Current public sentiment towards the housing market?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If person moves in with his partner, but keeps his original address for bank statements, ESB bills, correspondance with revenue etc, then I'd say he could easily claim that the vacant house is still his PPR if and when he tries to sell it. If that person is still paying all his own mortgage and the partner is paying all her own mortgage, he may even be technically correct in claiming the vacated house as his PPR.

I do believe the revenue will crack down on many cases of ex owner occupiers becoming landlords, however I do not believe such a case will even appear on their radar.
 
liteweight said:
I remember on another thread you said that a friend of yours got a letter from Rev. re clawback...did they ever find out why they were targeted or were they just part of the 1000 or so that Revenue decided to check on lately?
Click to expand...

Their house wasn't vacant, they bought it when they got married first and then bought another one two years later (hangers on), renting the first one out. They didn't try to claim that the rented house was a PPR and didn't know about clawback until the revenue contacted them. Might have been through PRTB or rent allowance, I'm not sure how the revenue picked them out but the key thing is their first house was rented and they didn't try to hide that.

This is a different situation to co-habiting couples however that leave one of their properties vacant as a PPR. Vacant property is unlikely to attract as much revenue attention. This is probably one of the reasons why so many properties are vacant! Eventually these properties will arrive on the rental (5 years after purchase) or sales market and there are a lot of them IMO.
 
beattie said:
It should be out, usually it is leaked as well a few days beforehand so maybe there is bad news coming.......
Click to expand...
I emailed Daft asking when the new report is due to be published, they said "hopefully" next thursday...
 
room305 said:
This is not true.
Click to expand...

The property can also be occupied by someone on your behalf such as a dependent relative who does not pay rent.

www.revenue.ie

Who is a first time buyer?
A first time buyer is a person, (or, where there is more than one buyer, each of such persons):
  • who has not on any previous occasion, either individually or jointly, purchased or built on his/her own behalf a house (in Ireland or abroad) and
  • where the property purchased is occupied by the purchaser, or a person on his behalf, as his/her only or principal place of residence and
  • where no rent, other than rent under the rent-a-room-scheme, is derived from the property for five years after the date of the current purchase.
Click to expand...
I suppose it could be argued that if no rent is received then the property is still a PPR but one can't claim to have left the property empty or they will ask where you lived. If you lived elsewhere, then the property cannot be your PPR and therefore you are no longer able to avail of FTBs exemption.

In relation to capital gains tax, one can spend up to four years abroad as long as it's a work requirement, and have no liability on the property. As with all information on the revenue site, it's open to interpretation. I'm going on what I've been told by my solicitor, accountant, and the many threads on AAM on this subject but it's by no means a definitive answer.
 
Last edited:
whathome said:
Their house wasn't vacant, they bought it when they got married first and then bought another one two years later (hangers on), renting the first one out. They didn't try to claim that the rented house was a PPR and didn't know about clawback until the revenue contacted them.
Click to expand...

Bummer! I'm sure that came as a shock!:eek: I think more should be done to explain the situation to people so that they can make informed decisions. We're not talking peanuts when it comes to clawback.

whathome said:
This is a different situation to co-habiting couples however that leave one of their properties vacant as a PPR. Vacant property is unlikely to attract as much revenue attention. This is probably one of the reasons why so many properties are vacant! Eventually these properties will arrive on the rental (5 years after purchase) or sales market and there are a lot of them IMO.
Click to expand...

It must be difficult for couples who decide to co-habit if they both own a property. Both think they'll be together forever...but there must be a little niggle somewhere like, what if we're not, and I've given up everything!? Who sells? I'd say you're right and that the majority hold onto both for at least some period of time. It must be very expensive however, for such couples to pay two mortgages while keeping one property vacant. I agree, it's unlikely someone in this situation would attract revenue attention.
 
liteweight said:
It must be very expensive however, for such couples to pay two mortgages while keeping one property vacant.
Click to expand...

Not at all, if they had separate mortgages before moving in together, it's hardly going to suddenly get more expensive when they cohabit. In fact they might be better off through sharing NTL, phone, food etc.
 
whathome said:
Not at all, if they had separate mortgages before moving in together, it's hardly going to suddenly get more expensive when they cohabit. In fact they might be better off through sharing NTL, phone, food etc.
Click to expand...

Well, both properties would have maintenance fees if apartments as well as mortgage interest at the very least. If the couple own houses this doesn't apply but a house starts to look 'sorrowful' very quickly if left unoccupied IMO. The couple would have to do their own maintenance on a very regular basis. Presumably there would still be utility bills for the empty property if the owner wished to have it assumed occupied. There would also be heating bills if s/he wanted to keep the place in good order. Definitely day to day living through sharing food bills etc. would be less. However, mortgage interest, utility bills, maintenance charges, risk of stamp duty clawback and risk of capital gains tax, with no rent to offset any of it, would seal the deal for me and I'd sell. Capital appreciation would have to continue to grow substantially to still arrive at a profit if all or even some of the above costs were to be met. I'd prefer to take my profit and invest it in something which, hopefully, made me money from the get go. What price peace of mind?
 
liteweight said:
Capital appreciation would have to continue to grow substantially to still arrive at a profit if all or even some of the above costs were to be met. I'd prefer to take my profit and invest it in something which, hopefully, made me money from the get go. What price peace of mind?
Click to expand...

Of course but it's not you we're talking about. When a vacant property was appreciating by €50,000 per year, the owner would have felt crazy to sell it. As soon as capital appreciation stops, the owner is more likely to sell. That's the point that has been made here many times about vacant property.
 
whathome said:
Of course but it's not you we're talking about. When a vacant property is appreciating by €50,000 per year, the owner would feel crazy to sell it. As soon as capital appreciation stops, the owner is more likely to sell. That's the point that has been made here many times about vacant property.
Click to expand...

I know it's not me we're talking about but I can only give my opinion. A property left vacant by an investor who has already paid stamp duty and is aware of capital gains tax liability, is in a different league to someone who decides to hold onto their PPR, move in with a partner, while pretending s/he still lives at the first property. The investor may leave it vacant for a number of reasons other than capital appreciation e.g. tax incentives which can be offset against other rental income. The person who decided to take a chance on not being caught by Revenue, could lose a substantial amount of his/her 50K in clawback. This added to the interest they've paid over the year virtually cuts out the profit. Subsequent liability to capital gains tax if the property is then sold, leaves him/her in a worse position than if s/he'd sold straight away. They could have banked 50K straight off without leaving themselves open to the ups and downs of the property market, which we are now witnessing.
 
Afuera said:
Can you think of any yourself?

The most obvious VIs do not want a reversal in the market. Builders want to keep on building, mortgage lenders want to keep lending, the government wants to keep on receiving tax receipts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajapale http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=310180#post310180
Thanks, Are all VI's bulls? In other words are there groups of people out there who have a vested interest in seeing the Irish Property Market go into reverse?


Can you think of any yourself?

The most obvious VIs do not want a reversal in the market. Builders want to keep on building, mortgage lenders want to keep lending, the government wants to keep on receiving tax receipts.
Click to expand...

I like this question by ajpale, radical thinking says I.

I can think of couple more obvious types:

Alot people who did not buy want prices to come down so that they can afford to buy one. Thats vested interest.

An investor who just sold his property has a vested interest in prices to come down for his emotional comfort, so that he can be proven right.
This is important for 'majority' of investors's psyche.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top