First Time Buyer Status... impact of overseas purchase

[z108]

This is true CCOVICH. I think the only chance the OP has of retaining FTB while also retaining control over an investment in an overseas property is if the avoidance scheme of owning shares in his own property company is legally allowed. Its a coincidence that many actually do buy through a holding company as this is often required by law in countries such as the Czech republic (until next year I think) or Bulgaria for example.

 

[ubiquitous]

perhaps a call or letter asking for clarity from the revenue would be a cheap and easy option?

...so cheap and easy that Revenue would probably chuck it in the bin on the basis that its not their role to advise taxpayers how to plan to minimise their tax liabilities...

 

[z108]

...so cheap and easy that Revenue would probably chuck it in the bin on the basis that its not their role to advise taxpayers how to plan to minimise their tax liabilities...

You dont think they would answer a direct question about a black and white situation? a question along the lines of can I do this and still retain FTB ? yes or no.
Is it not their role to make their rules clearly understood ?


Imagine if ....

Bill Gates kindly left me 5 billion in his will after I saved him from drowning after pulling him out of the Liffey. After paying inheritance tax I decided to buy 100% of Green property in a private equity buy out. I now indirectly own the Blanchardstown Centre and also the Stephens Green shopping centre among other residential properties through my ownership of the company. How come I'm entitled to be a FTB yet my mate who bought a plot of land in Bulgaria for 4 grand through a property company of which he also owns 100% is denied FTB status? Or are we both denied FTB status ? Is anyone who owns shares in a property company denied FTB status ? There is a missing piece of information here. If my mate with the small company is pulled up for 'illegal' tax avoidance under anti-avoidance legislation and I am untouched then this amounts to one interpretation of the law for the rich and another inequitable interpretation for the less well off.

 

[ubiquitous]

You dont think they would answer a direct question about a black and white situation? a question along the lines of can I do this and still retain FTB ? yes or no.

Yes, the person answering the phone will probably give you their opinion - but the problem is that they make a point of not standing over the veracity of any guidance given or questions answered. The burden of ensuring compliance with tax law remains with the taxpayer.

Is it not their role to make their rules clearly understood ?

You can argue this with your local politician who may perhaps be better able and/or motivated to defend Revenue than I am.

Imagine if ....

Bill Gates kindly left me 5 billion in his will after I saved him from drowning after pulling him out of the Liffey. After paying inheritance tax I decided to buy 100% of Green property in a private equity buy out. I now indirectly own the Blanchardstown Centre and also the Stephens Green shopping centre among other residential properties through my ownership of the company. How come I'm entitled to be a FTB yet my mate who bought a plot of land in Bulgaria for 4 grand through a property company of which he also owns 100% is denied FTB status? Or are we both denied FTB status ? Is anyone who owns shares in a property company denied FTB status ? There is a missing piece of information here. If my mate with the small company is pulled up for 'illegal' tax avoidance under anti-avoidance legislation and I am untouched then this amounts to one interpretation of the law for the rich and another inequitable interpretation for the less well off.

Ditto

 

[z108]

Yes, the person answering the phone will probably give you their opinion - but the problem is that they make a point of not standing over the veracity of any guidance given or questions answered. The burden of ensuring compliance with tax law remains with the taxpayer.

Thankyou for your opinion. I would never advise anyone to take an officials word. Always get it in writing.
I saw a article in the Sunday Business Post (I think it was on the front page) yesterday alleging that Brian Cowen did not enforce the closure of a tax loop hole which benefits builders regarding stamp duty thus I would conclude from this that revenue can be quite discriminatory regarding how it enforces the tax avoidance legislation ClubMan referred to .

However there is probably a loop hole which a tax expert might know about. The same kind of tax expert who advises the builders for example .


Another issue I would have is many apartments even in this state arent owned by the occupant but are on long leases through the management company but are seen as 'owned'. I've never owned anything this way so do not know. How does that work ? And how would that affect things ?

 

[evenstar]

My sister and her husband returned from Belgium last year.

They owned thier house and sold it before they came back.

Bought in Ireland - and they did not have any first time buyer status/grants/concessions etc. Even tho she is Irish and never bought in Ireland, nor did her hubby.

Just in case the original poster is still following the thread!