# Marriage & 2 houses



## tevion (22 Apr 2011)

Just wondering what happens in the following scenario, in relation to marriage.
A couple, who both have their own houses, plan on getting married.
They both avail of the rent a room scheme to help with the mortgage.
After marriage, they will continue to live in their own houses due to work commitments, because they work miles apart.
Can they continue to be taxed seperately in relation to their PPR and to avail of the rent a room relief?
Otherwise if there is only one PPR between them, then not only will one person will have to pay tax on the rental income, but will also have to pay 200 euro per year because of a second home, even though they are technically living there 5 days of the week?
Any advise in this scenario, apart from dont get married?! 
Can you get married and just not inform revenue for a few years?!


----------



## niceoneted (22 Apr 2011)

even though they are technically living there 5 days of the week?

Can you get married and just not inform revenue for a few years?


These two statements make it sound like your trying to hide something?


----------



## Paddyman (22 Apr 2011)

Why are you afraid of informing the revenue? Don't tell me that you are trying to dodge paying your taxes?
Best, render onto Caesar........


----------



## mandelbrot (22 Apr 2011)

tevion said:


> Just wondering what happens in the following scenario, in relation to marriage.
> A couple, who both have their own houses, plan on getting married.
> They both avail of the rent a room scheme to help with the mortgage.
> After marriage, they will continue to live in their own houses due to work commitments, because they work miles apart.
> ...



Well, as long as you aren't twisting facts to suit yourself (i.e. ye really don't live together), then I don't see any problem with you each having a separate PPR. If ye both owned half of each house it would be different, but if you own one house (where you live), and your spouse owns another house (which is their main residence) then I don't see a problem under the legislation below:

(8)  For the purposes of this section, *an individual* shall not be treated as  having more than one main residence at any one time and in so far as it  is necessary to determine which of 2 or more residences is an  individual's main residence for any period—

 (_a_)  that question may be determined by agreement between the inspector and  the individual on the latter giving notice in writing to the inspector  by the end of the year 1975-76 or within 2 years from the beginning of  that period if that is later, and

 (_b_)  failing such agreement, the question shall be determined by the  inspector, whose determination may be as respects either the whole or  specified parts of the period of ownership in question,

 and notice of any determination by the inspector under _paragraph (b)_  shall be given to the individual who may appeal to the Appeal  Commissioners against that determination within 21 days of service of  the notice.

 (9) In the case of a man and his wife *living with him*—

 (_a_)  *there may be for the purposes of this section* *only one residence or  main residence for both so long as they are living together* and, where a  notice under _subsection (8)(a)_ affects both the husband and his wife, it must be made by both,

 (_b_)  if the one disposes of, or of his or her interest in, the dwelling  house or part of a dwelling house which is their only or main residence  to the other, or if it passes on death to the other as legatee, the  other's period of ownership shall begin with the beginning of the period  of ownership of the one making the disposal or from whom it passes on  death,

 (_c_) if _paragraph (b)_  applies but the dwelling house or part of a dwelling house was not the  only or main residence of both throughout the period of ownership of the  one making the disposal, account shall be taken of any part of that  period during which it was the only or main residence of the one as if  it was also the only or main residence of the other, and

 (_d_) any notice under _subsection (8)(b)_  which affects a residence owned by the husband and a residence owned by  the wife shall be given to each and either may appeal under that  subsection.


----------



## tevion (22 Apr 2011)

Looking for advice out there please, not accusations..
The situation is what it is, as described above, no-one is hiding anything, the wedding date isnt even set! 
Just weighing up options for when the time comes.
Constructive posts would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## tevion (22 Apr 2011)

thanks mandelbrot.
I'm not sure that a married couple are allowed more that one PPR for tax purposes though?
Thats the real problem in this situation.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (22 Apr 2011)

Ring Revenue and ask them ... they are very approachable.

Let us know how you get on.


----------



## Greta (23 Apr 2011)

tevion said:


> thanks mandelbrot.
> I'm not sure that a married couple are allowed more that one PPR for tax purposes though?
> Thats the real problem in this situation.



