# What to do - Anyone?



## thebop (29 Jan 2007)

Hi guys,

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Bought an apartment in 2004 for approx 180,000. FTB so no stamp duty etc. Currently valued at approx 330.000.

Now my boyfriend and i have signed up for a new house (380,000)which will be ready in August.

From reading the boards, i'm confused what to do. Would like to keep apartment as it is in a great area and possibly rent out but don't know if it's a good time to do same. I know we would have to clawback fees of around 6000 from reading here etc.

If i keep onto the apartment, would you recommend an interest only mortgage and would this help with our new PPR and then sell the aparment in another ten years or more.

Tx,
Bop


----------



## ClubMan (29 Jan 2007)

> *What to do - Anyone?*




If you keep the apartment and rent it out within 5 years of the original purchase then you will be liable for a clawback of stamp duty. If you keep the apartment and dispose of it 12 months or more after vacating it as your _PPR _then some portion of any eventual resale gain will be assessable for _CGT_. If you sell within 12 months then your capital gain is completely tax free. Do you want to be a landlord? Are you au fait with the tax, registration and other issues that come with that? See the _Property Investment FAQ _for more on this.


----------



## Purple (30 Jan 2007)

Sell it, pay the €6k and live happily ever after.


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Jan 2007)

Purple said:


> Sell it, pay the €6k and live happily ever after.


 

If you sell you don't pay the €6k clawback.


----------



## Purple (30 Jan 2007)

CCOVICH said:


> If you sell you don't pay the €6k clawback.


So you don't, I'm not on form today  ... sell it and live happily ever after.


----------



## niceoneted (30 Jan 2007)

Keep it!


----------



## ClubMan (30 Jan 2007)

thebop said:


> If i keep onto the apartment, would you recommend an interest only mortgage and would this help with our new PPR and then sell the aparment in another ten years or more.


Bear in mind that you can only offset against rental income interest on the amount of the mortgage outstanding when you rent it out. For example you can't topup the mortgage and use the fund for other purposes (e.g. buying a new _PPR_) and offset interest on the additional amount against rental income. 

In general there are good reasons for opt for interest only for investment properties:

Interest only mortgage

Ultimately you really need to crunch the numbers to get a feel for what you expect to get out of such an investment (in terms of both net rental income and capital appreciation) and then factor in additional stuff like the administrative overhead and day to day responsibilities of being a landlord etc. If it is viable and you want to be a landlord then keep it. If not then sell it and pocket the _CGT _free gain.


----------



## thebop (31 Jan 2007)

Thanks for the advice. Just wondering why you recommend keeping it, niceoneted. I'd be interested in your views. It might help us to make up our minds!


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2007)

Why not follow my advice, crunch the numbers, weigh up the situation and decide for yourself?


----------



## thebop (31 Jan 2007)

Thanks clubman. Yeah we're doing a lot of crunching and leaning towards selling up I think. But that could all change again   When we weigh up all the factors, CGT included, I think selling may be the best option.

BTW I didn't mean to imply that I wanted anyone to make a decision for me, was just wondering what ppl thought. 

Thanks again for your advice, it's all food for thought.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2007)

Another thing to consider is that concentrating most or all of your net worth into a single asset class, geographic region and risk/reward profile (e.g. _Irish _residential property in the form of your _PPR _and a former _PPR _now rental property) involves risks that would not necessarily apply to a more diversified portfolio with a wider range of asset classes, geographic regions, risk/reward profiles, short/medium/term investments etc.


----------



## gilboy (31 Jan 2007)

I have been wondering about paying CGT with the sale of a 2nd property for a while. In this scenario, if Bop moves to new house with boyfriend hence the new house becomes their PPR. They decide to rent out the apartment. OK, so in 10 years time they decide to sell on the apartment. Can Bop move back in to the apartment prior to selling it, hence this once again becomes her PPR and then sell it as her PPR. If this is a valid tax evasion , what is the period of time she would have to move back in to the apartment before selling without been hit with PPR? Thanks


----------



## Satanta (31 Jan 2007)

gilboy said:


> Can Bop move back in to the apartment prior to selling it, hence this once again becomes her PPR and then sell it as her PPR. If this is a valid tax evasion , what is the period of time she would have to move back in to the apartment before selling without been hit with PPR? Thanks


No, they can't.

The CGT will be calculated on the Taxable Amount * Period of non PPR ownership (possibly minus the final 12 month exemption if not PPR for final 12 months)/total ownership.
So they pay a fraction (a/b) of the total taxable amount at 20%.

CGT is covered on MANY threads here on AAM (and in full detail on the Revenue site) if further info is wanted.


As for "valid tax evasion", no such thing. It's tax avoidance if doing something to minimise tax, tax evasion is illegal.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2007)

gilboy said:


> I have been wondering about paying CGT with the sale of a 2nd property for a while. In this scenario, if Bop moves to new house with boyfriend hence the new house becomes their PPR. They decide to rent out the apartment. OK, so in 10 years time they decide to sell on the apartment. Can Bop move back in to the apartment prior to selling it, hence this once again becomes her PPR and then sell it as her PPR. If this is a valid tax evasion , what is the period of time she would have to move back in to the apartment before selling without been hit with PPR? Thanks


This is covered many many times already on _AAM_. It is not possible. The _CGT _will always be based on how long the property was not a _PPR _and possibly rented out versus how long it was a _PPR_. Just moving back in for a while as an owner occupier doesn't eradicate the liability for _CGT_. For example - you own a _PPR _for 5 years (x), buy a new one and move out, rent the property former _PPR_ for 10 years (y), move back into the former PPR for 1 year (z) as an owner occupier and then sell...

(y - 1)/(x + y + z) or (10 - 1)/(5 + 10 + 1) or 9/16 = 56% of any gain arising from the sale will be assessable for _CGT_.

Note that it's (y - 1) because _CGT _does not apply for the first 12 months after vacating it as your _PPR_.

_Post crossed with Satanta's._


----------



## gilboy (1 Feb 2007)

Thanks for that. 

One final question relating to this scenario. If you do not rent out the first property but held on to it for a number of years. I think this is quite realistic as even in my own estate I know of a lof of properties which people do not rent just hold on to for the hope of capital appreciation. Since the property was never rented out does this change things in terms of CGT?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

gilboy said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> One final question relating to this scenario. If you do not rent out the first property but held on to it for a number of years. I think this is quite realistic as even in my own estate I know of a lof of properties which people do not rent just hold on to for the hope of capital appreciation. Since the property was never rented out does this change things in terms of CGT?


I'm not 100% sure (you should get independent, professional advice) but I suspect that once the 12 months have elapsed after vacating it as your _PPR _then it is classed as an investment property and the _CGT _rules above apply.


----------



## Satanta (1 Feb 2007)

Again, not 100% on this...

I believe renting has no effect on CGT (renting is important in relation to SD). CGT is dependant on the property being a PPR. If it fails to be for any reason, either another property is your PPR or if renting it all out it won't/can't be a PPR, then you are liable for CGT.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

This thread (initially at least) deals with _SD _in this context but might still be relevant:

Stamp Duty on Second Property not Renting out.


----------



## Newby (1 Feb 2007)

gilboy said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> One final question relating to this scenario. If you do not rent out the first property but held on to it for a number of years. I think this is quite realistic as even in my own estate I know of a lof of properties which people do not rent just hold on to for the hope of capital appreciation. Since the property was never rented out does this change things in terms of CGT?


 
It depends on where you main residence will be. 

If you do not rent out the house, but live in it as you only or main residence then PPR relief should apply for the period of time in which you were living in the house (plus the 12 months prior to any future sale).  If you live in the house and rent out a room below the rent-a-room threshold then the PPR relief will still apply (assuming no changes to the rent-a-room scheme).

If you do not rent out the house and live somewhere else then the PPR relief will not apply for the period of time in which you were not living in the house (less 12 months prior to sale).


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

Actually - judging by chapter 5, item 5 of the Revenue summary guide to CGT the rental issue is a bit of a red herring and what matters (as pointed out above) is whether or not the property is your _PPR_:


> The exemption is also restricted where the taxpayer has not lived in the house for long periods.
> However, a period of up to twelve months immediately before the end of the period of ownership is
> treated as a period of occupation even though the owner may not have been actually living in it during
> that period.


As such the _CGT _seems to be related to how long the property is not your _PPR _(rented or otherwise) versus how long it is your _PPR_ (less the 12 months post _PPR _vacation exemption period).

Obviously this does not constitute comprehensive tax advice especially since I am not an expert so you should get independent, professional advice yourself.


----------



## Satanta (1 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Obviously this does not constitute comprehensive tax advice especially since I am not an expert so you should get independent, professional advice yourself.


Just to expand on this, the vast majority of advice recieved on AAM (or any other forum similiar) is given by people who have no expertise. It is to be taken as guidance to assist you in getting familiar with the terms that are relevant and some of the potential issues.

Where advice is given by a professional (AAM is serviced by many Tax/Accounting/etc professionals) it is still just a glancing overview. Given the limitations on the exact details which can be provided on a public forum, even a professional can't give conclusive advice (we[non professionals]/they[professionals] can point out "not a PPR = CGT due" but can't go into all possible exemptions [secondment etc] relevant to the poster) on individual matters specific to the poster so should only be seen as guidance and not specific advice.
.... Very OT, but relevant so thought I'd throw it up.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

Or to put it another way:

Tax Queries - Warning!!!


----------



## Newby (1 Feb 2007)

No offence to all the contributors but if it was my money and there was several grand at stake on a tax matter i'd be getting the best professional advice I could. In the same way that if I was suing someone I wouldn't set out all the details on a public forum and ask how i should do it and then head off to sue them myself. I'd go to a solicitor.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

I totally agree - no matter what feedback/guidance you get here you should always get independent, professional advice on tax and other (e.g. investment) matters *relevant to your specific situation *before acting. Especially when the figures or the potential costs of making a mistake are significant.


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

Hi Bop.

This is my advice;

Do not sell it - rent it out. If you sell it you will probably end up with around 150K in your bank(after paying off mortgage and CGT), instead of having an asset worth 330K and rising in value more than the bank is going to pay for your 150K. I know in this scenario, there is still a mortgage on it, but that will be paid by your tennants. You probably have a low enough mortgage that the rent will cover it.Think of 20 years time - the mortgage will be paid off (by someone else) and you will have an income generating asset probably worth a million. Whereas the 150K you would get by selling, is probably gone. It's a no-brainer.

Best of Luck
Johnnie


----------



## polaris (1 Feb 2007)

Reading between the lines, I think what the OP really wants to know is if her apartment will continue to increase in value. If it appreciates in the way JohnnieKippe describes and is worth a million in 20 years time then it is a no-brainer.

Of course if its value falls then its a different story!


----------



## Afuera (1 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> Hi Bop.
> 
> This is my advice;
> 
> ...



There's a lot of speculation in your outlook there Johnnie. You have to be careful with the assumptions you're making on both future rental demand as well as future capital appreciation. I think it's anything but a no-brainer under current conditions.


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

Afuera said:


> There's a lot of speculation in your outlook there Johnnie. You have to be careful with the assumptions you're making on both future rental demand as well as future capital appreciation. I think it's anything but a no-brainer under current conditions.



Afuera,

I agree with you,there is a lot of speculation there. I do not have the various figures so I am only dealing in general figures. 

Peoples views depend on whether they think property prices will continue to rise (albeit slower than the last decade) or whether they think prices will fall. I think the former will be the case.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> I agree with you,there is a lot of speculation there. I do not have the various figures so I am only dealing in general figures.


How can a speculative approach based on general figures be a "no-brainer" so?


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> How can a speculative approach based on general figures be a "no-brainer" so?



As mentioned above, for people like me that believe that property prices will continue to rise, it is a no-brainer. An income generating asset worth 1 million in 20 years time versus 150K now to me is a no-brainer.


----------



## Newby (1 Feb 2007)

I can hear the opening of the "Current market sentiment towards property prices" can of worms...


----------



## thebop (1 Feb 2007)

Sorry everyone, didn't mean to open that particular can of worms. 
I understand what you're saying Johnnie and your way of thinking was exactly ours until we looked into the whole area of CGT and all that business. 
Also, being a landlord is no easy thing. Of course you can luck out and get great tenants and have a hassle-free time with them. Or not. I was a tenant myself and we expected our landlord to come around and fix anything that went wrong at the drop of a hat. And unfortunately it's unlikely that rental income would cover the full amount of the mortgage; it's likely we'd be subsidising around 100euro on top of our new hefty mortgage.

And finally we have to consider that the appt might not get any more valuable than current estimates.

Oh decisons decisions!!


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

Let me comment on a few of the issues you raised (just to confuse your decision process further  )



> I understand what you're saying Johnnie and your way of thinking was exactly ours until we looked into the whole area of CGT and all that business.


 Surely if you sell now you have to pay CGT. If you sell down the line you have to pay CGT. So I don't see any reason why that would make you want to sell.



> Also, being a landlord is no easy thing.


 You can get an agent to manage it for you. Thats what I do with my properties. It means there is not as much hassle involved. They get new tennants when required. Yes you pay for the service but it is deductable from your rental tax bill.



> Of course you can luck out and get great tenants and have a hassle-free time with them.


Thats right and remember there are a lot more decent tennants out there than dodgy ones. I have never had a major bad experience with tennants (over a few properties over a few years). You do get the odd issue, but nothing major. Probably the main issue you will get is the odd month where you do not have a tennant and you have to pay the mortgage.



> And unfortunately it's unlikely that rental income would cover the full amount of the mortgage; it's likely we'd be subsidising around 100euro on top of our new hefty mortgage


.
You could switch it to interest only for a few years and then the rent would cover the mortgage with a bit left over. After a few years, rents will have gone up so you can then switch back.



> And finally we have to consider that the appt might not get any more valuable than current estimates.


 Unlikely I think. At the very least they will increase at the inflation level.

Johnnie


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> Surely if you sell now you have to pay CGT.


No - since (as far as I can tell from the original post) the property in question is their _PPR _and they are not yet a year out of it so any resale gain would be _CGT _exempt right now.


> You could switch it to interest only for a few years and then the rent would cover the mortgage with a bit left over.


 Do you know this for a fact in this specific case? 


> After a few years, rents will have gone up so you can then switch back.


 "Will"? You mean "may" surely?


> Unlikely I think. At the very least they will increase at the inflation level.


 Pure speculation.


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

> No - since (as far as I can tell from the original post) the property in question is their _PPR _and they are not yet a year out of it so any resale gain would be _CGT _exempt right now.


They are living there over a year.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> They are living there over a year.


So what? That's irrelevant to what I was saying. As long as it has always been their _PPR _as long as they have owned it and they sell it within a year of vacating it as their _PPR _then any gain is exempt from _CGT_.


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> So what? That's irrelevant to what I was saying. As long as it has always been their _PPR _as long as they have owned it and they sell it within a year of vacating it as their _PPR _then any gain is exempt from _CGT_.



Fine. I bow to your superior knowledge Clubman. The potential gains still outweigh any potential CGT (you could hold onto it, get income for your whole life from it and pass it on to your kids) - yes Clubman I know there would be inheritance taxes then, and yes I am using pure speculation as to whether they have kids or not (or will in the future).

Nobody knows the future, so any decision is based on speculation of what might happen in the future.


----------



## thebop (1 Feb 2007)

Just to clear up the CGT issue there lads. I've been living here for three years as my PPR so i won't be paying CGT if i sell now.

THe property was purchased for 180,000. Then i remortgaged to 220,000 a year ago. There is about 208,000 remaining now with approx a 28 year term left.

The way i see it is that the current mortgage payments of about 1066 will rise to approx 1200 without mortgage interest relief so maybe an interest only mortgage might be ok but then if i hang onto it as a landlord, i would be liable for 20% on any gain from 180,000 euro up.

