Paperwork for CGT sale of property - navigating CG1

Looking to ensure I submit sufficient paperwork as is required to revenue after the sale of my rental property.

While I am satisfied that I have a spreadsheet computation that works out the CGT payment liability, I get the impression all Revenue want is the CG1 and not my computation? This is based off the Revenue requirement for a CG1 submission for 2024 as before I submitted it on my form 12 and provided share disposal computations.

The CG1 form is a nightmare to navigate. Having used it for 2024 returns for share disposals, I don’t want to get it wrong, but having done my tax income returns myself for over 20 years I trust what I do. CG1 is new to me.

Am joint assessment, so that adds further complexity, Revenue write to me with a result and not my partner, leaves me with a lot of questions with regards to declaring losses jointly going forward.

Back to the topic of the rental sale. I intend to do that computation in my spreadsheet, complete the CG1, submit CG1 only to Revenue.

Questions are:
1. Do Revenue expect you to submit any further paperwork with the CG1, such as proof of sales price?
2. Do I wait for their assessment (10 weeks) or go ahead and make the payment?
3. Timing, I submit everything in writing usually early March, as the on line service does not work for me, always a question or area missing, plus my partner works part time but draws pension and ARF. Timing house sale and receipt of funds is not know, could be September. What do Revenue expect here with respect to CG1 given the tax year is only 3/4 gone at that point?

Thanks for your time and insights

Nordkapp said:

What do Revenue expect here with respect to CG1 given the tax year is only 3/4 gone at that point?

Click to expand...

Your CG1 is due by October in the following year.

Nordkapp said:

Am joint assessment, so that adds further complexity, Revenue write to me with a result and not my partner, leaves me with a lot of questions with regards to declaring losses jointly going forward.

Click to expand...

Why is this a problem?

Nordkapp said:

1. Do Revenue expect you to submit any further paperwork with the CG1, such as proof of sales price?

Click to expand...

They don't expect it but you're free to include it if you think it helps to explain/justify your claim. But if it's a simple disposal where the facts and liability are clear I wouldn't bother. Keep the calculations/details to yourself until/unless they ask for them.

If you're not sure about something then you should probably complete the expression of doubt section appropriately. Or, maybe better still, get professional tax advice hopefully obviating the need to complete that section.

Nordkapp said:

2. Do I wait for their assessment (10 weeks) or go ahead and make the payment?

Click to expand...

Well, you need to pay before the relevant payment date to avoid interest/penalties.
Note that the payment and filing dates are not the same.

Nordkapp said:

plus my partner works part time but draws pension and ARF. Timing house sale and receipt of funds is not know, could be September.

Click to expand...

Why is this an issue? Income tax and CGT are different taxes and her income is irrelevant for the purposes of the CGT payment/return.

ClubMan said:

If you're not sure about something then you should probably complete the expression of doubt section appropriately

Click to expand...

That's not what the expression of doubt section is for and afaik there's a warning to that effect on the form.

I can't see any warning.

ClubMan said:

I can't see any warning.

Click to expand...

I can.

CGT PAYMENT DATES
If you sell in the period 1/1 to 30/11 your payment is due the latest 15/12 in the same year.
If you sell in period 1/12 to 31/12 your CGT payment is due 31/01.

The payment dates are different to the filing dates.

Millie* said:

CGT PAYMENT DATES

Click to expand...

That’s fine for share disposals, waiting for house sale funds I’d imagine is somewhat different, haven’t done this before so I’ll note that thanks.

ClubMan said:

Why is this an issue? Income tax and CGT are different taxes and her income is irrelevant for the purposes of the CGT payment/return.

Click to expand...

I file income taxes and CG1 at same time. Having done a CG1 as joint couple you do feel a single assessment approach is being adopted, as I alluded in my initial email

ClubMan said:

They don't expect it but you're free to include it if you think it helps to explain/justify your claim. But if it's a simple disposal where the facts and liability are clear I wouldn't bother. Keep the calculations/details to yourself until/unless they ask for them.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this. I’m in agreement with this approach.

ClubMan said:

Why is this a problem?

Click to expand...

This year I got a letter with the assessment result, no CGT due. However it was addressed to me although the shares were jointly owned, the loss is jointly held and not even a mention of losses allowed carry forward between both of us.
A very odd process with no letter filing on the portal.

Nordkapp said:

That’s fine for share disposals, waiting for house sale funds I’d imagine is somewhat different

Click to expand...

I don't think that it matters for CGT purposes if receipt of the proceeds of the sale are delayed. The relevant date is the date of disposal of the asset. In this case the date on which the sale closes and the ownership of the property passes from you to the buyer.

Nordkapp said:

This year I got a letter with the assessment result, no CGT due. However it was addressed to me although the shares were jointly owned, the loss is jointly held and not even a mention of losses allowed carry forward between both of us.
A very odd process with no letter filing on the portal.

Click to expand...

In joint assessment cases the assessment always issues to the assessable spouse on behalf of both spouses. You filled in the return as the assessable spouse, on behalf of you both, and you made a self-assessment of the amount of tax due. The letter from Revenue is acknowledging your self-assessment.

