Back tax

installer

My parents have a car that is not taxed and I said I would transfer ownership to my name so to avoid the back tax, my question is if I'm the registered owner do I have to have insurance cert in my name or can the insurance my parents have still be used to tax it although i'm the registered owner.?

djimi

Will they still be driving the car? A bigger issue might be that there insurance may no longer be valid if they are not the registered owner of the car. Get them to check their policy.

bazz26

Or just "sell it" back to them a few weeks later.

installer

Ya they will still be the drivers and indeed the owners, its just to circumvent the back tax, Ive just filled the change of ownership details ready to send to shannon, and when it comes back il do the same again back to dads name, wont even wait the few weeks just send it straight back.

djimi

installer wrote: »

Ya they will still be the drivers and indeed the owners, its just to circumvent the back tax, Ive just filled the change of ownership details ready to send to shannon, and when it comes back il do the same again back to dads name, wont even wait the few weeks just send it straight back.

Okay, well like I said just check their insurance first to make sure that they remain covered. The process will take time, and if they needed to claim while the car is not in their name then you dont want to leave them uninsured.

From the assumptions on the Axa page when obtaining a quote:

Your car must:
be owned by and registered to you and/or your spouse/civil partner

You are neither...

goz83

Seems to me like this advice is often given to people to evade tax. What the op is doing is fraudulent. Sorry to be on the HH here, but it seems they just didn't pay their car tax for a period of time, while still having insurance and use of the car. In my view, that's wrong. If they were not using the car, it should have been declared OTR. Maybe tell your parents to pay their tax rather than finding fraudulent ways to evade it.

They need to update the system to close this loophole. If backtax is owed, it should not carry to the new owner, but if the old owner suddenly becomes the owner again within a 6-12 month period, the backtax should then become due again.

bazz26

OP, did your parents drive the car during the period it was not taxed?

djimi

goz83 wrote: »

Seems to me like this advice is often given to people to evade tax. What the op is doing is fraudulent. Sorry to be on the HH here, but it seems they just didn't pay their car tax for a period of time, while still having insurance and use of the car. In my view, that's wrong. If they were not using the car, it should have been declared OTR. Maybe tell your parents to pay their tax rather than finding fraudulent ways to evade it.

They need to update the system to close this loophole. If backtax is owed, it should not carry to the new owner, but if the old owner suddenly becomes the owner again within a 6-12 month period, the backtax should then become due again.

Its actually not evasion or fraud at all. The law is worded in such a way that arrears are only technically owed at the point where they are to be paid (I dont have the SI to hand but it was posted on here before). The loophole that allows for these arrears to be avoided is perfectly legal; it might not be morally right to exploit it, but its not breaking any law that I can see to change ownership of a car and then change it back again. Tax avoidance perhaps rather than tax evasion.

goz83

djimi wrote: »

Its actually not evasion or fraud at all. The law is worded in such a way that arrears are only technically owed at the point where they are to be paid (I dont have the SI to hand but it was posted on here before). The loophole that allows for these arrears to be avoided is perfectly legal; it might not be morally right to exploit it, but its not breaking any law that I can see to change ownership of a car and then change it back again. Tax avoidance perhaps rather than tax evasion.

I would have to respectfully disagree and say that it is fraud. While the system is wide open enough that it is not detected, does not mean that it is not fraud, which, very simply is defined as "acting with, or having the intent to deceive". The OP is clearly behaving in an intentionally deceitful way, in order to help his parents evade tax. Granted, there is no law to stop people from transferring ownership of a car to one person and then back to themselves. But that's why I suggested the loophole needs to be closed. Otherwise, we are just back to the old days of not taxing the car for a few months, filling out a form and getting away with it, no penalty at all. Tax evasion in my opinion.

djimi

goz83 wrote: »

I would have to respectfully disagree and say that it is fraud. While the system is wide open enough that it is not detected, does not mean that it is not fraud, which, very simply is defined as "acting with, or having the intent to deceive". The OP is clearly behaving in an intentionally deceitful way, in order to help his parents evade tax. Granted, there is no law to stop people from transferring ownership of a car to one person and then back to themselves. But that's why I suggested the loophole needs to be closed. Otherwise, we are just back to the old days of not taxing the car for a few months, filling out a form and getting away with it, no penalty at all. Tax evasion in my opinion.

There is no deceit involved. Its not fraud. The system is there; they are simply exploiting it to their advantage.

