but most do want to see people discharge their liabilities and have little time for those who are ambivalent or sometimes blatantly dismissive of this.
 
Sorry, just back from hols Clubman, so just saw your post now. You're taking my opinions out of context by just quoting one line of what I wrote.

I'm not being negative about the advice here on AAM freely given and gratefully received, but it is easy for people who have tax knowledge to assume that the rest of us are idiots and it's not always the case. Even when tax advice is given it is not always clear for the OP to understand it no matter how simple it is because some people get confused about these things. That's all I mean.

On another point there would also be the viewpoint that lots of our politicians (creating tax amnesty to suit themselves/friends/cronies) /bank staff/financial institutions seem to have got off scott free and why shouldn't the rest of us. It can be hard for ordinary people working away seeing the boys at the top getting away with everything. In another 20 years we'll be hearing about the scandals of the 2000's etc.
 
Aileen2 said:
but it is easy for people who have tax knowledge to assume that the rest of us are idiots and it's not always the case.
Click to expand...
I doubt that (m?)any people assume that those who don't understand the intricacies of the tax system are idiots. It can be complex stuff although some of it is very straightforward once you think about it (e.g. tax credits seem to cause people no end of confusion and yet their application - whatever about the number of different options - are simple). In any case I rarely, if ever, have noticed anybody on AAM being hard on people who do not understand tax matters other than, perhaps, when they obviously have not bothered to do any thinking on the matter for themselves having been provided with some useful feedback.
On another point there would also be the viewpoint that lots of our politicians (creating tax amnesty to suit themselves/friends/cronies) /bank staff/financial institutions seem to have got off scott free and why shouldn't the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Lots of ordinary punters also benefited from the tax amnesties of the past. Some were too greedy to and have have been or are still being found out. Personally I don't see the logic in arguing that because some people transgressed the law in the past the rest of us should be able to do so also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top