Stephen Holmes
Registered User
- Messages
- 6
It may be a trading gain depending on the context and the frequency of such transactions. Not enough info supplied here.It would be a gain for Capital Gains Tax purposes. You would pay 33% tax on any profit which would be the proceeds less the cost of buying it in the first place.
When you say you have been approached to sell it, I presume you know that most of these approaches are from scammers? Unless you have a name which is genuinely valuable, then it's likely to be a scam.
It would be a gain for Capital Gains Tax purposes. You would pay 33% tax on any profit which would be the proceeds less the cost of buying it in the first place.
Won't work if challenged by Revenue. Artificial tax avoidance.There is a €1,270 exemption, if you are married you can transfer half the ownership to your spouse before the sale and get the exemption x2.
There is no CGT anti-avoidance on this topic. The Revenue would need to use the general anti-avoidance provision (s 811D or thereabouts) and this amount of tax lost wouldn't even raise a blip on the radar.Won't work if challenged by Revenue. Artificial tax avoidance.
There is no CGT anti-avoidance on this topic. The Revenue would need to use the general anti-avoidance provision (s 811D or thereabouts) and this amount of tax lost wouldn't even raise a blip on the radar.
The CGT rules enable you to transfer to your spouse free of CGT and if you both own the asset then you can get the CGT exemption. However I would point out that the amount is rather small - €1,270 X 33 = €419. Is is worth going to the bother of transferring 50% of the domain ownership to your spouse to save €420 - you would need to show transfer of beneficial ownership. My view is that the frustration of dealing with your domain providers would outweigh any benefit.
You should be aware of when the general anti-avoidance legislation is used and it is never used on small amounts of money like this. To consider that the Revenue would invoke a complicated piece of legislation like 811D on such a small amount of money is far fetched and farcical. I doubt that something like this would even cross the desk of a PO in the relevant district.
Quite.I have no further comment.
You should be aware of when the general anti-avoidance legislation is used and it is never used on small amounts of money like this. To consider that the Revenue would invoke a complicated piece of legislation like 811D on such a small amount of money is far fetched and farcical. I doubt that something like this would even cross the desk of a PO in the relevant district.
I have no further comment.
I'm talking about aspect query exercises and audits. Revenue Annual Report 2017, Page 7: "In 2017, we carried out a total of 655,557 compliance interventions, ranging from routine assurance checks to audits and investigations."
So the OP's tax return has arguably a 1-in-3 to 1-in-10 chance of being reviewed, depending on how you count it. If you're happy for the OP to play the percentages, do say so. But don't try to fool him that there's no risk in doing so.
Really? That's not exactly how I've seen it pan out in practice. You don't have to formally invoke S811 to include it as a bargaining chip in an audit settlement negotiation.Section 811 is an exceptional power, which can only be exercised by officers nominated by the Revenue Board. Jane Bloggs doing her aspect query on a small CGT disposal will not be a nominated officer (nor indeed will her district manager, whose desk, as D67 rightly points out, the matter would have to cross).
If an individual was to get into a dispute with staff in an ordinary compliance district over a small amount like a few hundred quid, it is infinitely more likely to be over their failure to capitalise a few bits and pieces in their rental property, than the application of S811 to an inter spouse transfer...
Really? That's not exactly how I've seen it pan out in practice. You don't have to formally invoke S811 to include it as a bargaining chip in an audit settlement negotiation.
Really (back at you) - You've seen S811 threatened over a few hundred euro of potential liability?
From my own experience, it sounds far fetched and farcical, exactly as D67 says. If an audit negotiation comes down to the inspector bandying section 811 about in relation to a few hundred quid, everybody involved deserves a clip about the ear IMHO.
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?