While it isn't a problem to apply for planning while your brother owns the land, he will then be gifting you a site which will presumably be worth a lot more than the agricultural land it is at the moment.
It would likely make more sense to let him gift you agricultural land and then you get planning permission and it becomes a site.
That way you pay stamp duty, CAT and the brother's CGT on a lower valuation.
Agricultural land values are relevent when you are transfer a large acreage. When someone transfers an acre of land or probably less it's obvious it's not for farming. Especially so if it has road frontage.
It appears from this that you believe that agri value is
only relevant where the transfer is of a suitably large plot. The simple fact is that if you transfer me an acre with road frontage, I can easily say that my intention at the time you transferred it to me, was to hobby farm it, maybe fatten a few cattle on it, or keep a few horses on it for hacking around on. This couldn't be easily disproven. (Arguably, not even if I decided shortly afterwards to apply for planning permission on it.) This is why market value can / will be applied - a value that incorporates the current use value plus the value of potential development.
This is one of the reasons attributed to buying plots with a price agreed 'pending' granting of planning permisson. If revenue think it's for a plot they will question the evaluation of you small piece of land, and the fact it may not currently have planning on it is irrelevent to this.
the question is, what value would the unzoned site fetch if it were put up for sale in the open market. There's no question that this value would be substantially less than the value of a site with planning permission, so it absolutely is relevant whether the transfer happens prior to or after planning permission is obtained.
You are misunderstanding me here. I will put it simply. Go to a local estate agent and tell them you want an evaluation of an acre of land that he will see on their visit, which they will have to do, is small and has road frontage. No planning et al.
Come back to me and tell me this evaluation is agricultural land prices. Revenue have red flaged evaluers who try to pass this off. It is not a black and white issue as some are suggesting here. It's not either or. Anyone I know in this line of work will not put agri values on a small plot. The value may be substantially less than a site with PP but it will be substandially more than agricultural land which changes hands in a volumn.
The above is, as far as I can see, the nub of our debate here - you appear to believe that myself and others were suggesting that a transfer now while the land has no planning permission, would be at agri value. I can't speak for anyone else, but that was never my belief, as you will see from the emboldened part of my previous posts quoted above.
When valuing the land a valuer should incorporate into his valuation the additional value from the development potential. But this doesn't mean that the site suddenly assumes the same value as it would have if it had already been zoned / had PP granted. Given that this potential is dependent on uncertain future events, the uncertainty will require a substantial discount on the value the site would have if it were already zoned.
Firstly this is the same point to which you disagreed with earlier, and is what I am trying to say to OP. Now your agreeing with me. Like I said to OP it's not, either, or. If the farmer next door sells 20 acres for 10k an acre it's wrong to say that your single acre is thus worth 10k.
As per the above I'm not disagreeing - I'm saying what I've said all along - the value before you obtain planning will be less than the value afterwards. What I disagreed with, was the impression that the agri value is irrelevant just because the parcel being sold is suitable as a site.
I have first hand experience of an estate agent who attracted attention from revenue more than once when their letterhead was seen attached, as they were using their position to help someone avoid tax previously and revenue were keeping an eye on them. This happened.
That's in no way surprising - but again I would suggest that you're putting the cart before the horse here. You only have to furnish the actual valuations if / when Revenue ask for them. If they ask for them it's because they already are unhappy with the figures used (an exception may be if a CG50 is being sought). It doesn't really matter therefore whether the valuer is on their naughty list or not, because they're likely to dispute the figures anyway.
Thirdly, I have dyslexia and when you write things and even reread them poor spelling and repeating words is an everyday difficult occurance.
But dont let your own ignorance stop you from branding me stupid.
Talk about a chip on your shoulder - unless you're a tax / property professional then I would stand over my assertion that myself and other posters here have more experience and expertise in this area than you, nowhere did I suggest stupidity on your part, I merely suggested that your language suggested less familiarity than other posters.