Stamp Duty In Solicitor's Possession

I

ippd

Registered User
Messages
24
Hi,
I bought my house 5 months ago and paid the stamp duty to my solicitor. Yesterday my solicitor contacted me and informed me that he is only now handling my stamp duty payment. I presume this means that he has had my stamp duty sitting in his bank account and is earning interest. If this is the case, am I entitled to claim the interest that he has received back off him ?

Thanks :)
 
SD is normally due for payment to Revenue by the solicitor within 30 days or thereabouts of the sale closing. Why has it taken so long for your solicitor to do this? You could try asking for interest but I doubt that you will get anywhere and the interest would be probably marginal anyway.
 
I'm not sure why he hasn't paid it yet, I'll inquire. I presume that SD not paid within 30 days is subject to clawback penalities ... as long as I'm not hit for the fine.

Thanks
 
I thought there were penalities attached to the clawback:

10% fine of the amount owed if paid back within the first 6 months plus a daily interest rate !
20% fine of the amount owed if paid back between 6-12 months plus a daily interest rate !
30% fine of the amount owed if paid back after 12 months plus daily interest rate !

Or am I incorrect ?
 
Are you thinking of the SD clawback where a property originally bought as an owner occupied property is actually rented out within the first five years of ownership? That is irrelevant here.
 
Yes that is what I was thinking. So what penalities apply to a solicitor who hasn't paid the stamp duty within the 30 days ?
 
Stamp duty is due by purchaser. Solicitor is agent of purchaser. If stamp duty not paid by solicitor although purchaser put solicitor in funds, then even though solicitor is at fault, purchaser is liable for any penalties and interest. Solicitor is obliged to carry the can though and should pay any penalties and interest arising.

mf
 
solicitor is liable to pay the revenue , all you show is that you paid the solicitor in full for the stamp duty 5 months back and after that its their problem .

you could even complain to the revenue directly that the solicitor was negligent. You are not entitled to interest from the solicitor but the revenue may be entitled to it.
 
There can be situations where a sale has closed but the solicitor cannot go ahead and stamp immediately and holds the deed in escrow. In those situations no interest or penalties will arise as the solicitor will inform the revenue of the reason for the delay and they will accept the certificate of escrow.
 
2Pack said:
you could even complain to the revenue directly that the solicitor was negligent.
Click to expand...

You would need to be pretty careful of your facts before you could safely accuse anyone of professional negligence, especially if this is communicated to Revenue, of all people, about a third party. Defamation proceedings are not exactly a nice prospect in any scenario but least of all when instigated by a lawyer.
 
There is no such thing as a negligent or careless lawyer in Ireland, they are the most consummate bunch of professionals you could ever meet :p

Anyway the OP paid the lawyer in full 5 months back . Anything else is the lawyers problem at this stage .

The OP is entitled to 'ask' the revenue if a 5 month delay in passing the money over is 'normal' and to explain to the revenue that they were not 'the cause' of any delay. I don't see why they should bother though except that the revenue is me and us and has been entitled to the money for 5 months.

I am still adamant that the lawyer owes the OP no interest on that money .

mf1, is the lawyer not an agent of the revenue even MORE so than an agent of the OP who purchased the house ??
 
My point is that, IF there is a genuine reason for the delay, the OP could be in extreme difficulty if they followed your advice and told the Revenue that the solicitor was negligent.
 
ubiquitous said:
My point is that, IF there is a genuine reason for the delay, the OP could be in extreme difficulty if they followed your advice and told the Revenue that the solicitor was negligent.
Click to expand...
You are correct ubiquitous. The OP is of course not in any way negligent themselves. They paid over the money 5 months ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top