Working from home - PPR status

fistophobia

Registered User
Messages
378
Is this a concern? Say one has been WFH since before lockdown period,
then goes to sell same property. Will Revenue look for a clawback, a portion of the property value to be subject to CGT?
 
Before I whole heartedly agree with the above posts maybe you can confirm how you own and run your home?

Do you indirectly own the property through a company - perhaps the one you WFH through? If so the company might be subject to tax on the gains regardless of the fact it's your PPR.

Or did you claim for some of the domestic running costs through a business?



If you bought it the old fashion way (personal mortgage/personal savings) and paid the leccy from your personally current account I think you should be fine.
 
Red herrings.
 
Struggling to see both your point and its relevance here.

A company can never avail of PPR exemption.
Well if you're having trouble grasping the premise perhaps you should be a little less certain of your response.

But just for you here's the tl/dr:
How you own and run the property could impact the tax of any capital gains. Pay for everything personally not an issue. Pay in other ways then maybe.
 
Maybe reread the OPs question. He specifically mentions a PRR exemption clawback so it's obvious a corporate ownership situation doesn't apply here.
 
Depending on the original poster's circumstances, might this apply?
I presume that this isn't relevant to somebody who is an employee (not operating their own business) and working from home?
 
Maybe reread the OPs question. He specifically mentions a PRR exemption clawback so it's obvious a corporate ownership situation doesn't apply here.
If you think you can definitely say, based solely on the info provided in the OPs initial post, that no CGT is liable you should hand back your tax accreditations.

You only have to scroll halfway down revenues page to find where CGT may be liable on a PPR.


 
That particular paraphrase (also largely if not totally irrelevant to the OPs question) is only at most a partial and crude approximation of the true position so if that's all you have with which to personally attack me, I can only smile.
 
Last edited:
That's all it needs to be to impact CGT - that's the the point.
Nope you're a mile wrong.

Firstly the link refers to the use of a PPR in the running of one's business. The OP specifically mentions "WFH since before lockdown period" which is something totally different.

More importantly, PPR exemption is only lost or compromised if a home or part thereof is used exclusively for business use for a period.

In the context of a standard PPR, that is a difficult condition to breach.

One particular textbook uses an example of a doctor's surgery attached to a private home, where the doctor allows his children to study in his consulting room, in which case it forms part of his PPR and is thus entitled to exemption.

It also mentions that there is a waiting room, the only users of which are the patients who wait to see the doctor. As there is no personal use or enjoyment of this space, it doesn't form part of the PPR and the value of that room relative to the value of the entire property will not qualify for PPR exemption.

In the real world, a wiser doctor will preserve their PPR exemption by ensuring that they or their family derive some personal use and enjoyment from that waiting room.

A less wise doctor will take at face value simplistic summaries on the Revenue website and not bother availing of a valuable exemption which they could easily have used by taking a few simple steps.

I'm still smiling.
 
Last edited:
To further explain my point...
The homeowner uses their home to work from, seeing clients remotely.
Sometimes clients call to the house for a consultation.
The property is owned in a personal capacity.
Maybe I am overthinking this.
A portion of power, light, heat is being claimed in annual tax returns, so its obvious whats going on.
Self-employed status.
 
Last edited: