The first time buyer exemption (which I don't agree with but that's not relevant) is to facilitate first time buyers, not syndicates who include a first time buyer.
But where do you draw the line? Why should an FTB whose folks can afford to subsidise them (and who go on the mortgage deeds) benefit from the same perks as those who don't have this option? Personally I reckon that, like the FTB grant, they should consider doing away with market skewing stuff like FTB tax breaks and level the playing pitch for all owner occupier buyers.Scotty said:But it seems reasonable we should give the other FTB's a break.
Or perhaps give non ftb owner occupiers the same tax breaks as investors.Personally I reckon that, like the FTB grant, they should consider doing away with market skewing stuff like FTB tax breaks and level the playing pitch for all owner occupier buyers.
But that would presumably mean subjecting owner occupiers to the same rates of stamp duty and CGT on the sale of their PPR as investors.elcato said:Or perhaps give non ftb owner occupiers the same tax breaks as investors.
I disagree but there you go. Also, judging by anecdotal evidence here and elsewhere of landlords moaning that they can't let or that rents are falling maybe things already have improved in the rental market as far as tenants are concerned?scotty said:But until the renting and/or house price situation improves I think all FTB's deserve some type of perk.
ClubMan said:...maybe things already have improved in the rental market as far as tenants are concerned?
The PRTB, and in particular their dispute resolution service, is arguably another move in the right direction in the context of balancing the rights and reponsibilities of the two parties (tenant and landlord)?Scotty said:Lower rents could well be the start of it, but I was talking about the bundle of issues that surround being a renter (tenant's rights, length of lease, size and layout of apartments, credit rights, etc.). Anyone who lives in rented accommodation would never confuse it with living in a home.
ClubMan said:The PRTB, and in particular their dispute resolution service, is arguably another move in the right direction...
Revenue Reassures First Time Buyers of Second Hand Houses The position regarding claims for first time buyer relief where the purchase monies are not provided entirely by the first time buyer was addressed in material which was published on the Revenue website in April this year. The stamp duty treatment was included in an answer in a FAQ format as follows: What is the position where the purchase monies are not provided entirely by the first time buyer? To qualify for the relief the entirety of the purchase monies, including any borrowings, must be provided by the first time buyer. Any person, who provides part of the purchase monies or who is a party to any borrowings relating to such purchase, is also regarded as a buyer of the house and the relief will not be available unless that other person is also a first time buyer. … This treatment applies whether or not all the parties providing the purchase monies, or all the parties to any borrowings, are actually named in the deed of transfer. Notwithstanding this treatment, to take account of the particular circumstances which have arisen, Revenue is prepared to accept that a child, who is a first time buyer, will not be precluded from claiming first time buyer relief where a parent acts as a co-mortgagor in the following circumstances: 1 of 3
The transfer of the house is taken in the name of the child. It is the intention of both the child and the parent that the parent is not to take a beneficial interest in the house. The parent has been joined into the mortgage solely at the request of the lending institution for the purpose of providing additional security for the monies being advanced for the purchase. It is not intended that the parent will be contributing to the repayment of the mortgage in the normal course. Where the four conditions set out above are satisfied, Revenue will treat the parent as effectively acting in the role of guarantor for the loan. Consistent with the above approach, Revenue will also be prepared to treat persons other than parents of the first time buyer, who satisfy similar conditions to those set out above, as effectively acting in the role of guarantor for the loan. Their involvement in that capacity will not be treated by Revenue as precluding a claim to first time buyer relief. In such circumstances the conditions are as follows: The transfer of the house is taken in the name of the first time buyer. It is the intention of both the first time buyer and the other person that the other person is not to take a beneficial interest in the house. The other person has been joined into the mortgage solely at the request of the lending institution for the purpose of providing additional security for the monies being advanced for the purchase. It is not intended that the other person will be contributing to the repayment of the mortgage in the normal course.
2 of 3
3 of 3
Revenue do not propose to seek a claw back of stamp duty where transfers have taken place before today which comply with either set of conditions outlined above. There is no need for taxpayers or their advisors to consult Revenue unless the circumstances surrounding the purchase are different to those outlined above. The relief from stamp duty is intended to benefit only genuine first time buyers and Revenue will continue to user our audit programme to ensure that there is no abuse of the relief.
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?