That DTE brief s58 TCGA; s222(7) TCGA etc.

[Peter D]

In the OP's scenario. Yes.
S58 primarily deals with transfers when Indexation and Taper relief was available, thus all the examples are based on this and of courrse the data had to be defined against the rebased value at ahte date of transfer.

Stop sending me PM's

Regards Peter

[Incredulum]

You're the one sending me PMs...

The OP is ME! I have no situation!

I'll try again.

Is it your view that for any transfer between two spouses, the transferee inherits the date of acquisition of the transferor.

[Peter D]

You have clearly lost the plot. You sent the first PM.
You sent this.

Re: That DTE brief s58 TCGA; s222(7) TCGA etc.
Sent at: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:21 pm
From: Incredulum
To: Peter D

Subject: That DTE brief s58 TCGA; s222(7) TCGA etc. (http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=106196#p106196)

I've just found the email and it was 'Deloitte' and 'Arthur Weller' and they go with the DTE Brief. Regards Peter

Are you able, please to pm this to me?

Do you you deny this. ?

Regards Peter

[Incredulum]

I don't deny sending the first PM at all, I was merely pointing out that you PMd me rather than post in this thread. Anyway.

What about the technical point on s58? I have asked you this question four times in this thread and you have not answered it. All I ask for, John Humphries style, is a "yes", or a "no".


Do you consider that s58 TCGA 1992 deems that for any transfer between two spouses who are married to each other and living together, the transferee inherits the date of acquisition of the transferor?

[Peter D]

Read the post at the top of this page.

I think you are loosing the plot.

Regards Peter

[Incredulum]

In the OP's scenario. Yes. Regards Peter

I think you're saying it also applies generally. I don't see why you're so reluctant to say "yes". Actually, I do. That's because you've fundamentally (and dangerously) misunderstood s58.

s58 doesn't deem the transferee to inherit the acquisition date of the transferor. It merely refers to the value at which it was acquired. And the legislation makes this point clear, as for taper relief to work correctly on inter-spouse transfers TCGA 1992, Sch. A1, para. 15(2) had to be invented. If s58 did what Peter D claims it does, then there would have been no need to write that bit of the legislation.

It says

15 (2) Paragraph 2 ablve shall have effect in relation to any subsequent disposal of the asset as if the time when the transferee spouse acquired the asset were the time when the transferring spouse acquired it.

Read http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/MANUALS/cg1manual/cg17906.htm which makes this point very clearly.

Under TCGA92/S58, see CG22200+, an asset transferred between spouses or between civil partners passes without triggering a gain, or loss, at the time of the transaction... The effect of paragraph 15 is to ignore the disposal and acquisition in calculating the qualifying holding period [for taper relief purposes].

[Peter D]

You have round in a large cicle, cast your mind back to the original response to the OP.
"Your proposed solution would be the perfect solution, i.e. buy it yourself and then transfer it to her upon your return.

If you transfer it to your W no more than six months before you move into it (ideally less than that to allow for "accidents"), then her acquisition date for PPR relief purposes would be the day she acquires it. NB, to satisfy s222(7) TCGA the transfer to her must be BEFORE you move in.

Peter D didn't understand this the last time it came up for discussion. And he's still spouting the same rubbish.

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/forum/capital-gains-tax-inter-spouse-transfer-t29572.html"

W would have inherited the acqisition date and then established PPR when they actually moved in. On disposal a few years later the original period of ownership by H would be exposed to CGT.

For reasons unknown you think this move would avoid the OP from any CGT UK liability. The OP may claim he was non resident as the time but HMRC will treat this as an interspousal transfer and the disposal of the whole period of the property was when UK resident.

Regards Peter

[Incredulum]

You have round in a large cicle, cast your mind back to the original response to the OP.
Regards Peter

Not at all. In the post you have copied I did not understand how we managed to come to such differing solutions, and assumed it came down to s222(7). But this time I understand that it is our interpretation of s58 where we differ - which is why you think we're wrong.

Don't forget that Schedule A1 specifically had to introduce legislation to deem the transfer to have been backdated for the sole purposes of taper relief, which is additional evidence to suggest that s58 does not have the effect you think it had.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum where we can all learn from each other. But in order to learn we have to talk to each other. There doesn't seem much point in endless number of similar threads with people posting their opposing views on this point; it would be nice to bottom this one out.

You clearly disagree with my reading of the legislation. I should love to know what I'm missing. So go on, educate me!

[Peter D]

Lets do it your way then.
"W would have inherited the acqisition date and then established PPR when they actually moved in. On disposal a few years later the original period of ownership by H would be exposed to CGT."
Do you think that is true or not. 'Yes' or 'No'

You originally stated the answer was 'No' Now what ??

Peter

[Incredulum]

My position is still unchanged "no" as s58 does not have the effect you are claiming. W does not inherit the original ownership date of H.


It is obvious s58 does not do what you think it does, as for taper relief to work correctly on inter-spouse transfers TCGA 1992, Sch. A1, para. 15(2) had to be invented. If s58 worked the way you suggest, there would have been no need to introduce Sch. A1, para. 15(2) specifically and solely for taper relief purposes as s58 would already have covered that point.


Convince me (and the rest of the profession) of your basis for claiming that s58 works the way you suggest, go on!