Am i right?


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

thebop said:


> The way i see it is that the current mortgage payments of about 1066 will rise to approx 1200 without mortgage interest relief so maybe an interest only mortgage might be ok but then if i hang onto it as a landlord, i would be liable for 20% on any gain from 180,000 euro up.
> 
> Am i right?



Only if you sell it - you can keep it forever. What rental income would it get ?


----------



## thebop (1 Feb 2007)

It would make 1000 - 1200 monthly.

If i keep onto it, i would have to remortgage another 20K to fit out new house i'd imagine.

I checked online rates and an interest only mortgage for 228K would be about 970 per month.

Would i break even after paying taxes then perhaps if i rented it out. I'd love to keep onto it and if i could break even, i probably would


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

thebop said:


> It would make 1000 - 1200 monthly.
> 
> If i keep onto it, i would have to remortgage another 20K to fit out new house i'd imagine.
> 
> ...



Its touch and go - could go slightly either way. Firstly, depends on if you would get 1000 or 1200 per month. If that could be narrowed down a bit, the sums can be done. Maybe check another few estate agents.

It also depends if you would be able to afford to subsidise it a little. If you can not afford to subsidide it at all, maybe not worth the risk. Whereabouts is the property ?

You can PM me any futher details you like and I can run them through the spreadsheet I set up when trying to make the decision myself.


----------



## Newby (1 Feb 2007)

thebop said:


> ... i would be liable for 20% on any gain from 180,000 euro up.
> 
> Am i right?



No. If the property ceases to be your PPR and you hold it for a number of years as an investment property you will be liable to CGT on the gain "from 180,000 up" to the extent that the property was not your PPR. 

(Length of time it wasn't your PPR - 12 months) / (Total time of ownership)

There are about a million threads on AAM that deal with this situation. Run a search for CGT and PPR here or check out Revenue's website


----------



## beattie (1 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> .
> 
> .
> After a few years, rents will have gone up so you can then switch back.
> ...


 
What is this based on?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

thebop said:


> but then if i hang onto it as a landlord, i would be liable for 20% on any gain from 180,000 euro up.


This is not correct. Where the property is retained for more than 12 months (rented or otherwise) after vacating it as your _PPR _then some portion of the overall capital gain is assessable for _CGT_. Not the whole lot and not just the gain between when you vacated it plus one year to the disposal.

_Sorry - just saw Newby's post on the same issue above.

_Before you make any decision you really should get the facts straight about tax etc.


----------



## JohnnieKippe (1 Feb 2007)

beattie said:


> What is this based on?



It's based on the fact that rents go up. Ask anyone who's every rented property (me included) how often the landlord comes and says "Good News. I've just dropped your rent". In all my years as both a tennant and landlord - rents don't go down.


----------



## beattie (1 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> It's based on the fact that rents go up. Ask anyone who's every rented property (me included) how often the landlord comes and says "Good News. I've just dropped your rent". In all my years as both a tennant and landlord - rents don't go down.


 
Well my landlord got a rude awakening from me four years ago when I knocked €150 off a €1750 monthly bill and the following year I knocked off another €50. I haven't bothered to go for more in the last two years and he hasn't raised the prospect of jacking up the rent either.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

The exception that disproved _JK's _rule?


----------



## Satanta (1 Feb 2007)

JK, rent is based on supply and demand. With the level of property investors over the last few years supply has grown rapidly. With the booming economy  of the past decade or so we had a very large level of growth (foreign workers, Irish workers returning etc) in demand, so rents increased.

Over the past couple of years however rent increases have slowed dramatically and in some cases fallen (I had my rent decrease from 2005 to 2006, only a small amount, but given inflation etc. still worth noting).

There is no magical formula that means rent will always increase. It always comes back to supply and demand. If the economy slows the number of people looking to rent may fall (more people leaving the country again, less coming in from other countries) and rents may/would slide accordingly.

None of us can predict this, no more than we can a property crash/correction. I'm not saying rents will fall (over a medium to long term), but you certainly can't say with certainty that they will rise!

