Principal private residence or not

M

marve

Guest
My wife and I spent a significant amount of savings refurbishing a house in a tax incentive area with a view to moving and claiming owner occupier relief. Completing tax return for 2008 - 2008 is first year to claim relief, all relevant paper work has been done . We did not claim TRS on our current home last year. However due to changed work circumstances we did not move and won't in the foreseeable future. We do not want to let the property. Can we nominate the second home as our PPR and claim relief, and sort out property tax etc on current home. Very difficult to get a clear definition of a PPR. Any comments?
 
For the purposes of claiming TRS, where somebody splits their time between 2 properties they must nominate which of these properties is their PPR.

However, you are going to have a hard time convincing Revenue that the refurbished property is your PPR when you don't actually live in it, and never have.
 
marve said:
... Can we nominate the second home as our PPR and claim relief, and sort out property tax etc on current home. ...
Click to expand...
Not unless you are a UK MP on an expenses fiddle.
marve said:
... Very difficult to get a clear definition of a PPR. Any comments?
Click to expand...
The definition is simple - if you live there it's your PPR, if you don't it's not. In other words living in one property while "declaring" another would be difficult, some further info here -
 
Last edited:
marve said:
<snip>Very difficult to get a clear definition of a PPR. Any comments?
Click to expand...

If you're paying bills there you could certainly try and make your case.
There may be tax issues with a development in a tax incentive area which has neither spouse living in it.
I don't know what the case might be where a couple lives apart and they have two houses - there may be a loophole, but its up to you to find it.
However if your surface mail address is at one house and you've never lived at the refurbished house and there are no utilities currently connected to it, then you've got a problem.


FWIW

ONQ.
 
To further complicate matters, its not just where you've 'lived', its where you 'resided'.

I once successfully argued with the Revenue that a house where a priest spent 1 in 2 weekends away from the presbytery was his PPR on the grounds that residence implies an ability to enjoy surroundings free of work commitments etc.
 
Howitzer said:
Having the utilities in your name is irrelevant. Whether you live there is.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult to understand persons who are so certain as you of the irrelevancy or otherwise of facts, in the face of so many matters where interpretation can arise - even in what seems like cut-and-dried courtroom exchanges.

Having the utilities in your name constitutes a prima fascie proof that you have a connection to the property.

While this does not prove you own it or even that you live there [you might be the landlord, for example], it would tend to support the contention that you do own it or live there, were you to suggest this.

FWIW

ONQ.
 
OK so from responses nominating other house as PPR not an option unless we want to get into dubious arguments with Revenue.

Not a UK MP as suggested(!), but does situation in Ireland differ from UK in this regard? Other reading suggests that you can make such a nomination in UK.
Also if we don't claim relief this year can we still do so in future if we did make that move?
 
onq said:
I find it difficult to understand persons who are so certain as you of the irrelevancy or otherwise of facts, in the face of so many matters where interpretation can arise - even in what seems like cut-and-dried courtroom exchanges.

Having the utilities in your name constitutes a prima fascie proof that you have a connection to the property.

While this does not prove you own it or even that you live there [you might be the landlord, for example], it would tend to support the contention that you do own it or live there, were you to suggest this.

FWIW

ONQ.
Click to expand...
Because if you don't live in the house nothing else matters. There are exceptions but these are exceptions, not the norm, they constitute a tiny % of the overall amount of scenarios. The OP's scenario is not out of the ordinary and does not fall into any exceptional circumstance. Having the utilities in your name, or indeed plastering your name on the roof, is therefore irrelevant.

You can argue the toss with Revenue if you like but most likely all you're doing is providing employment to an accountant or solicitor.

Wrapping up your argument in legal mumbo jumbo doesn't change the facts of the case. There are facts and then there are relevant facts.

The fact is the OP (or spouse) doesn't live in the property and never has.
 
marve said:
we did not move and won't in the foreseeable future. We do not want to let the property.
Click to expand...

I think that this, clearly, shows that the property has not been, is not expected to be and cannot be suggested to be the OP's PPR. Fact. Anything else, utilities or otherwise is irrelevant.
 
agree 100%

Other scenario's like living somewhere else for work reasons etc. only come into play if you have resided in the property which the op never has. Intention to reside is not sufficent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top