Council Tax: Single Occupancy - Residence vs occupancy

Polonius56

Refusing someone the Single Occupancy discount for the future intentions of his wife is a novel approach to taxation.

If my wife intended to buy a new TV set sometime next year, would I be charged the licence fee today?

She might intend to full up the petrol tank of the car sometime in the future. But the petrol tax and the VAT aren't charged to me today. Yet it appears the Council Tax is different.

Errata, I take your point about my wife being able to return and therefore the property might be assumed to be her 'main residence'. However, we can only ever have one 'main residence' at a time. Plainly, this property in the UK is not currently my wife's 'main residence'. It certainly used to be so and it is highly likely it will be so again at some time but I fail to see how it can be called her 'main residence' now; she hasn't been physically present in this property for nigh on three years.

Wives have rights and freedom of movement is one of those rights. My wife has exercised that freedom but the local tax law appears to say such a right comes with a condition attached. "Move around the world wherever and whenever you wish, return to your home country if you like but as long as you remain married your 'main residence' will always be the same property as your husband's".

Time to ask my local council to reconsider - I suspect they will refuse and I shall then have to research the possibility of a tribunal.

CIS

Please always remember that this is only a forum but for what it is worth, if CIS disagrees with anything I have said then my instinct would be to follow CIS rather than me.

I pretty much agree with everyting you say.

Time to ask my local council to reconsider - I suspect they will refuse and I shall then have to research the possibility of a tribunal.

I would quite like this case to go to a tribunal simply for the fact that will one way or the other clarify some points of law that will make future decisions easier to make. The only problem is that most council's dont want the hassle of a tribunal and will oftern roll over when pushed which then means the tribunal cant rule on it.

Polonius56

There is one other route I have just thought of. Years ago, when we were both resident in Tokyo, there was a double taxation agreement with the UK and Japan. I believe this applied to income tax and various investment taxes and still exists today.

Could it not apply in this case? My wife pays local tax in Japan and therefore might be exempt from local tax here?

Polonius56

Further to my post above ... sorry. It is silly of me to expect anyone to have in depth knowledge of any UK/Japan double taxation agreement. I'll do some digging and see if anything is available online.

Polonius56

Having had a look for the Double Taxation Agreement I'm only further confused. So I'll leave that route alone.

I have had a look at the website of the Valuation Tribunal and seen a rather large PDF file called the Guidance Manual. In this it notes "There is no definition of "sole or main residence" in statute law". Yet my local council in their letter refusing my discount place great weight on the "main residence issue.

Perhaps I could appeal this decision by the local council?

DCodd

I do not get this - look at the FACTS

1 The wife has left the matromonial home. for 3 Years!!!!
2 The wife has not lived there since 2006 3 Years!!
3 The husband lives there alone for 3 years!!!!!
4 The wife has a seperate life in a different country for 3 years!!!!
5 The wife still owns part of the house but is an absent partner for 3 years!!!!
6 The wife claims to have an intention to return but has not done for 3 years!!!

Her main or sole residence can not be this house SHE HAS NOT LIVED THERE FOR 3 YEARS!!!!!

Unless of course she is an MP

lincroft1710

DCodd - but if parents die tomorrow (which we pray they don't) wife WILL return asap.

This is what it hinges on - expectation, the expectation she will return. CT law is CT law, in some aspects it contradicts planning law, different sex partners are treated as husband and wife, whereas other legislation will not confer this "benefit". Don't expect logic!!!

Errata

I wonder if the wife is still on the electoral role ?

Polonius56

My wife has never been on the UK electoral roll as she is a Japanese national.

We are in daily telephone contact (thank heavens for Skype) and the reason my wife hasn't returned to the UK more often is she cannot leave her parents for more than a couple of days - and even that is getting more problematic. I go over there from time-to-time.

Thank you, jimmo for your points above and you are right - I must separate my sense of injustice with the letter of the law.

I am amused by your point about couples who are permanently separated becoming amazingly reconciled at a later date. Oddly enough, a friend of mine asked me if this option might be open to me but although my wife and I are separated geographically, we are not separated emotionally and I would be hoodwinking the Local Council were I to explore this route; although I cannot help but feel we are being penalised simply because we remain married - another possible violation of the Human Rights Act.

The law is at odds with the guidance offered (i.e. the local council states if only one person lives in a property then the discount will apply whereas the law apparently says a physical presence in a property is not an essential requirement when defining occupancy) and you are correct when you say I should consider campaigning against the law rather than challenge the law as it stands.

Whilst my sense of injustice is strong, sadly I doubt if I have the expertise nor the energy to start such a campaign. I would prefer to spend both my time and money visiting my wife than trying to initiate a dialogue with official organisations who do not understand how to listen.

I believe I have flogged this particular horse quite enough and so I would like to thank all those who have helped with suggestions, support and the general thought process.

MumOf2

This is so interesting! I'm in a situation where my husband and I live in separate homes because of our places of work 250 miles from each other. Yet we have to nominate one home as our joint place of residence, ie paying 100% Council Tax, and the other as the place of residence for one of us, ie attracting a 25% sole occupancy discount.

So between us we pay 100% on one, and 75% on the other, yet we each only live in one house (apart from odd weekends when we can get together).

But if we were living over the brush we would pay 75% on each home.

We're being penalised for being married too, but there's no way of getting round it unless we either formally separate or one of us moves. But if we move we might be faced with CGT on the sale of one of the houses - you have to nominate one house as your 'second' home (and there's no flipping for ordinary folk like us). They get you every way!

MumOf2