u2meetsrem
Registered User
- Messages
- 10
1988 without mortgageWhen was it bought??
rented out for 6 months in 2005 onlyWhen was it rented out initially and in total??
new house in the same areaWhere has the owner been living in the meantime?
You seem to be going on the basis that only rented houses are subject to CGT. All properties other than your PPR are subject to CGT and it does not matter if they were ever rented.ClubMan said:Seeing that it was rented out for 6 months out of a total ownership period of 18 years then I presume that c. (0.6 / 18) * 100 = 3.33% of any gain arising would be assessable for CGT? On the other than I'm not sure if CGT is chargeable on the full period during which it was not a PPR (minus the first year which is CGT exempt even if rented) or just the portion during which it was rented. Probably best to get independent, professional advice. At least it was not rented within five years of purchase as an owner occupier so no stamp duty clawback applies!
I guess the CGT liability is likely to be nearer ((18 - (n + 1))/18) * 100 of any gain where n is the number of years that it was the owner's PPR so?On the other than I'm not sure if CGT is chargeable on the full period during which it was not a PPR (minus the first year which is CGT exempt even if rented) or just the portion during which it was rented.
woods said:You seem to be going on the basis that only rented houses are subject to CGT. All properties other than your PPR are subject to CGT and it does not matter if they were ever rented.
I do not think that you are missing anything. You pay tax on your profit at 20%. Everybody should be glad that the bad old days of 40% have gone.u2meetsrem said:Very confused with some of these replies.
The house thye bought for 63,500 in 1989/90 will be sold for 300,000 plus if sold in 2006.
the year expenditure occurred = 1989/90
disposal year 31 dec 2004 plus = 1.503 plus is multiplier used based on CGT link
Am I to understand from this that the initial fee they bought the house for, say 63,500 multiplied by say 1.5 which is the multiplier government use as per the link apparently = 95,250 say 100,000.
So even with all the expenses occurred in purchasing & selling (say 50,000 as it was never morgaged to begin with), there would be a tax liability on a % of well in excess of 150,000 Euro on the sale of this or am I missing something here?
If he now changes this house to his PPR he will not be exempt from CGT if he sells it in 2 years time. He will only be exempt for the gain during the time when it was his PPR. He will still have to pay for the gain when it was not.kesey said:How can this be avoided? Take the necessary steps to define the house as the owner's primary private residence. Certainly the owner should talk to a tax consultant as soon as possible to clarify the situation.
woods said:If he now changes this house to his PPR he will not be exempt from CGT if he sells it in 2 years time. He will only be exempt for the gain during the time when it was his PPR. He will still have to pay for the gain when it was not.
God help us if [broken link removed] ever get into power!woods said:I do not think that you are missing anything. You pay tax on your profit at 20%. Everybody should be glad that the bad old days of 40% have gone.
I am inclined to agree with them on that one. Why should the rich pay 20% tax. You can structure your affairs so that all your income is actually a capital gain and you have very little income. You can still make plenty of money but only have to pay 20%delgirl said:God help us if [broken link removed] ever get into power!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?