Calculation of Stamp, inclusive of furniture

Your advise on this would be great.

I recently completed the purchase of a house in Galway city for €317,500. As part of the deal I also purchased light furnishings, white goods and a 3 piece suite for €2,500. I paid this up front. As I am liable for stamp duty I figured I would owe 5% of 317500, a figure just shy of 15,900. Wrong!

It turns out that the stamp duty rules apply to total transactional value of the house, €320,000. I therefore had to pay 6% of €317,500. A double edged sword for me, the extra stamp and my bank would only grant me a mortgage of 92% of €317,500.

The extra goods I bought, which I thought was a great bargain turned out to cost me €3,175 extra in stamp duty. Obviously if I had known these rules I would have acted upon them.

Has anyone had experience of this? Is there an appeals process there where I could submit my case?

Did Revenue inform you of the extra stamp that you were liable for or did your solicitor?

It was my solicitor. It only came to light when I was paying the balance of my deposit together with the stamp duty. Came as a real surprise as you can imagine.

What is the purchase cost in the contract?

Normally the furniture etc. is not included in the contract but instead ownership passes by delivery. It would have been illadvised of your solictor to draw up the contract for the house and furniture.

This is why I asked. It may be an ass covering exercise by your solicitor. If so you may be snookered as you've already completed the purchase.

Purchasers solicitor does not draw up the contract. This is a common problem - if there is a contract for the sale of the contents then the rules are that the value of them pushes you into the next stamp duty tax bracket (if applicable) although you only pay stamp duty on the value of the property. If there is no contract, there is no protection for vendor or purchaser that (a) price of contents will be paid or (b) that goods will be there if you pay for them.

Blame (a) estate agents for not making stamp duty brackets clearer to purchasers and (b) purchasers for not cluing themselves up. Finally, blame solicitors if you wish for not turning a blind eye on the rules or not facilitating tax evasion.

There is no appeals process - thems the rules.


mf

Blame (a) estate agents for not making stamp duty brackets clearer to purchasers and (b) purchasers for not cluing themselves up. Finally, blame solicitors if you wish for not turning a blind eye on the rules or not facilitating tax evasion.

mf[/quote]

It is not tax evasion to allow ownership of goods to pass by delivery.

Do you normally have a contract drawn up if you wish to buy a suite of furniture in a shop and have the contact duly stamped? Do you present your local shop with a contract when you want to buy a pint of milk???
If the answer is no then by your assertion above you must be practising tax evasion.

What is a solictor responsibility to his client? Who pays the solictors?
I believe it is the solictor job to advice his client on the implications of the contact he is going to sign. This would include the implications that purchasing the suite of furniture under the contract in this case will cost the client over €3,000 and would be illadvised.

The estate agent is merely selling a property on behalf of his client who is paying him to do so.

In this case I believe the solictor did not advice correctly his client. I believe there is a law society requirement that solictors must set out an estimate of all fees (including stampduty) to their client when advising on any transaction In this case if the individual was not advised until after contract were signed I believe the solictors has questions to answer.

It was the vendors solicitor that added the furniture cost. When I signed the deed of transfer the price of the house stated €317500.

When I queried this with both my own solicitor and the auctioneer they said I came up against a 'sticky' solicitor as this happens every day.

Would the revenue entertain a letter detailing my case? I am not seeking to avoid my tax obligation here but I just feel a small bit hard done by.

"It is not tax evasion to allow ownership of goods to pass by delivery."

This was not the case here - the price was 320,00.00 including contents. This is the relevant Revenue Cert. in the Deed.

"IT IS HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFIED that the consideration (other than rent) for the sale is wholly attributable to residential property and that the transaction effected by this instrument does not form part of a larger transaction or of a series of transactions in respect of which the amount or value, or the aggregate amount or value, of the consideration (other than rent) which is attributable to residential property, or which would be so attributable if the contents of residential property were considered to be residential property, exceeds €)))))))

This is a conveyancing transaction not the purchase of a pint of milk.

"In this case I believe the solictor did not advice correctly his client. "

You do not know this. It seems that the 2500.00 was paid up front i.e. before the OP went to see his solicitor. Situation already in place. Plus the was not a ftb - so he must have some idea what he was doing.

"I believe there is a law society requirement that solictors must set out an estimate of all fees (including stamp duty) to their client when advising on any transaction In this case if the individual was not advised until after contract were signed I believe the solicitors has questions to answer. "

Again ,you don't know what happened - very often I find that clients are economical with what they tell me. Clients cannot have it both ways.

People should not be so quick to apportion blame to anyone (Poster, Auctioneer or solicitor) in any transaction posted on this board - without seeking to establish some basic facts.

mf

Believe me I am not apportioning blame to anyone, nor I been economical with the truth.

MFI. The purchase of the furniture in this case could and in most case is treated as a seperate transaction. It is not necessary to include the transfer in the contract.
The price was 317,500 for the property which is stampable. This should have been what the contract was for.
By including the furniture which did not have to be included this increased the stamp duty.
I believe the solictor should have advised his client accordingly of the implications. If this is not something that the solictor should do , then what is the function of the solictor.
I accept that perhaps we don't have the full story, but we can only comment on the facts presented.