Unoccupied CouncilTax

davidmcn

BarryBlue wrote: »

And you know that for certain, do you? I don't know how anyone could say for certain where someone 'mainly' lived without staking all their homes out. That is simply not going to happen at any point. We have 'things' at any property and, as I have said, could live in any as we choose. Let anyone prove otherwise if they like.

the electoral register issue is a bit of a red herring. The only reason I raised it is that to transfer your residence for CT purposes, our local council requires that you first move on the electoral roll, which is what we do when necessary.

So, not so much "quite legal" as "quite illegal, but we don't think they can prove it"...

booksurr

BarryBlue wrote: »

And you know that for certain, do you? I don't know how anyone could say for certain where someone 'mainly' lived without staking all their homes out. That is simply not going to happen at any point. We have 'things' at any property and, as I have said, could live in any as we choose. Let anyone prove otherwise if they like.

the electoral register issue is a bit of a red herring. The only reason I raised it is that to transfer your residence for CT purposes, our local council requires that you first move on the electoral roll, which is what we do when necessary.

ok, i cross posted with your response. You have as usual fallen for the first trap of thinking it is a question of time served. It is not. It is a question of the quality of occupation, here is a list of some issues relevant to a married couple:
- where does the spouse work?
- where does the spouse commute to and from when not at work?
- where does the claimant work?
- where does the claimant commute to and from when not at work?
- around what location(s) does the social life of the couple revolve
- where would friends expect to find the couple if they wanted to call in or phone them?
- where do any children of the couple go to school
- where are they registered for on the electoral roll
- what address is given out for the majority of critical correspondence they need to receive
and finally
- where do they actually spend their time and is there a clear intention to return to another address at a future date? If yes is that other address actually their "home" rather than the current place which is merely temporary accommodation used for a particular purpose with no evidence of a "degree of permanence" at that address. (You would have sold your MIL's house if you could, so a FAIL...)

here is the case law setting out why someone who claimed single person discount for a property they "lived in" for 8 months was held not to be using it as their main residence (and yes these are general principles applicable to tax, not just CGT) https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/tax-take/quality-of-occupation-is-paramount-when-deciding

Caz3121

you are best to look at your councils website to confirm the bill
Looking at a couple, they do vary
Edinburgh - limited exemption for empty, empty after 12 months = 200%
Manchester - if unfurnished - exemption for 1 months then full council tax until 2 years then 150% (furnished = full council tax)
Birmingham - full council tax for 2 years then 150%
best to check your own but you are likely to be in the 150% bracket by now and this will not go away

CIS

booksurr wrote: »

ok, i cross posted with your response. You have as usual fallen for the first trap of thinking it is a question of time served. It is not. It is a question of the quality of occupation, here is a list of some issues relevant to a married couple:
- where does the spouse work?
- where does the spouse commute to and from when not at work?
- where does the claimant work?
- where does the claimant commute to and from when not at work?
- around what location(s) does the social life of the couple revolve
- where would friends expect to find the couple if they wanted to call in or phone them?
- where do any children of the couple go to school
- where are they registered for on the electoral roll
- what address is given out for the majority of critical correspondence they need to receive
and finally
- where do they actually spend their time and is there a clear intention to return to another address at a future date? If yes is that other address actually their "home" rather than the current place which is merely temporary accommodation used for a particular purpose with no evidence of a "degree of permanence" at that address. (You would have sold your MIL's house if you could, so a FAIL...)

here is the case law setting out why someone who claimed single person discount for a property they "lived in" for 8 months was held not to living in their main residence (and yes these are general principles applicable to tax, not just CGT) https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/tax-take/quality-of-occupation-is-paramount-when-deciding

Once of the simplest questions the Valuation Tribunals ask is where a normal man off the street would say you lived as your main home if they looked at your situation - even that most basic test wouldn't pass in my opinion.

Craig

cyantist

Would it be possible for either you or your husband to live at the old house part time, then get lodgers?
Surely there's nothing stopping you renting a room or two out (depending on the size of it) to lodgers as long as you're there some of the time.

BarryBlue

I am amazed at how so many people claim to know our business better than we do. So many assumptions, so much rubbish posted. So I shan't bother dignifying it, especially Booksurr's diatribe, with a response.

Suffice to say that, depending on what criteria you use, you could argue for and against any of our properties being a 'main' one. It's incredible how people love advising based on so little knowledge. Thanks, anyway.;)

booksurr

BarryBlue wrote: »

I am amazed at how so many people claim to know our business better than we do. So many assumptions, so much rubbish posted. So I shan't bother dignifying it, especially Booksurr's diatribe, with a response.

Suffice to say that, depending on what criteria you use, you could argue for and against any of our properties being a 'main' one. It's incredible how people love advising based on so little knowledge. Thanks, anyway.;)

you are the one who claimed to be "quite legal" and therefore on an open forum your statement is dangerously misleading and needs to be corrected !

my "diatribe" is fact (not rubbish) and is based on tax law, as you will find out when you come to sell one or more of your properties and claim main residence relief so as to reduce your CGT exposure....

since you obviously will not admit you may be in difficulty with your claim why not google "married couples and single person council tax". Lots of info out there, here is a starter....
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1673222/Can-we-escape-second-home-tax-trap.html

BarryBlue

booksurr wrote: »

you are the one who claimed to be "quite legal" and therefore on an open forum your statement is dangerously misleading and needs to be corrected !

my "diatribe" is fact (not rubbish) and is based on tax law, as you will find out when you come to sell one or more of your properties and claim main residence relief so as to reduce your CGT exposure....

since you obviously will not admit you may be in difficulty with your claim why not google "married couples and single person council tax". Lots of info out there, here is a starter....
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1673222/Can-we-escape-second-home-tax-trap.html

Still so many assumptions and so few facts. You are missing one huge one - there is no CGT liability under any circumstances in our situation. All been researched already, you see.:p

Sorry to disappoint you, but thanks for your interest.:wave:

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

BarryBlue wrote: »

There is a simple solution to reducing the costs here. If you and a partner are living at home and also paying full CT on an empty property, one of you needs to 'move' to the other property. Change the register of electors and then the council tax accounts. That way you will get 25% discount on both properties.

My wife's mother had to vacate her house when her father died as it was unsuitable. But it can't be sold yet as my wife only owns half of it as a tenant-in-common with her mother. So officially my wife lives there. It saves us about £800 a year quite legally.

To be fair to booksurr, looking at this post as it stands, it would appear to them, me, and most other respondents, that you are trying to duck out of council tax.

Let's take a closer look at it. So "officially" my wife lives there. Does that not insinuate that, in fact, she lives with you in the marital home?

One of them needs to "move" there - insinuating not actually moving there.

In any case, it is immaterial - for all tax purposes I've ever encountered (I'm an accountant FWIW), married couples are assumed to live at one residence. That would be the marital home.

Unless of course, there are irreconcilable differences, and you are in the throes of divorce. However, I suspect that is not the case.

It's fine really, I deal every single day with people who evade tax "on the sly" - there is nothing much that can be done. But I wouldn't recommend suggesting it to strangers on the internet - what if they are the 1% that gets caught? How would you feel then?

marksoton

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

But I wouldn't recommend suggesting it to strangers on the internet - what if they are the 1% that gets caught? How would you feel then?

Bearing in mind their morals on tax i'd imagine nothing at all.