Implications of a property rarely stayed at.

[G]

Suppose one owns a property, but circumstances meant employment took one elsewhere in the country, where one rented. Does the owned property still count as main residence for tax purposes ?

If not, for how long does one have to move back into the property for before it becomes main residence and not a personal liability to the owner as far as the taxman is concerned ?

Or is it not as simple as that ?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

PS how much more complicated would it become if the owner got fed up with renting elsewhere and bought a second property ?

[Ian McTernan CTA]

I note your earlier posting was also hypothetical and wonder why you ask these questions- could just be my suspicious mind at work.

To answer your latest posting, there is an exemption applying to employment elsewhere, where a period of up to four years may be treated as PPR where the individual returns to the property. There is also an extra-statutory concession regarding the return.

If it was not for the exemption, then there is no set period of re-occupancy, this is dependent on circumstances and can be looked at by the Revenue.

If you purchase a second property then the normal rules on second properties would be applied and an election would need to be made.

Further details of the above answers can be found in previous postings.

Ian McTernan CTA
Chartered Tax Adviser
McTernan Associates Ltd
ian@imcternan.com

[G]

Hypothetical since I know folk in that situation, and so was pleased to stumble upon this site where you guys are kind enough to answer tax related questions.

Thanks for the reply, although I think I need to look up some of the terms used. I'll have a look through other postings too to see if that sheds further light.

Thanks again.