So, as for coments like "rents don't go down", I'd like to be the second of many to disagree, with a personal example to back it up.

To the OP, you will find people who fall strongly on either side of the fence (bullish like JK, bearish like.... well, half the posters on AAM). Neither side is correct (until we can look back) so you need to form your own opinion on what to do. Becoming a landlord comes with a lot of risks attached to the potentially (very) large returns. Other forms of investments can also provide large (though seldom in the league of property in the last decade) returns for high risks or smaller returns for less risk. If you have one property you increase the risk of holding onto a second by having all your eggs (investments) in one basket (non diversified portfolio). Once you can understand the potential risks/returns, you can make an informed decision, but do be sure not to get swayed by the strong beliefs of another, whether that be on the bullish or bearish side.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

Satanta said:


> To the OP, you will find people who fall strongly on either side of the fence (bullish like JK, bearish like.... well, half the posters on AAM).


Ahem! And then there are those of us who try to maintaing a dispassionate objectivity. For example, some people may assume that I am bearish on property from my posts but any circumspection about property investment is usually less related to market conditions than to the specifics of the case in hand which often seems to involve people with little or no knowledge of the issues involved considering lumping most or all of their wealth into a single asset class, geographic region and risk/reward profile instead of diversifying more to mitigate risk and maximise returns.


----------



## Satanta (1 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Ahem! And then there are those of us who try to maintaing a dispassionate objectivity.


Yes, of course . 

How could I possibly have left you.... sorry them, out. I'd suggest this is exactly where the OP finds themselves, sitting somewhere between the two, hence the confusion of the best way to proceed.


----------



## Newby (2 Feb 2007)

I dropped my rent on tenants by €50 per month becuase I wanted to keep them there. I don't think this is uncommon where landlords are more concerned about the long term view rather than squeezing every last penny out of the property each month. Cheaper to reduce rent and keep a good tenant than have it vacant and then let it out to people who wreck it.


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2007)

This is not just a financial decision. The OP has to weigh up how selling or not selling will affect their quality of life in the medium term. They will still have a significant property asset (their PPR) and as long as they are living within their means and have some pension investment they should think long and hard about how much financial stress and worry being a landlord will entail. They should also think about how much of their time it will take up as for many people free time is a scarcer commodity than money.  Property investment is not the sure thing that it was 5 years ago. It may or may not continue to appreciate but returns will not be lower, that can be said with (almost) certainty. In this context is it worth the worry/ risk/ hassle? 



JohnnieKippe said:


> Think of 20 years time - the mortgage will be paid off (by someone else) and you will have an income generating asset probably worth a million. Whereas the 150K you would get by selling, is probably gone. It's a no-brainer.


 If they put €150k into a pension how much would it be worth in 20 years?


----------



## whathome (2 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> It's based on the fact that rents go up.


 
That's not always correct. I've had to drop rent between tenants to attract interest in a property. 

According to the DAFT rental index, rents had a steady decline of between 6% and 8% every year between 2001 and 2005.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Feb 2007)

Also - presumably if rent doesn't at least increase by the rate of inflation then it is going down in real terms?


----------



## cjh (2 Feb 2007)

JohnnieKippe said:


> It's based on the fact that rents go up. Ask anyone who's every rented property (me included) how often the landlord comes and says "Good News. I've just dropped your rent". In all my years as both a tennant and landlord - rents don't go down.


 

Mine has - twice.


----------



## thebop (3 Feb 2007)

Clubman,

What do you mean i won't be charged 20% on any profit from 180,000 to whatever the property would fetch if i sold same.

I rang revenue and they stated that it was 20%?


----------



## Satanta (3 Feb 2007)

thebop said:


> I rang revenue and they stated that it was 20%?


The rate is 20% but certain exemptions exist.

If you sell a property which is a PPR (and always has been) you are exempt from CGT so you don't pay the 20% on profits*.

*It isn't quite that simple.. check all the other posts in this thread for the full details. You have 12 months to sell as a PPR after you vacate the premises as a PPR in which it's still considered (as a PPR and) exempt.


----------