Its not tax evasion; the way the law is worded is such that tax is not technically owed until the point at which it is paid. Its not like normal tax, say income tax, where the bill never goes away. If a car is in arrears with tax and the owner never attempts to pay tax on it then technically speaking the arrears are not owed. The owner can, of course, be prosecuted for driving without tax, but that is a seperate matter. Its why a car that is legitimately sold, written off or scrapped with expired tax does not incur a tax bill for the arrears for the owner.

Im not saying that it is morally right, and I fully agree that it is a loophole that needs to be closed. However, as it stands, it is just that - a loophole.

Cerco

djimi wrote: »

There is no deceit involved. Its not fraud. The system is there; they are simply exploiting it to their advantage.

Its not tax evasion; the way the law is worded is such that tax is not technically owed until the point at which it is paid. Its not like normal tax, say income tax, where the bill never goes away. If a car is in arrears with tax and the owner never attempts to pay tax on it then technically speaking the arrears are not owed. The owner can, of course, be prosecuted for driving without tax, but that is a seperate matter. Its why a car that is legitimately sold, written off or scrapped with expired tax does not incur a tax bill for the arrears for the owner.

Im not saying that it is morally right, and I fully agree that it is a loophole that needs to be closed. However, as it stands, it is just that - a loophole.

You are attempting to interpret a law. This is the type of issue that is debated and decided in courts every day of the week. It would be up to a judge to decide what the legal position and penalties, if any. In my opinion the payment of outstanding taxes is the sensible solution. Looking for loopholes to avoid paying tax in the current financial environment is silly. Loopholes are exploited by those in a position to employ the legal and financial professionals.

goz83

djimi wrote: »

There is no deceit involved. Its not fraud. The system is there; they are simply exploiting it to their advantage.

Its not tax evasion; the way the law is worded is such that tax is not technically owed until the point at which it is paid. Its not like normal tax, say income tax, where the bill never goes away. If a car is in arrears with tax and the owner never attempts to pay tax on it then technically speaking the arrears are not owed. The owner can, of course, be prosecuted for driving without tax, but that is a seperate matter. Its why a car that is legitimately sold, written off or scrapped with expired tax does not incur a tax bill for the arrears for the owner.

Im not saying that it is morally right, and I fully agree that it is a loophole that needs to be closed. However, as it stands, it is just that - a loophole.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying and strictly speaking, in the words of the law, I know it constitutes not fraud, but rather exploitation. I just think that the law needs a bit of catching up to do. And even though the law does not see it as fraud (due to the wording at present), I see it as black and white fraudulent behaviour.

mgbgt1978

goz83 wrote: »

What the op is doing is fraudulent.

...and you obviously have loads of instances where people have had convictions for fraud :rolleyes:.

It's not Fraud. It's simply your opinion, which believe it or not has no legal standing.

Op if your parent's policy has much the same wording as described by Djimi why not transfer ownership into the other parents name for the purposes of keeping the car insured.

djimi

Im not trying to interpret any law. You can park a car on your driveway, untaxed and not declared off the road, for as long as you want, and you will not ever get a bill for outstanding tax, or a summons to court. If you sell/scrap said car, any arrears that would have been due should tax have been paid will disappear. This is the loophole that is being exploited currently.

djimi

goz83 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying and strictly speaking, in the words of the law, I know it constitutes not fraud, but rather exploitation. I just think that the law needs a bit of catching up to do. And even though the law does not see it as fraud (due to the wording at present), I see it as black and white fraudulent behaviour.

Dont get me wrong, I dont disagree with that, but legally its not fraud, and that is, as you rightly say, the loophole that needs to be closed.

Cerco

djimi wrote: »

Im not trying to interpret any law. You can park a car on your driveway, untaxed and not declared off the road, for as long as you want, and you will not ever get a bill for outstanding tax, or a summons to court. If you sell/scrap said car, any arrears that would have been due should tax have been paid will disappear. This is the loophole that is being exploited currently.

If the car is sold in a normal manner then that is fine. What the op is speaking about is a construction to avoid paying tax. This is different!
I would expect the insurance company might have a few questions too. If they sensed an attempt to defraud Revenue for such a small sum they might well refuse insurance.

djimi

Cerco wrote: »

If the car is sold in a normal manner then that is fine. What the op is speaking about is a construction to avoid paying tax. This is different!

How? Its a car that is passing from one owner to another.

Cerco wrote: »

I would expect the insurance company might have a few questions too. If they sensed an attempt to defraud Revenue for such a small sum they might well refuse insurance.

