Do you not just say I will pay the stamp duty on the sale and when the sale for €360k is made you then pay the stamp duty with your solicitor no aspect of gift.
The purchaser has the liablity to discharge the stamp duty. If the Vendor pays the stamp duty that is a gift. But it is not a gift - whatever you want to call it. The situation is artificial. Revenue do not mind what you do ( save for the possibility of the CGT situation outlined above) so long as the tax situation is quite clear.
The real issue is that the Bank will be unlikely to go along with this artificial situation. If the property is worth E350K, is being sold for E350K ( with the stamp duty "paid") then E350K is what it is worth. The Bank are unlikely to want to lend E360K for a E350K house with the "stamp duty paid". Particularly to a ftb. Perhaps to an investor with a substantial portfolio with cross security. And I've seen them lend 110%. But not to ftb's.
You could easily get the pricing to vary by 10k at this price. A valuation is not set in stone.
True - but it is the remainder of the artificiality of the situation that renders the whole situation unworkable. You cannot pretend that there is nothing going on in the background, you cannot pretend that there is no artificiality in the situation because to safeguard the purchasers there has to be a full disclosure in the contract protecting them from the Vendor doing a runner with their stamp duty money. And if you do a separate contract?
I repeat:
Solicitor draws up Contract A. Bank are told that property is being sold for E360K. Solicitor draws up Contract B - funnily enough, for no apparent reason, Vendor wishes to make a gift of E10K to someone he has never met and it is conditional on that person buying his house for E360K. Solicitor is involved. Bank need to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if they are happy to go with it, problem solved.
Finally, as for this suggestion:
Make a cheque payable to the parents for 10K (post-dated for the day of closing). We now have more people involved.
The buyers would inform their bank that the 10K stamp duty would be provided by their parents. Telling more lies.
They could then have endorsed the cheque over to the children and the transaction would then proceed as specified above (excluding step 2).
I might also have considered this option if the solicitor had any problems with having to disclose a "series of transactions" - as the two transactions would have been between different parties (not sure if this would work though).
THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT SEPARATE. THEY ARE ALL LINKED AND THE WHOLE THING ONLY WORKS BECAUSE THEY ARE LINKED.
Silly solicitors, having any compunction about lying left right and centre.
mf
The purchaser has the liablity to discharge the stamp duty. If the Vendor pays the stamp duty that is a gift. But it is not a gift - whatever you want to call it. The situation is artificial. Revenue do not mind what you do ( save for the possibility of the CGT situation outlined above) so long as the tax situation is quite clear.
The real issue is that the Bank will be unlikely to go along with this artificial situation. If the property is worth E350K, is being sold for E350K ( with the stamp duty "paid") then E350K is what it is worth. The Bank are unlikely to want to lend E360K for a E350K house with the "stamp duty paid". Particularly to a ftb. Perhaps to an investor with a substantial portfolio with cross security. And I've seen them lend 110%. But not to ftb's.
You could easily get the pricing to vary by 10k at this price. A valuation is not set in stone.
True - but it is the remainder of the artificiality of the situation that renders the whole situation unworkable. You cannot pretend that there is nothing going on in the background, you cannot pretend that there is no artificiality in the situation because to safeguard the purchasers there has to be a full disclosure in the contract protecting them from the Vendor doing a runner with their stamp duty money. And if you do a separate contract?
I repeat:
Solicitor draws up Contract A. Bank are told that property is being sold for E360K. Solicitor draws up Contract B - funnily enough, for no apparent reason, Vendor wishes to make a gift of E10K to someone he has never met and it is conditional on that person buying his house for E360K. Solicitor is involved. Bank need to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if they are happy to go with it, problem solved.
Finally, as for this suggestion:
Make a cheque payable to the parents for 10K (post-dated for the day of closing). We now have more people involved.
The buyers would inform their bank that the 10K stamp duty would be provided by their parents. Telling more lies.
They could then have endorsed the cheque over to the children and the transaction would then proceed as specified above (excluding step 2).
I might also have considered this option if the solicitor had any problems with having to disclose a "series of transactions" - as the two transactions would have been between different parties (not sure if this would work though).
THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT SEPARATE. THEY ARE ALL LINKED AND THE WHOLE THING ONLY WORKS BECAUSE THEY ARE LINKED.
Silly solicitors, having any compunction about lying left right and centre.
mf