Does anyone know what the story is if a buy-to-let is repossessed by the bank and the 10-year requirement for Section 23 relief has not been fulfilled. Does the person who owns the property then owe tax to Revenue?
That's an interesting question. I imagine if one doesn't comply with the rules of the Section 23 and one has thereby received tax relief but doesn't fulfil the 10 year condition of Section 23 then under the clawback rules one is liable to repay the relief.
The fact the property is repossessed by the bank doesn't change the revenue rules on Section 23.