Im not sure that insurance can be refused for something like that, however the car not being registered in the name of the policy holder may well present an issue.

Cerco

djimi wrote: »

How? Its a car that is passing from one owner to another.



Im not sure that insurance can be refused for something like that, however the car not being registered in the name of the policy holder may well present an issue.

The purpose of the "sale" is to avoid paying the outstanding tax while effectively retaining the car.
Nobody likes paying tax but unfortunately it is a fact of life.

With regard to insurance refusal, they can refuse or they could set an inordinately high premium.
Do you not think they would view the individuals as high risk in behaving dishonestly wrt a claim, if they are prepared to engage in this dishonest behaviour. I am not taking a high moral ground here I just think the risks involved are to great and the most sensible solution is to pay what is owed.

quadrifoglio verde

Cerco wrote: »

The purpose of the "sale" is to avoid paying the outstanding tax while effectively retaining the car.
Nobody likes paying tax but unfortunately it is a fact of life.

With regard to insurance refusal, they can refuse or they could set an inordinately high premium.
Do you not think they would view the individuals as high risk in behaving dishonestly wrt a claim, if they are prepared to engage in this dishonest behaviour. I am not taking a high moral ground here I just think the risks involved are to great and the most sensible solution is to pay what is owed.

And there is nothing legally wrong with "selling" the car in order to avoid paying the tax.

goz83

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

...and you obviously have loads of instances where people have had convictions for fraud :rolleyes:.

It's not Fraud. It's simply your opinion, which believe it or not has no legal standing.

Op if your parent's policy has much the same wording as described by Djimi why not transfer ownership into the other parents name for the purposes of keeping the car insured.

The post you quoted, i said "fraudulent behaviour", so i had corrected what i was saying. And yes, I know of a number of people who were convicted for fraud. I reported some of them, but it was not motor related. Your sarcasm was most helpful, thanks.


I would also suspect that the OP would not be informing, or have his parents inform the insurer of the change of ownership of the vehicle. This,
I believe is fraud, because a change in the insured details has taken place without the insurer being notified.

Cerco

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

And there is nothing legally wrong with "selling" the car in order to avoid paying the tax.

I note you retained my quotes ie " selling" but you omitted the phrase "retaining the car".

djimi

Cerco wrote: »

The purpose of the "sale" is to avoid paying the outstanding tax while effectively retaining the car.
Nobody likes paying tax but unfortunately it is a fact of life.

And in doing so they are not breaking any law. Hence the loophole.

Cerco wrote: »

With regard to insurance refusal, they can refuse or they could set an inordinately high premium.
Do you not think they would view the individuals as high risk in behaving dishonestly wrt a claim, if they are prepared to engage in this dishonest behaviour. I am not taking a high moral ground here I just think the risks involved are to great and the most sensible solution is to pay what is owed.

I think that the only way that insurance will concern themselves is if, in the event of a claim, they discover that the policy holder is not the registered owner of the car.

If the policy holder were to be convicted of a legal offence then that would also concern them. They will not be convicted of anything however for transferring ownership of a car for this purpose.

quadrifoglio verde

Cerco wrote: »

I note you retained my quotes ie " selling" but you omitted the phrase "retaining the car".

Department of transport don't care if you sell a car to someone and buy it back a week later. That that someone may happen to reside at the same address as you makes no bearing on it.

There's a loophole in the law. Loopholes get exploited until they close up. If you want the loophole closed faster I'd advise you to write to your local fg td to raise the matter with the minister for the environment.

hoodie6029

I vote that these threads go the same way as the fog light threads - instant lock.
This subject has been done to death at this stage.
Moral or not you can avoid tax arrears by switching ownership.
Personally, I'd prefer the Gardaí spend their time catching fraudsters swindling vulnerable people out of their life savings than some skinflint trying to avoid 6 months tax on an 1.6 avensis.

corktina

djimi wrote: »

There is no deceit involved. Its not fraud. The system is there; they are simply exploiting it to their advantage.

Its not tax evasion; the way the law is worded is such that tax is not technically owed until the point at which it is paid. Its not like normal tax, say income tax, where the bill never goes away. If a car is in arrears with tax and the owner never attempts to pay tax on it then technically speaking the arrears are not owed. The owner can, of course, be prosecuted for driving without tax, but that is a seperate matter. Its why a car that is legitimately sold, written off or scrapped with expired tax does not incur a tax bill for the arrears for the owner.

