Is he correct?
You cannot have two PPRs. Your PPR is where your friends and family would expect to find you.Is he correct?
I looked it up and apparently you can in advance of sale declare which of your properties is your PPR.I divide my time between both places so could be expected to be found in either place.
3.16 One main residence only Where a taxpayer has more than one residence (see para 2) for any period, the Inspector may reach agreement with him or her as to which of these is to be treated as his or her main residence, provided that the taxpayer gives notice in writing to the Inspector within 2 years of the beginning of that period (or by 5 April, 1976, if that is later).
That's what the rules allow, and backdated for two years.Thanks Coyote....so if I understand it correctly, I should write to Revenue now and tell them I want Property 2 to be my PPR?
No, do not do that under any circumstances. What have you to gain by showing your hand now?Thanks Coyote....so if I understand it correctly, I should write to Revenue now and tell them I want Property 2 to be my PPR?
İf I can only backdate it by two years, is it not advisable to do this ASAP and thereby minimise any potential CGT bill? (Although I I have no plans to sell either any time soon.)No, do not do that under any circumstances. What have you to gain by showing your hand now?
I don't know where you got the idea of backdating anything. It's nonsense. Your PPR status is a matter of fact. It doesn't need to be buttressed by periodic declarations. You seem to be in a lucky position where you can suit yourself by building a reasonable case that either one of two properties can credibly be treated as your PPR. If you tie yourself up in knots now by making a superfluous declaration, you risk losing this advantage.İf I can only backdate it by two years, is it not advisable to do this ASAP and thereby minimise any potential CGT bill? (Although have no plans to sell either any time soon.)
I agree with you 100%. However the link from Coyote implies there is a two year window from when the declaration can be made in order to count against a CGT bill. Given that I availed of PPR relief for property 1 and have never engaged with Revenue since it is arguable that it continues to be my PPR by default.I don't know where you got the idea of backdating anything. It's nonsense. Your PPR status is a matter of fact. It doesn't need to be buttressed by periodic declarations. You seem to be in a lucky position where you can suit yourself by building a reasonable case that either one of two properties can credibly be treated as your PPR. If you tie yourself up in knots now by making a superfluous declaration, you risk losing this advantage.
My own general recommendation would be to never engage with Revenue in relation to a technical issue such as this unless you both know exactly what you are doing and have confirmed this by engaging specialist professional advice based on a close assessment of your circumstances, and in this case your ownership history of each property.
So why do Revenue give the taxpayer the option of doing so? I assume it is so that in 20 or 30 years whenever you go to sell the one or other property there is less scope for debate about which property was the PPR, which of course becomes increasingly difficult to prove either way the further you go back in time.It doesn't need to be buttressed by periodic declarations.
I agree with this.My own general recommendation would be to never engage with Revenue in relation to a technical issue such as this unless you both know exactly what you are doing and have confirmed this by engaging specialist professional advice based on a close assessment of your circumstances, and in this case your ownership history of each property.
You'll have to ask them.So why do Revenue give the taxpayer the option of doing so?
A State of affairs that should suit this particular taxpayer once they don't unnecessarily give up that advantage.I assume it is so that in 20 or 30 years whenever you go to sell the one or other property there is less scope for debate about which property was the PPR, which of course becomes increasingly difficult to prove either way the further you go back in time.
Yes there is a procedure - complete a Form CG1 CGT Tax Return, claim PPR relief as appropriate, and have your homework done to justify that claim.However the OP asked about declaring one of his two properties his PPR and there does seem to be a procedure for this.
I take your point, but OP in 20 years time could be left trying in vain to prove a negative. We are talking about a situation where a person splits their time equally between their two dwellings so there will be no better evidence that property 2 is PPR over property 1 in his case. However if it is noted on file from 20 years ago that property 2 is PPR then there is much less potential for debate.Yes there is a procedure - complete a Form CG1 CGT Tax Return, claim PPR relief as appropriate, and have your homework done to justify that claim.
This would make no difference to any future test of the substance of which is your PPR.Maybe I should just change the address for revenue correspondence to property 2?
It really depends....I would actually say it's close to 50-50....maybe a bit more in Dub as I tend to travel up and down less in the winter.This would make no difference to any future test of the substance of which is your PPR.
Tell me seriously though, which property do you spend more time in?
That will be the case whether or not a declaration is made now. Meanwhile the danger is that a declaration now could prejudice a future PPR claim by the OP.I take your point, but OP in 20 years time could be left trying in vain to prove a negative. We are talking about a situation where a person splits their time equally between their two dwellings so there will be no better evidence that property 2 is PPR over property 1 in his case. However if it is noted on file from 20 years ago that property 2 is PPR then there is much less potential for debate.
I am speculating here, but I imagine the procedure as set out in the Revenue manual is to allow people in the OP's situation to settle this ex ante rather than ex post.
The rules are broadly similar but the devil is always in the detail.This case study throws some light on my question.....I know it's a UK example, but it's likely Revenue adopt a similar approach.
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?