Revenue clampdown on investor stamp duty

ubiquitous said:
Hi Marie

By the way, you cite the issue of social justice. Where is the social justice in a young person, who has been enterprising and self-reliant enough to buy their own property, being subjected to huge tax and stamp duty penalties for having the audacity to travel around the world for 6 months or so? Do you really think that the Dept of Finance would have framed the law in order to punish these youngsters in this way - effectively prohibiting them from seeing the world and having a bit of harmless fun before they settle down? Unless we are back in the era of John Charles McQuaid, I cannot imagine that they would have done so.
Click to expand...

Just one point here - while I know most people want to get on the property ladder quickly before property gets even more expensive I don't accept that they should then be able to go off travelling (even given that travelling will usually broaden the mind etc. and in the long run potentially make such people capable of making an even bigger contribution in overall terms to this country. Now that could be an interesting topic to start!) the world and not accept the responsibility they have taken on. As you say ubiqitous, why stop them having fun before they settle down? I think the point to remember is that by buying a house settling down is effectively what they have chosen to do when they chose to take on the responsibility of a mortgage and owning a property. If they cannot afford to travel as well as accept the tax burden incurred by leaving their prinicipal residence in order to do so, then maybe they should travel first and then settle down. Actually if the property market weren't so mad in Ireland I'd be inclined to argue this point very strongly but I do understand the desire to get a place of your own as soon as possible before being entirely priced out of the market. I don't know all the ins and outs of the Taxes Consolidation Act or the Finance Act etc but as so-called "gap-year" travelling (I think rarely actually done by students anymore, usually people who have worked a few years) is now so commonplace perhaps we need to have a change in tax law to allow for that. (Okay, one point, but it was a long one in the end, sorry for rambling folks).

PS Disclaimer: I can not afford to buy any property, nor can I afford to travel anymore (all of this my own fault through really bad financial management) so it's possible I may be a teeny bit prejudiced in my view of people who are doing both :)
 
as so-called "gap-year" travelling (I think rarely actually done by students anymore, usually people who have worked a few years) is now so commonplace perhaps we need to have a change in tax law to allow for that.
Click to expand...

If the Revenue were to pursue gap-year backpackers for taxes and stamp duties on the basis that they were now "landlords" of their own homes, I have no doubt but that there would be an immediate political clamour for the Minister for Finance to immediately change the law. In any event, I don't think this will happen as the law on PPR as it stands appears to be on the side of the backpacker/householder.
 
Janet,

I think you are being a bit harsh there, surely people do not have to adhere to a set order in living their life. It's not a case of I've got a house, so I must get married and have kids.....
 
No, not at all - in fact I'm not a terribly conventional person myself. But if you are buying a house then that comes with a certain amount of responsibility and I think that if buying a house is something you decide to do with your life you have to take the bad with the good. If you've bought a house and can still afford to go travelling fair play. If you've bought a house then want to go travelling and effectively use tax evasion to finance your travelling (stating it a bit harshly here just to make the point) then I don't think that's right. Owning property is not a right, it's a choice. Sometimes making one choice cuts down on the possibility of other choices in life - and that's life as they say.
 
Janet said:
If you've bought a house then want to go travelling and effectively use tax evasion to finance your travelling (stating it a bit harshly here just to make the point) then I don't think that's right. Owning property is not a right, it's a choice. Sometimes making one choice cuts down on the possibility of other choices in life - and that's life as they say.
Click to expand...

I think the point is though that the law is unclear enough that it might not be tax evasion.

Ubiquitous made a point about the letter and spirit of the law earlier which I think raises an interesting point. The five year clawback was likely put in to stop investors from buying a property and living in it for a nominal amount of time so as to avail of the stamp duty relief. I think it is pretty obvious the intent is to stop abuse of the system by professional investors. The question is did the drafters of the law really intend someone who travels temporarily to be regarded as an investor. One could maybe argue that if they had they could have included an exemption for 6-12 months abscence not triggering the clawback but this may just have been an oversight.
 
Good post Dam099, thats what I was trying to say all those post ago, but unfortunately lacked your eloquence!!
One thing though, whilst we may say the lack of concession was probably an oversight, that does not mean they will be in a hurry to rectify this, more tax is always good news for the dept. of finance.
 
"Roads, traffic-lights, sea and mountain rescue, schools and teacher-training, sewage-systems, government and local infrastructure, sea-defences, police, hospitals and training of medical personnel, hospices and hostels, emergency services (fire, ambulance) should be supported by other peoples' taxes! Personally I will ensure "the state" doesn't get hold of my money which I need all of for myself as I want to invest in properties and enjoy life to the full in the sun".


Yeah! That's catching on, all right! It's going to be an 'interesting' spectacle 10 - 15 years from now when the chickens of that particular approach to public and private finance come home to roost.
 
Janet said:
If you've bought a house then want to go travelling and effectively use tax evasion to finance your travelling (stating it a bit harshly here just to make the point) then I don't think that's right. Owning property is not a right, it's a choice. Sometimes making one choice cuts down on the possibility of other choices in life - and that's life as they say.
Click to expand...

Very well said Janet........and I don't think you are "stating it a bit harshly".....you are just cutting through the crap!
 
ubiquitous said:
Hi Marie


By the way, you cite the issue of social justice. Where is the social justice in a young person, who has been enterprising and self-reliant enough to buy their own property, being subjected to huge tax and stamp duty penalties for having the audacity to travel around the world for 6 months or so? Do you really think that the Dept of Finance would have framed the law in order to punish these youngsters in this way - effectively prohibiting them from seeing the world and having a bit of harmless fun before they settle down? Unless we are back in the era of John Charles McQuaid, I cannot imagine that they would have done so.
Click to expand...

