DTE Tax brief on principle residence reliefs

[Peter D]

Nope, ownership and actual residence periods are totally different. You are reading just what you want to here. DTE was quite clear about the actual resident period.
It all revolves, for you, around whether your property is your main residence due to qualifying absence. It is not your main residence, you do not habitually live there, it is presently 'deemed' your main residence for the purpose of the period absence and you anticipated return and any future potential CG calculations.
If you had been single and you married out in Dubai and then you did an interspousal transfer do you really think HMRC would accept her PRR status on a rental property she owns 50% of as T in C if and when you sell it. I don't think so.

Regards

Peter

[maths]

I fear this discussion is going down the same route as before with, in my view, little now to be gained.

I would like to make one final comment on Peter D's very last sentence:

If you had been single and you married out in Dubai and then you did an interspousal transfer do you really think HMRC would accept her PRR status on a rental property she owns 50% of as T in C if and when you sell it. I don't think so.

1.Man (M) owns 100% UK property (P). It is his sole residence.
2.M goes to Dubai for 1 month holiday.
3.M meets woman (W) .
4.M marries W in Dubai becoming H and W.
5.Assume W has had no electable residence (eg lived with parents).
6.On the day of marriage H and W can only have one sole (or main) residence. W’s sole residence is thus P even though W has not lived in it (whether or not P is rented out is irrelevant). This arises because the legislation effectively treats H and W as one individual.
7.Two months after marriage whilst in Dubai H transfers 50% of P to W.
8.One month later whilst still in Dubai P is sold.
9.The capital gains of each of H and W will be cgt free due to PPR relief even though for W she has not actually lived in P (assume that W is a UK resident as otherwise, of course, no cgt for her in any event).

For better or worse no more comments from me on this issue. Good luck !

[Peter D]

I like the cut of that, however PPR is a prerequisite to Letting Relief. so lets say H & W buy a new home in the UK come back and move straight into a new home and rent out the old one ( small flat ) 5 years down the road they sell it and claim PPR and two sets of letting relief, one set will be, if picked up, denied by HMRC as the W owner ( T in C ) has not lived in the property.
Regards

Peter

[maths]

Adjusting my example to pick up your point if I understand you correctly:

6.On the day of marriage H and W can only have one sole (or main) residence. W’s sole residence is thus P even though W has not lived in it (whether or not P is rented out is irrelevant). This arises because the legislation effectively treats H and W as one individual.
7.Two months after marriage whilst in Dubai H transfers 50% of P to W.
8. Whilst still in Dubai second UK property P2 is jointly purchased so P is let out.
9. H and W return to UK to P2 as P is let out. P2 is de facto their main residence.
10. 5 years later P is sold.
11. W has never lived in P prior to its sale.
12. Lettings relief will still be available to W. There is no requirement for lettings relief to apply for the vendor to have lived in the property. All that is required is that P has been at some time the PPR of W which it has been (ie following the marriage as indicated in my earlier comment) and that whilst in P's ownership P was let (which it was).
13. If, however, H whilst owning 100% of P had let P prior to the transfer of 50% to W (following the marriage) then in this case on any future sale W (W having acquired 50% from H following marriage) would not get lettings relief as W had not let P; only H had let P.

Really, really my last word!

[Peter D]

13. If, however, H whilst owning 100% of P had let P prior to the transfer of 50% to W (following the marriage) then in this case on any future sale W (W having acquired 50% from H following marriage) would not get lettings relief as W had not let P; only H had let P.

That is Peter Gibbinsons position and the contention is that W only attracts relief for the actual period of residence, as she was not living in the residence at the date of the transfer.

Regards Peter

[petergibbinson]

Maths if you get a chance can you email me on petergibbinson@hotmail.com I wanted to ask you a private question.
Kind regards,
Peter Gibbinson

[Scr00ge]

Peter - did you ever determine what the CGT situation would be?
I am in a very similar situation to you and I am very interested if you found out anymore since the postings on this forum.

Thanks,
Pete.

[Peter D]

My and stance has not changed. Edit you profile to include your email address and I'll contact you later. Regards Peter