Mortgage Interest Relief stopped by Revenue - I believe incorrectly

jim said:
But theoretically the renter could have moved in while the lando was still there...lando went off for 4 mnths, came back and evidentally the renter is still living there. Thats rent a room and nothing else.
Click to expand...

It's rent a room if the room is rented while the house is occupied by the owner. The facts of this are:
the owner and his family left their home, for whatever reason,
a tenant moved in and bills were changed over etc (consistent with a long term occupancy),
they occupied the place solo for 4 months, during which time a wrinkle arose with the Revenue,
Immediately voilà the owner has now moved back in, albeit without his wife and child...

Looks much more likely that the OP in fact moved out and agreed a letting with someone, and is now scrambling to cover his This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language.

Things I'd like to know:
Did the OP or his wife quit their jobs before they went on "holiday"?
Did they book return flights?
Are the wife and child back in Ireland or are they still "on holiday"?
 
jim said:
But jon snow...whether or not you believe the op is completely irrelevant to his one and only question...which is the point i was making in that post. His question was simple and it has been answered.
Click to expand...

It's very relevant if he is trying to confirm the answer as part of trying to construct a false narrative to avoid a problem that the truth would cause him.
 
Jon Snow - I don't think the OP is going to answer those questions, his query has already been dealt with by Revenue and to be honest its a little unfair to be digging deeper. For all we know, he might have separated from his wife and child or there are relationship problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jim
My thoughts exactly moneybox. The only point i was making was that he had a question and it was answered. Whether or not he is comitting fraud we may never know. we can speculate but whats the point? I personally dont think he was, based on what i read. You, personally, think he was based on what you read. In any case its disrespectful to assume that he is committing fraud and to try and "dig deeper" just bcause you have a hunch.
 
Jon snow to respond to your other post above:

I am reading this differently to you...the op never left or stopped residing at his property. He went on a holiday albeit for 4 months. Theres no law against that. Frankly your questioning of the op is ridiculous. you clearly have the view that this guy has broken the law and you want to probe to find the evidence to back that up.
 
moneybox said:
Jon Snow - I don't think the OP is going to answer those questions, his query has already been dealt with by Revenue and to be honest its a little unfair to be digging deeper. For all we know, he might have separated from his wife and child or there are relationship problems.
Click to expand...

Well obviously I don't expect the OP to answer them! :rolleyes:

My point is that a tissue of lies to conceal the truth can often be easily enough peeled away, so retrofitting a story about a house sitter - while it has worked in the short term because of (depending on your perspective) either a coincidence or an uncharacteristically real-time intervention by Revenue - will not wash long term if the OP's bizarre story isn't true.

No point in him going away thinking he's a tax evasion genius and getting a major wallop further down the line.
 
jim said:
Jon snow to respond to your other post above:

I am reading this differently to you...the op never left or stopped residing at his property. He went on a holiday albeit for 4 months. Theres no law against that. Frankly your questioning of the op is ridiculous. you clearly have the view that this guy has broken the law and you want to probe to find the evidence to back that up.
Click to expand...

Yes Jim I appreciate you're reading it differently than I am - you are accepting without question, a version of events that is bizarre. As is your right, you can believe what you like, it's a free internet!

If the OP is relaying everything factually correctly then it's all kosher. HOWEVER I would point out that one could argue that if you rent out the only bedroom in a one bed apartment then in effect you are on shaky ground trying to demonstrate how that property remains your main residence. That'd be an interesting decision for an appeal commissioner or judge to make...

And I'm not sure if you noticed, but the OP bailed out of the thread ages ago, it's now just us plugging away..! ;)
 
I appreciate your sceptisicm Jon and i agree the story is unusual.

My point, and ill make it one last time, is that its not right fo you or I do repeatedly question the op and infer that he has broken the law with no evidence that he has done so.

I dont think the purpose of the forum is for us to question the accuracy or truthfulness of what people tell us but rather it is for us to suggest and debate solutions to whatever problem or situation they pose. Unless clearly the law has been broken or clearly the facts dont stack up. This isnt the case with the op's post...unusual as the situation may seem to be.
 
