CAT - gift for house purchase

Bronte said:
You left out that it is then deducted from your IH Tax allowance. Unlike a wedding payment.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. You suggested you're not allowed give your child 30K tax free to buy a house.
That's patently untrue. The Group A CAT threshold is over 10 times 30K.
Bronte said:
And you didn't address whether revenue's treatment of it is legal.
Click to expand...
Why would it not be legal?
 
Bronte said:
Do you think parents should be taxed on paying 30K for a child's wedding?
Click to expand...

I understand and largely agree with the sentiment of your post there, and sorry to nitpick, but parents aren't taxes for paying for their child's wedding.

If anyone is (and I doubt in reality if it happens), it's the child, who will only be exposed if they've already received in excess of 335k of taxable gifts, over and above the 6k per annum that their parents could gift them tax free every year of their life (so now we could be hitting a cool half million for a person in their late 20's)...
 
T McGibney said:
That's irrelevant. You suggested you're not allowed give your child 30K tax free to buy a house.
That's patently untrue. The Group A CAT threshold is over 10 times 30K.

Why would it not be legal?
Click to expand...
If a child had already reached their Cat A threshold they would be taxed on the 30K.

As regards it being legal. I don't know if it is or isn't. It's a revenue decision. It was unclear to me what their legal basis for it was. But why only a wedding. Why not a car, deposit or catamaran.
 
torblednam said:
I understand and largely agree with the sentiment of your post there, and sorry to nitpick, but parents aren't taxes for paying for their child's wedding.

If anyone is (and I doubt in reality if it happens), it's the child, who will only be exposed if they've already received in excess of 335k of taxable gifts, over and above the 6k per annum that their parents could gift them tax free every year of their life (so now we could be hitting a cool half million for a person in their late 20's)...
Click to expand...
I'm sure the likes of Sean Quinn's or JP McManus's children might reach such thresholds easily.

And no I don't think parents should be taxed for paying for a wedding. Speaking of Quinn, his daughter's wedding cake alone cost 100K.

But I know of zero legal basis for the 30K wedding exemption. Nor where the figure of 30K was plucked from. So I assume revenue decided that most wedding's cost 30K and made up the figure.
 
It's been a while since I've looked into the wedding exemption, but I believe the rationale is that a wedding is a family party and not just the couple marrying so Revenue take the view that the parents paying for it are hosting it and not the child.

Found it here:
Cost of Family Functions Paid for by Parent
The costs of a family function such as a wedding paid for by a parent. Revenue takes the view
that this is the expense of the parent rather than a gift to the child. Therefore, there are no gift
tax implications. This extends not just to the cost of catering for guests but also to all of the costs
associated with the occasion.
However, a gift such as a car, a house or a paid holiday is still a gift for gift tax purposes,
notwithstanding the fact that it may be associated with a family occasion such as a wedding. To
the extent that any such gifts do not exceed the €3,000 small gift exemption in any year, they are
not subject to CAT.
 
Mrs Vimes said:
It's been a while since I've looked into the wedding exemption, but I believe the rationale is that a wedding is a family party and not just the couple marrying so Revenue take the view that the parents paying for it are hosting it and not the child.
Click to expand...
I understand that about the revenue decision. But it's clearly actually a gift to the child. The 'hosting' it by revenue is a way to pretend it's not actually a gift. Because it wouldn't be accepted by the general public if it were treated as a gift.

If it were me, I'd prefer to get a cash gift of 30K without eating into my Cat A allowance. And I'd no way pay 30K for a wedding.
 
T McGibney said:
6 or 7 years ago a lad ..... a long stretch in prison.
Click to expand...
Reduced to 2 years on appeal & from memory served 1/2 of it. Sums involved were considerably higher and the false accounting occurred several times over a number of years.

As engineers will tell you the longer a piece of rope the more likely it is to break; I think some common sense needs to apply also.

Having said that, if you are in the business of tax advice / accounting then what you publish online has to accord with the law; so some posters here can't deviate, which is understandable.
 
Bronte said:
I understand that about the revenue decision. But it's clearly actually a gift to the child. The 'hosting' it by revenue is a way to pretend it's not actually a gift. Because it wouldn't be accepted by the general public if it were treated as a gift.

If it were me, I'd prefer to get a cash gift of 30K without eating into my Cat A allowance. And I'd no way pay 30K for a wedding.
Click to expand...

This strawman nonsense about weddings that you’ve thrown into the mix is just a distraction from your astonishing “lying and fraud are okay” position.

But I’ll indulge you, briefly. The rationale for the wedding exemption is blindingly obvious. If I pay for my child’s wedding, the whole thing becomes “Mr & Mrs Gordon & Kate Gekko invite you to the wedding of their son/daughter…”. Revenue’s reasonable position is that it’s an expense of the parents, which it is if my wife and I host the thing.
 
From a more practical point of view. If going with a gift be it all to one person or split between the two consider if this should be reflected in the ownership of the house. This is on the back of a TAC case two years ago I think.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
But I’ll indulge you, briefly. The rationale for the wedding exemption is blindingly obvious. If I pay for my child’s wedding, the whole thing becomes “Mr & Mrs Gordon & Kate Gekko invite you to the wedding of their son/daughter…”. Revenue’s reasonable position is that it’s an expense of the parents, which it is if my wife and I host the thing.
Click to expand...
The days of parents hosting children's weddings are long past. It's clear it's a 30K gift from parent to child. If you're sending out the invites, booking the hotel, picking the meal you are hosting it. The parents are not, they are merely paying. As a gift.
 
Bronte said:
The days of parents hosting children's weddings are long past. It's clear it's a 30K gift from parent to child. If you're sending out the invites, booking the hotel, picking the meal you are hosting it. The parents are not, they are merely paying. As a gift.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's more a tactical concession by Revenue.

The Flood/Mahon Tribunal was heavily criticised some years back for investigating the wedding bills of couples who were not subjects of their enquiries because in some cases a parent of the bride or groom had paid some or all of those bills and was being investigated by the Tribunal. This concession may be intended to avoid a repeat of that mess.

As the body charged with operational policing of tax compliance, Revenue are fully within their powers to make any such tactical concession that they feel is warranted.
 
I dunno about that being a thing of the past! Any wedding I have been at where the parents were paying, the invites were always from them and it was often mentioned obliquely in speeches etc (always seemed crass to me but anyways)....it was very clear which couples had their weddings hosted by parents! Even if the couple chose everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top