CGT and "Principle Private residence Relief" on 2nd property


Postby kitersteve on Sat Dec 25, 2004 2:09 pm

My wife and I bought a 2nd property just under 2 yrs ago. I understand how the taper relief works but not how I can use Principle Private Residence Relief" to minimise any CGT when we sell. I have heard of a 2 yr limit within which i have to nominate my primary residence but do not understand the effect this will have? Can you swap your nominated primary residence every 18 months and sell the second property while it is your primary residence and avoid CGT? Also any costs incurred in renovating the property, do i nominate these in each tax year as "losses" or against the gain I make in the tax year i sell? It is a holiday home for personal use and is not rented. We occupy each weekeend and for 3 weeks between March and November as I am an avid watersports fan.
Any help greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Steve.
kitersteve
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Postby Lambs on Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:34 pm

K you are right, I think, to be concerned, and also to consider the judicious use of PPR to mitigate gains.

Simply put, the disposal of any property is subject to CGT; most people sell their main (only) home without realising that they are benefitting from Principal Private Residence Relief, (PPR), to relieve them from (normally) 100% of any gain that arises.

The situation becomes potentially more complicated when there is more than one property. Strictly, where there is more than one property available as a residence, and used as such. (i.e. if one buys a property and it is let throughout its period of ownership, there is no question of PPR being available to offset either part or whole of the gain arising on its disposal, as it has never been the owner's residence).

Where the owner has occupied a property as a residence, even if not as his or her main residence, then PPR may be in point. Generally, only one property can be the PPR at any one time. It is up to the owner to nominate one of the eligible properties as his or her main residence, effectively within two years of there being a choice of residences to nominate - note that another 2-year nomination period would commence if a third residence entered the equation, for example, so it might be best to think of it as being whenever there is a new combination of residences to consider, then the 2-year election window is in point.

The election time-line is so important because, if a valid election is made within the 2-year time limit, it allows later revisions to the election to be made, just as validly. If there is no valid election in the first place, then later revisions in respect of the same combination of properties are ignored, and the Inland Revenue will determine which property was the owner's main residence by reference to the facts, i.e. whichever was 'the most occupied.'

Why would it be better not to allow the Inland Revenue to determine which property was one's PPR? The answer is of course because of situations like yours:

You have recently acquired a second property, which you have occupied, presumably as a residence, albeit secondary to your main home. Prima facie, it could be nominated as your PPR for tax purposes. This is useful to you if you think that it is more likely that you will sell this second home before you sell your main home. (There could also be other reasons, such as the gain on the second home would be much higher than the gain on your main home, for instance, but it is often the property on which a gain is most likely to arise, which determines the most beneficial PPR election). The Inspector of Taxes, however, would look at the fact that you spent, say, no more than 20% of the time at your holiday home, and the balance at your first property, and find that your PPR was of course your first property, so if the question of determining your PPR is up to him because an election wasn't made, then the option to reduce a gain on the future disposal of the holiday home might be lost.

You must review your circumstances, and determine where lies the greater risk of occasioning a gain. It may be appropriate to consider making an election in any event, for the reason outlined in para. 5.

When calculating the gain arising on disposal, you may set against the net proceeds on dispoal the initial acquisition costs, together with the cost of any capital expenditure - normally improvements to the property. General repairs to a property, such as could be described as maintaining it in good order, are not allowable for CGT purposes.

You don't claim renovation costs in the year in which they are incurred: rather they are claimed at the time a Capital Gain arises. It is important to differentiate between 'revenue' items and 'capital' items.

If you let the property, then you will be assessable to Income Tax on the net income so derived, on an annual basis. It would be net of the REVENUE costs of letting the property. These might include morgage loan interest, agency fees, administrative costs and the costs of repairing the property so as to maintain it in good order. If your costs exceeded your lettings income, then you would claim those losses on an annual basis. You couldn't claim the CAPITAL costs incurred, (e.g. improvement expenditure - see above), even if incurred whilst the property was let, against the lettings income. The capital expenditure is rolled up to set against any net proceeds on disposal, as above. What I am getting at is, 'revenue' or income tax losses are claimed annually, whilst capital costs are ignored when incurred, and 'saved up' until the relevant property is sold, or otherwise occasions a chargable gain. So no, you don't have to claim anything annually, if you aren't letting the property.

The gain arising on the disposal of a property is deemed to have accrued over the period of its ownership. Therefore, if you own a property for 10 years, and it has been your PPR for 4 of those years, (by election, or by determination of the Inland Revenue), then 40% of the gain will be set aside. (PPR relief is applied to the gain net of acquisition and improvement costs incurred, but before Taper Relief (TR) and the Annual Capital Gains Exemption (AE)).