Last edited:
rameire said:
if the bank were notified by you of a change in the correspondence address, and it was different to the security address.
The bank have an obligation to notify the revenue, if you are in receipt of TRS.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? One can have a different correspondance address to one's home.
 
jim said:
But jon snow...whether or not you believe the op is completely irrelevant to his one and only question...which is the point i was making in that post. His question was simple and it has been answered.
Click to expand...

On AAM time and again there are very rarely simple questions. On AAM time and again the back story is very complicated indeed.
 
jim said:
I appreciate your sceptisicm Jon and i agree the story is unusual.

My point, and ill make it one last time, is that its not right fo you or I do repeatedly question the op and infer that he has broken the law with no evidence that he has done so.

I dont think the purpose of the forum is for us to question the accuracy or truthfulness of what people tell us but rather it is for us to suggest and debate solutions to whatever problem or situation they pose. Unless clearly the law has been broken or clearly the facts dont stack up. This isnt the case with the op's post...unusual as the situation may seem to be.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on this point because every time we have a story that stretches incredulity we have to question, in actual fact that alone helps the OP, if they are trying it on with revenue they have now figured out lots of ways on how to deal with revenue, if they had come on here and blatently said how do they go about it none of us would have bothered to reply. And for the record, the facts didn't stack up on this from the beginning and I for one am convinced it's tax evasion. Which I suspected right from the get go.
 
Last edited:
jim said:
But jon snow...whether or not you believe the op is completely irrelevant to his one and only question...which is the point i was making in that post. His question was simple and it has been answered.
Click to expand...

It is relevant actually. I pass no judgement on the bona fides of the OP. Legitimate queries are the lifeblood of this site. Attempts to use the knowledge of others to retrospectively construct a spurious argument are not.
 
How do we know the op has committed a crime or is trying to construct a spurious arguement???Maybe he was just asking a legitimate question in which case this is all a bit irrational and getting sillier by the post. What bronte didnt stack up? Whats the definition of "stack up"? The facts were unusual to you?? You didnt believe the op's story???

To me the facts are what he said and even if the scenario seemed unusual i have to say that just because they may have seemed unusual there was nothing illegal anywhere in the facts. I challange you tonpoint out the illigality and if you cant then why the hell are we still debating this?
 
jim said:
I appreciate your sceptisicm Jon and i agree the story is unusual.

My point, and ill make it one last time, is that its not right fo you or I do repeatedly question the op and infer that he has broken the law with no evidence that he has done so.

I dont think the purpose of the forum is for us to question the accuracy or truthfulness of what people tell us but rather it is for us to suggest and debate solutions to whatever problem or situation they pose. Unless clearly the law has been broken or clearly the facts dont stack up. This isnt the case with the op's post...unusual as the situation may seem to be.
Click to expand...

How does one rent-a-room and remain in the apartment when it only has one bedroom??
 
peteb said:
How does one rent-a-room and remain in the apartment when it only has one bedroom??
Click to expand...

I would have thought that the rent a room scheme implied renting a bedroom with use of common areas, how one can use this scheme in a one bedroom apt while not living there even if it is only for 4 months and not expect questions is beyond me ??
 
Yeah that certainly doesnt seem like a practical situation. I wonder though does the rent a room scheme specify anything about the minimum number of rooms in dwelling?..does the scheme prohibit 1 bed apts?
 
In the OP's scenario, where he was not renting out a room but in fact renting out an entire apartment for those four months he was away, wouldn't it be correct that his TRS was stopped for those 4 months? Which was the original question. I don't think you're entitled to receive TRS when you have your entire home rented out.
 
Bronte said:
Where are you getting this from? One can have a different correspondance address to one's home.
Click to expand...
from personal experience.
if the security address is not the same as the correspondance address, then the revenue are notified.
as trs is paid on ones PDH, in theory both addresses are to be the same
 
Bronte said:
Where are you getting this from? One can have a different correspondance address to one's home.
Click to expand...
First I've heard of it!!! Obviously our bank must be in deep trouble with the Revenue so as we have never done this!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top