A married couple is *not* allowed more than one PPR, unless they are separated, i.e. either legally separated or in such a way that the separation is likely to remain permanent. If they are not "separated" in this way, then they are "living together", it doesn't have to be physically under the same roof 7 days a week.

So in OP's case the only way to keep two PPRs and avail of two rent a room schemes is not get married
Or apply set up a legal separation immediately afterwards - but then, why get married?

It is a way to discriminate against marriage - if you are not married, you are treated as living together only when you physically do so. If you are married, you are treated as living together unless the marriage has basically broken down.


----------



## tevion (23 Apr 2011)

Thanks for that Greta, thought that was the case alright.
Its discrimination as far as I can see unfortunately.


----------



## mandelbrot (23 Apr 2011)

Greta said:


> A married couple is *not* allowed more than one PPR, unless they are separated, i.e. either legally separated or in such a way that the separation is likely to remain permanent. If they are not "separated" in this way, then they are "living together", it doesn't have to be physically under the same roof 7 days a week.
> 
> So in OP's case the only way to keep two PPRs and avail of two rent a room schemes is not get married
> Or apply set up a legal separation immediately afterwards - but then, why get married?
> ...



Thanks Greta,

Is this refusal to allow more than one PPR prescribed in the legislation, or is it a Revenue interpretation? And has anyone ever challenged that part of the legislation through the courts I wonder?

Seems a bit unconstitutional; preferable tax treatment for unmarried people, similar areas have been successfully challenged before...


----------



## Greta (24 Apr 2011)

Mandelbrot, I don't know. It's definitely on the Revenue website but whether it's legislation or not, I don't know. 
Married people do have some preferential tax treatment, no CGT or CAT on transfers between spouses, as well as pension rights, so it's debatable whether they are discriminated against or given preferred treatment.

The same situation with PPR exists in Britain, two unmarried partners can have their own PPR each. If they get married, they have to choose which one will be their PPR. If they don't choose, the Revenue will do it for them, if it becomes relevant (they sell one of the properties or rent a room, for example). 

So it is generally better to make the election yourselves, which property to treat as PPR, depending on circumstances. I think the election can be switched between the properties to suit your circumstances.

In OP's case, the best solution would seem to be (from the tax point of view) not to get married until the couple are ready to live together in the same house In the meantime, arranging wills and maybe life insurance to cover inheritance tax should one of them die before they marry. 

If they do marry, deciding carefully which property to designate as their PPR. For example, if one spouse pays tax at higher rate than the other, it may be worth designating his/her property as PPR to avail of rent a room scheme. Or choose the property that brings in more rent under rent a room scheme. 
Or if one property is in positive equity and the other one in the negative, designating the one in positive equity as PPR to avoid CGT if it's sold. Or if both properties can be sold at a profit, choosing the one that the couple eventually plans to sell.

So in conclusion, it's better to take proactive approach rather than hope that the Revenue won't find out about the marriage


----------



## tevion (24 Apr 2011)

good advice, thanks Greta


----------



## bovis (17 Jun 2011)

Greta,
Good advice but a question for you (or others on this thread). You say that a married couple with 2 properties should choose one property as their PPR "to suit circumstances". Is this choice a matter solely for the couple or are there hard and fast rules that qualify whether a property is most suited to be the PPR? For example, might one need to prove how man days per year they live, where they work, where there children live during school term, etc, etc?  Or is a nominated PPR really just a paper exercise and as long as you dont have multiple PPRs (& you're paying the NPPR tax and all relevant taxes on any others) then revenue are fine.

Any ideas?


----------



## Greta (17 Jun 2011)

It's a bit of a grey area but in general there are no hard and fast rules so long as the property that you nominate as your PPR is actually available for your use and you use it at least occasionally. So if a property is fully rented out to tenants, or it's uninhabitable and is boarded up, it can't at the same time be your PPR but if you rent out a room and still have a room available for your use and use it at least occasionally, then it can be nominated as your PPR.

The advantage of nominating a PPR is that otherwise the Revenue will have to determine themselves which one is your PPR, should it ever became an issue, at their discretion, and it may not be what you'd like.