K, the above should give you an idea of the main points to consider. I have not touched on the more complex aspects of PPR relief, such as periods of deemed occupation, nor lettings relief, nor Indexation Allowance, which might apply to your current main home, nor to the potential benefits of transferring interests in the property to, or between spouses. There is also the strong possibility that you might at some point want to consider turning the property into furnished holiday accommodation, to avail yourself of the far more generous rates of Taper Relief applicable to "Business Assets."

I suggest that you speak to a suitably qualified professional, (before your 2 year time limit expires!) who can advise you in depth, having had the opportunity to review your circumstances in full. You can then determine the most appropriate election, and the basis on which it might periodically be reviewed.

Regards,

Lambs
Lambs
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Postby kitersteve on Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:07 pm

Lambs,

Thanks for your detailed response. It seems It would leave more options open by nominating my second "holiday" home as PPR as it is unlikely we will sell our first for many years. However if we did would it leave us with possibly large amount of CGT to pay on our first property because we have owned for far longer and so would leave us with CGT on a far higher gain?

The bit I am not sure about in your answer is Para 7 where you refer to Para 5. Basically how does making an election on my second property give me more flexability than allowing the inland revenue to make the decision? Am I stuck with what I have elected or is it that it leaves our options open and we can change back again when we know which property we will sell first? Or, unlikely I suspect, but can we nominate both and again, choose when i know what we are going to do do?
The property will never be rented as a holiday home as it would be against the term of the lease (leasehold property).

Many thanks for your assistance

Steve.
kitersteve
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Postby Lambs on Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:30 pm

S, you have again correctly deduced that there is a risk in electing for your holiday home to be your PPR, as it does leave your main home open to periods where a gain on its disposal would not be eligible for PPR relief. This is one of the reasons why I suggest that you consult with a tax adviser personally, as he or she will be able to quantify any risks, as well as giving you specific advice on how to reduce that risk.

I apologise if para. 5 was not sufficiently clear: provided the initial election is valid, then it is open to you subsequently to vary that election, as and when appropriate, i.e. to change your PPR nomination back, if appropriate. You lose that option if you don't make the initial election, unless and until there is a change in the combination of residences available to you at some point in the future, whereupon a new 2-year election timeline would arise.

PPR can be quite a complex area, even for tax advisers(!) and so it is always a good idea to get specific, detailed advice.

Regards,

Lambs
Lambs
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Postby Lambs on Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:34 pm

Apologies! Just to make absolutely clear, don't assume that I mean that you should elect for your new holiday home to be your PPR. There's nothing to stop you from nominating your current main home - whilst it's unlikely to differ to the determination a Revenue officer might make, it does, as I said before, allow you to vary your nomination at a later date.

Lambs
Lambs
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Postby Instinctive on Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:59 am

Steve, on 27 December 2004 you queried the point about potentially higher gain exposed on your main residence if you elected for the 2nd residence as your main residence.

Yes, but the 2nd property is accumulating more exempt gains at the same time.

Therefore, one has to consider whether the higher exempt gains on the 2nd property offset or exceed the higher chargeable gains on the 1st property.

One crucial point to bear in mind in your thoughts is that if you elected for the 2nd property to be your main residence, and switched back to your 1st property as your main residence (if able to do so - see Lambs' replies), you will qualify for the final 3 years of the 2nd property as exempt from CGT regardless of its actual use.

Say you elect for the 2nd property as your main residence, and after 2 years decide to let it for say 6 months. This means that now you only have one residence and therefore the 1st residence starts to qualify again as a residence thereafter.
You effectively lose 2 years exemption out of your total period of ownership of property No 1. As time goes on, 2 years as a proportion of the total period reduces. This could be covered by a host of other reliefs and exemptions available to you. These exemptions could be enhanced significantly if you were to let this as residential accommodation for a period at some time in your ownership.

On the other hand, property 2 will now qualify for the first 2 years due to the election. Additionally, it will also qualify for the final 3 years of the ownership. If it was also let as residential accommodation, you could also qualify for relief from gains of upto a further £40,000. If owned jointly with another, say your spouse, the lettings relief of upto £40,000 is available to each person.

To conclude, it may be hughly beneficial to nominate your 2nd property as your main residence and icing on the cake is to subsequently let it as residential accommodation.

However, there is no substitute for obtaining (and paying for) bespoke professional advice from a tax professional.

RP
Instinctive
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm


Return to Capital Gains Tax

Dorifor Internet Marketing Dorifor Tax Group - our portfolio of tax sites:

UK's largest independent tax portal All the tax books on one site global tax seminars, conferences and other events Global tax jobs portal List of UK recruitment agencies and employers