Losses forward are a tax nothing, until such time as they are used. Revenue could look at your CGT transactions for a year that you declared substantial losses (i.e ultimately a Nil self-assessment for CGT liability due), and if they were unhappy with the amount of your losses declared as carrying forward, what recourse would they have? None. There's no legal mechanism for Revenue to "assess" your quantum of losses carrying forward, until a year where you deduct some of those losses from gains, as part of your self-assessment.

It's in your own interest to include details of your losses forward consistently over time, particularly if they may be rolling forward for a long time before being used, as it may minimize the likelihood of Revenue asking questions whenever you do realize a gain and use the losses (as they will be able to see that you returned the loss making transaction X years prior and carried it forward).

torblednam said:

Losses forward are a tax nothing, until such time as they are used. Revenue could look at your CGT transactions for a year that you declared substantial losses (i.e ultimately a Nil self-assessment for CGT liability due), and if they were unhappy with the amount of your losses declared as carrying forward, what recourse would they have? None. There's no legal mechanism for Revenue to "assess" your quantum of losses carrying forward, until a year where you deduct some of those losses from gains, as part of your self-assessment.

It's in your own interest to include details of your losses forward consistently over time, particularly if they may be rolling forward for a long time before being used, as it may minimize the likelihood of Revenue asking questions whenever you do realize a gain and use the losses (as they will be able to see that you returned the loss making transaction X years prior and carried it forward).

Click to expand...

Thank you for this reassuring insight, yes, religiously whenever there’s been any share disposals I have always declared those remaining losses.

torblednam said:

Losses forward are a tax nothing

Click to expand...

What does this mean?

ClubMan said:

What does this mean?

Click to expand...

The rest of the paragraph explains exactly what it means - they have no consequence, no impact, until they are used against gains.

You could fill in a CGT return tomorrow and on it you could (incorrectly) say that you have a million Euros of CGT losses (instead of 10k, due to a keystroke error), and it will have no bearing on anything. There's no consequence (statutorily*) to that, because it has no bearing on the assessment, which is ultimately that there is no net chargeable gains and Nil liability to tax.

* I say statutorily, because Revenue's risk system might be inclined to suggest that they ask you about your CGT losses, if the scale of them is so wildly out of kilter with the rest of your affairs. This is notwithstanding that there may not be any risk of additional tax falling due.**

** In such a case -and assuming the issue was one of interpretation rather than a simple keystroke error - Revenue would advise you that they don't agree with the value you have indicated for allowable losses, and if you ever intend to claim those disputed losses you should file an expression of doubt, as you are already on notice that Revenue has a different interpretation on the matter.***

*** You could still choose to not file an EOD on future returns when claiming the losses, but you would then be potentially exposed to penalties & publication if or when they catch up to you, and if you lose the argument.

torblednam said:

You could fill in a CGT return tomorrow and on it you could (incorrectly) say that you have a million Euros of CGT losses (instead of 10k, due to a keystroke error), and it will have no bearing on anything. There's no consequence (statutorily*) to that,

Click to expand...

Just in case anyone, anywhere is dreaming up a cunning plan to capitalise on this...

In Ireland, it is a criminal offence to knowingly or wilfully make a false tax return under Section 1078 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (TCA). This section outlines various revenue offences, including the deliberate submission of an incorrect tax return, statement, or account with the intent to evade tax obligations. Specifically, it covers actions such as:

• Knowingly or wilfully delivering any incorrect return, statement, or accounts.
• Knowingly or wilfully aiding, abetting, assisting, inciting, or inducing another person to make a false return.

Penalties for such offences can include, on summary conviction, a fine of up to €5,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both. On conviction on indictment, penalties may escalate to a fine of up to €126,970 or imprisonment for up to seven years, or both, depending on the severity of the offence.


Additionally, the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 may apply in cases involving false accounting or falsification of documents related to tax returns, particularly under Section 10, which addresses false accounting with the intent to make a gain or cause a loss. This can carry a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment on indictment.

Click to expand...

T McGibney said:

Just in case anyone, anywhere is dreaming up a cunning plan to capitalise on this...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how anyone could capitalize on something that, by its nature, doesn't bestow any financial or other benefit. You'll also note that in my example it's due to a keystroke error. An error is by definition not a deliberate thing.

The burden of proof in relation to any criminal offence, including section 1078, is beyond reasonable doubt.

The mere fact that a tax return is manifestly incorrect does not in and of itself provide compelling evidence of the return having been knowingly or wilfully delivered with that defect. Maybe the cat jumped onto the laptop, for example.

The difficulty of procuring the necessary level of proofs, given the nature of the offending concerned, is why the number of criminal prosecutions under section 1078 is so low (particularly for things like relief claims, as opposed to understatement of turnover / income / VAT liability). It's also why white collar crime generally is so hard to prosecute.

My point was more along the lines of someone discovering that the return they honesty filled say a decade previously had an innocent keystroke error which added an extra zero to a capital loss, who might be tempted to claim the full inflated loss forward now on the assumption that they had "gotten away with" their earlier mistake.