There seems to be a common misconception that you need to physically live at your PPR most of the time - you don't. You do need to use it at least sometimes and it must be available for your use, but that's all, no hard and fast rules.

Have a search on the Revenue website, it's there somewhere.


----------



## xpresso (25 Jun 2011)

Which house do I pay my PPR on? . Similar to OP we are married and own two houses. one is 100miles from the other. My Wife lives in the counrty with our two children and I work in Dublin and live in our other house where I also look after my OAP father, at weekends Fri,Sat,Sun I go to our house in Country. I consider my Dublin home my PPR but my wife Considers our Counrty home our PPR ,  So Which do i register as my PPR and which do I pay the PPR Tax on.      me thinks the Dublin house but what effect would that have on me in the future if we sell the Country home.


----------



## millieforbes (25 Jun 2011)

xpresso, does your father live in the house full time?


----------



## oldnick (26 Jun 2011)

Greta - the legislation re NPPR -the Local Govnt Charges Act- states that one is exempt from NPPR on the property which is  " the sole or main residence." That suggests that PPR is one's main residence.

But you state that one can declare a property as PPR even if one uses it just "sometimes"

I can understand living in a place only sometimes can still be one's PPR if one is travelling around and staying in many different places on business or a very long vacation.
 But if one is staying in one place ,say 90% in Cork  and 10% in Sligo can one really claim that the Sligo property is one's PPR ?

I'm not arguing -just seeking source of your definition/explanation of PPR.


----------



## xpresso (26 Jun 2011)

millieforbes said:


> xpresso, does your father live in the house full time?




Yes he does, so does his partner, When I say I look after him, I dont mean physically He stays in the house rent free but he pays the ESB and Heating bills. 

does it make a difference?


----------



## Bronte (27 Jun 2011)

OP this is oh so not worth it.  Tax evasion, is what it looks like.  Not an accusation but it would be what revenue would call it which makes it a fact.  First step is to talk to revenue and get it in writing that what you propose to do is legit. My understanding is the same as Greta, that a married couple only have one PPR.  

As NPPR is a local authority charge, they may allow you off that charge, but you'd want that in writing too.


----------



## Bronte (27 Jun 2011)

xpresso said:


> . Similar to OP we are married and own two houses.
> 
> but what effect would that have on me in the future if we sell the Country home.


 
Pay the NPPR on the Dublin house.  If you sell the country house it would be your PPR (principal private residence) and therefore no CGT (capital gains tax).  If you sell the Dublin house, you will pay CGT if you were so lucky as to have a property that has risen if value since you bought it.


----------



## millieforbes (27 Jun 2011)

I was thinking about the exemption for relatives...

7.    Where a residence is occupied rent-free by a relative of the owner and the owner resides on the same property or within two kilometres of .the residence in question

I guess you are more than 2km away though so this won't apply. i wonder what is the logic behind the 2km?


----------



## Greta (28 Jun 2011)

oldnick said:


> Greta - the legislation re NPPR -the Local Govnt Charges Act- states that one is exempt from NPPR on the property which is  " the sole or main residence." That suggests that PPR is one's main residence.
> 
> But you state that one can declare a property as PPR even if one uses it just "sometimes"
> 
> ...



I was reading the Revenue guidance on what's a PPR for the purposes of capital gains tax, there doesn't seem to be much specifics as to what is PPR for NPPR charge purposes, so I presume it's the same though who knows...

There is no clear cut rule to determine which residence is PPR if a person has more than one residence available to them, so an election is useful. Otherwise the Revenue can look at various facts such as which address was used for correspondence and lots of others, the length of time spent at each address is only one of many facts.


----------



## xpresso (1 Jul 2011)

millieforbes said:


> I was thinking about the exemption for relatives...
> 
> 7.    Where a residence is occupied rent-free by a relative of the owner and the owner resides on the same property or within two kilometres of .the residence in question
> 
> I guess you are more than 2km away though so this won't apply. i wonder what is the logic behind the 2km?



Logic and taxes dont go together..  2km is nothing.


----------

