I dont think this is correct. I do think this kind of thing used to go on but that the loophole has been closed.
I would imagine that from the banks point of view they would want to see both names on the title if both names are on the mortgage. What you are effectively proposing is that someone takes out a mortgage on a property they dont have any legal title to - how would a bank allow that? What would happen if the person just stopped paying? The bank couldnt repossess the property as the person doesnt legally have any title to it? So how would the bank have any security on the loan in that case?
Have you looked at the cost of "Remortgaging" (Solicitors fees etc) against the cost of stamp duty?
There's no legal transfer taking place. The property remains in my sole name. We'd just be taking a mortgage out together.
Okay - that's the crux of the issue. You want to put your BF on the mortgage but not the title. Why would he want to do that?
I certainly wouldn't want to be jointly liable for a mortgage on a house that I had no legal title over.
Just hving read back over the thread, here's my tuppence worth.
Buy the house on your own (if you can get mortgage with parents guarantee). Do everything with your own money. Think of it as your house only. If your BF wants to move in, he pays rent - not half the mortgage. If you get married in future, THEN re-mortgage the property, both going on both the deeds and the mortgage. Otherwise, you might be tying yourself up in a situation that one, or both of you, may regret in the future.
You should have a lock button as you started the thread.
Towards the top right of the page, is a "thread tools" button.
You should have an option to close the thread under that.
What the banks do and who's name is on deeds, mortgage or any other documentation is somewhat irrelevant.
The Revenue rules are that if your bf has a beneficial interest in the property; regardless of what banks say/do, who's name(s) are on deeds, mortgage, paperwork etc; there is a stamp duty liability. It will be impossible for you to argue that someone who is in a relationship with you and is living in the house and contributing to the mortgage doesnt have a beneficial interest. Revenue wised up to these tricks a long time ago.
Incorrect. The Revenue rules that you cite apply where there is a contribution to the purchase monies. My boyfriend would not be contributing to the purchase monies. Ultimately, yes he would take up a beneficial interest in the property. However, this would be some time after the initial purchase of the property. Revenue themselves say that the only circumstances in which there would be a clawback of the relief would be "if rent is obtained from the letting of the house other than under rent a room provisions."
By your argument, an FTB who purchases in his or her own name, then marries their partner and puts their new spouse on title and on mortgage, should lose their FTB relief. That's nonsense.
Rent-a-room scheme also requires separate dedicated sleeping quarters for the individual renting which means cohabiting couples are ineligible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?