If it is rented out within 5 years of purchase - yes. The fact that they don't buy another PPR is irrelevant.If an owner occupier moves out of their PPR and rents it out or rents out some of it providing they don't purchase another property will the clawback take place?
Only if it is within 5 years of purchase of the property as an owner occupied PPR.Or is it a case that as soon as they receive any Case V income from the PPR the clawback is triggered?
The rent a room scheme only applies to owner occupiers collecting €7,620 or less in annual rental income. Not sure what the quotes around "lived" above mean but if this is not an owner occupied situation (as suggested by your two posts) then attempting to avail of the rent a room scheme would presumably constitute fraud/tax evasion. Obviously it's not in the spirit (or letter) of tax laws to engage in tax evasion.If the market rent for the property was say €2k and it was rented for €1,500 on the basis that the owner occupier still "lived" there would it then come under the rent a room relief scheme and avoid the stamp duty trigger? or is that not within the spirit of the tax law?
No - the clawback is triggered on first rental where a property originally purchased as an owner occupied PPR is rented out within 5 years of purchase. When this happens there are no grounds for appeal or mitigation. Moving back in will have no bearing on the SD clawback issue. Note that regardless of the SD clawback issue, as a result of the rental of the property there would also be a CGT issue. Probably best to get independent, professional advice to be sure of the liabilities involved.One other aspect would be the senario if an individual rented their PPR for a 12 month period and then returned to live in it full time. The stamp duty clawback would have been triggered but would there be any grounds to make an appeal.
Yes - and somebody who buys an ower occupied PPR and then rents it out within 5 years of purchase is an investor under the current rules.The spirt of the tax is to prevent investors avoiding stamp duty on properties.
That's why people should get independent, professional advice on the potential investment and taxation implications of such moves. Ignorance is no defence against charges of tax evasion.There is world of hurt coming for some people then. I spoke to a few individuals recently who are considering renting their house out for a few months until demand picks up in the property market while they rent somewhere else themselves.
The clawback is always the amount of SD that an investor would have paid on the purchase less the SD (if any) actually paid at the time. It is 100% of this amount regardless of when during the first 5 years that the first rental takes place (i.e. it is not calculated pro-rata).One final question, is the clawback 100% of the duty payable or does the clawback reduce depending on how long an individual resides in the house.
No. All or nothing.If the house was first rented 4 years after being purchased is the clawback reduced to only 1 fifth of the original stamp duty liability or the full liability as if it had been purchased on day one by an investor?