Ubiquitous - I have been trying (for reasons I gave in a much earlier post) to avoid focussing down this discussion to what must be a very very small number of individuals........those able to take and travel during 'gap year' from higher/further education. These days the costs entailed in pursuing a university education are so large few can now afford 'gap years' - let alone gap year spent abroad! To take up your defence of 'a young person who has been enterprising and self-reliant enough to buy their own property', our difference seems to be that you interpret that young person's liability and responsibility to pay their due fair of taxes (like the rest of us!) as "subjected to huge tax and stamp duty penalties".

That is the nub of the matter! They are simply expected to meet their responsibilities like every other property owner or mortgagee, but your view of this is that the young person is being "penalised". They are not! They are being expected to meet their responsibilities (I can't use the word 'social' or 'civic' in that context, knowing your extreme reaction to these old-fashioned values).

Have a nice day now!
 
Marie

I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

Contrary to what you say, I am not talking about students. - How many students own houses anyway?

What we are talking about here is a matter of law. I have explained, in straightforward, simple terms, my reasoning of what the law says. You have disagreed, which is your right, but in doing so have made some statements that are clearly untrue. When challenged, you have failed to acknowledge this and failed to justify your position with a shred of evidence, preferring instead to moralise to others about 'meeting their responsiblities' and suchlike.

You have also chosen to comment negatively and repeatedly on my own and others' motivation for stating the case as we see it. Now you are starting to attack me, and presumably the others who contributed here, eg " I can't use the word 'social' or 'civic' in that context, knowing your extreme reaction to these old-fashioned values."

Sadly, there is little point in trying to reason with you on this...
 
Has the revenue setup up a phone line/special service/... to report people who are evading stamp duty?

That would help them in their investigation, and it will be quicker to retrieve the unpaid monies..
 
ubiquitous said:
Marie

I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

Contrary to what you say, I am not talking about students. - How many students own houses anyway?
Click to expand...

I think this confusion arises from Marie having lived in UK where gap-year travelling is something students do, I think between school and uni or else during uni - literally taking a year out to travel and leaving a gap in continuous education. As far as I know anyway that's the case but the phrase has been taken up over here to some extent to describe the droves of people who've worked for a few years and then decide to head off (usually to Australia) for 12 - 18 months.

ubiquitous said:
What we are talking about here is a matter of law. I have explained, in straightforward, simple terms, my reasoning of what the law says. You have disagreed, which is your right, but in doing so have made some statements that are clearly untrue. When challenged, you have failed to acknowledge this and failed to justify your position with a shred of evidence, preferring instead to moralise to others about 'meeting their responsiblities' and suchlike.

.
Click to expand...

What statements are clearly untrue? Not trying to get at you here by picking your post to bits but I've read back through some of the posts and can't see anything that springs out at me as being false. Reading quickly though so could easily just be missing it.

And finally, what's wrong with moralising about responsibilities?
 
Hi Janet

I don't want to get into the same sort of 'cutting & pasting' row that has dogged some AAM discussions recently, except to say that my 3rd and 5th posts to this thread clearly identify and address the untrue statements to which I refer above.

There is nothing wrong per se in moralising about responsibilities, but I would respectfully suggest that Marie is in no position to moralise here as she obviously has an incomplete and apparently incorrect understanding of whether there is any tax liability in the first instance. She is equally in no position to dismiss the integrity and bona fides of myself and others simply because our understanding of the issue varies from her own.
 
ubiquitous said:
Hi Janet

I don't want to get into the same sort of 'cutting & pasting' row that has dogged some AAM discussions recently, except to say that my 3rd and 5th posts to this thread clearly identify and address the untrue statements to which I refer above.
Click to expand...

Sorry, have only just figured out how to do the cutting & pasting thing properly so am getting very enthusiastic about it :)

Off to re-read those posts now, thanks.
 
Hi, I am following this thread with great interest as it applies to my situation right now!!!

And i'd really appreciated if someone could answer my question.

We are home owners for 18 months, who are taking 6 months off work in mid-November, doing some charity work in Sri Lanka for a few weeks, going to my brothers wedding in Australia etc etc. In other words we will never be in one place for more than 3 weeks.

Our plan is to register for the 'Rent a Room' scheme and declare all rental income. By the way this rental income will only cover 2/3's of our mortgage.

However we have not legislated for stamp duty clawback.

Can anyone tell me the 'legal' requirement for a property to no longer be classified as a 'PPR'??

thanks in advance,

P
 
Maybe you can be our test case rubber duckey!!
Certainly a group of us feel that even though you are now abnegating your responsibilities (allbeit for a short time), the stamp duty clawback does not apply to you, others don't agree.
Personally I would enjoy my trip and say nothing:)
 
Thanks Glenboy.

On a more somber note, i do take my responsibilities to the state quite seriously and do not want to break any tax legislation.

Can anyone on the forum or revenue tell me where the line is.

1. If i go on a 4 week holiday to Italy am i liable for stamp duty clawback,all the time returning to my original home in Dublin??

2. If i go on a 3 moth jolly to New Zealand to follow the lions rugby tour am I liable for stamp duty clawbank, all the time returning to my original home in Dublin??

3.If i go on a tour round the world for 6 months, never staying in one country for more than 3 weeks, am I liable for stamp duty clawbank, all the time returning to my original home in Dublin??


i guess this is the crux of the issue, advise would be most appreciated.


thanks,

P
 
I think one important factor to add to the length of time abroad (I think this is mentioned above somewhere) is whether or not you keep a room in the property for your own use during the time away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top