Im not saying that it is morally right, and I fully agree that it is a loophole that needs to be closed. However, as it stands, it is just that - a loophole.

It is without doubt fraud if the car isn't actually changing hands and has been used in the untaxed period. There is a loophole here which could be exploied if the car genuinely had been off the road and a SORD was forgotten , but if it was used and is still going to be owned in reality, and used by the original owners, the tax should be paid.

The legal principle I believe, is Mens Rea...Guilty mind. Definitely some guilty minds involved here.

mgbgt1978

goz83 wrote: »

I would have to respectfully disagree and say that it is fraud.

The post I quoted from said 'fraudulent' not 'fraudulent behaviour'.
That phrase was used by yourself in a post that was posted 1 minute prior to mine (obvious to anyone that I was typing as you were posting)
Above is another post where your stance seems quite firm.


As for people with fraud convictions, I was of course referring to convictions for fraud in relation to changing car ownership to negate arrears.
As you obviously cannot name anybody with a conviction for fraud in relation to the matter discussed here perhaps any sarcasm was well founded.

In fact, you later decided that this is not fraud, but exploitation. Does this indicate that you are now making up the legislation in this country as you go along ???

Accept it....it's not Fraud. Simple as that. We can only comply with the law as it stands.
At present there is absolutely nothing wrong with somebody transferring ownership of a vehicle in order to negate any arrears.

djimi

corktina wrote: »

It is without doubt fraud if the car isn't actually changing hands and has been used in the untaxed period. There is a loophole here which could be exploied if the car genuinely had been off the road and a SORD was forgotten , but if it was used and is still going to be owned in reality, and used by the original owners, the tax should be paid.

Does it say anywhere in law that the registered owner must be the principle driver? For insurance purposes that might be the case, but that is a seperate matter.

goz83

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

The post I quoted from said 'fraudulent' not 'fraudulent behaviour'.

Correct. I made a mistake when I was responding to the quote. But "fraudulent behaviour" was clearly implied in the relevant post.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

That phrase was used by yourself in a post that was posted 1 minute prior to mine (obvious to anyone that I was typing as you were posting)
Above is another post where your stance seems quite firm.

It was 2 minutes according to the record

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

As for people with fraud convictions, I was of course referring to convictions for fraud in relation to changing car ownership to negate arrears.
As you obviously cannot name anybody with a conviction for fraud in relation to the matter discussed here perhaps any sarcasm was well founded.

You made no distinction as to what type of fraud you were referring to. I answered the question and then made the distinction myself. The sarcasm was not well founded. It was just ignorant and attempted to undermine what I was saying, even though I had not yet engaged with you on this thread.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

In fact, you later decided that this is not fraud, but exploitation. Does this indicate that you are now making up the legislation in this country as you go along ???

In fact, you are wrong and it shows that you are just picking meanings that suit your argument. I specifically said
[QUOTE/]Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying and strictly speaking, in the words of the law, I know it constitutes not fraud, but rather exploitation. I just think that the law needs a bit of catching up to do. And even though the law does not see it as fraud (due to the wording at present), I see it as black and white fraudulent behaviour.[/QUOTE]
So, there is no indication of me making up anything, but I do have my opinion as to what is fraudulent, even if the law has no penalty for the type of fraud mentioned in the op.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Accept it....it's not Fraud. Simple as that. We can only comply with the law as it stands.
At present there is absolutely nothing wrong with somebody transferring ownership of a vehicle in order to negate any arrears.

No. It is fraud. Just not the type of fraud with a legal ramification yet. We can do more than comply with the law. We can try live honestly and not encourage people to do dishonest things, just because it's not illegal. There is nothing legally wrong with what the OP is doing and your attitude is indicative that you have, or would do the same.

mgbgt1978

goz83 wrote: »

What the op is doing is fraudulent.

goz83 wrote: »

I would have to respectfully disagree and say that it is fraud. Tax evasion in my opinion.

'Avoidance' possibly, but definitely not 'evasion. Big distinction as I'm sure you're aware.

goz83 wrote: »

I see what you're saying and strictly speaking, in the words of the law, I know it constitutes not fraud, but rather exploitation.

We've gone from 'fraudulent' to 'not fraud'....sure that's what I've said all along

goz83 wrote: »

It was 2 minutes according to the record

12:58 and 12:59 are the times shown. Pretty sure that's one minute....:P


Anyway, must go now. Too many High Horses attempting to bully the rest of us into believing something that's just not true.

PaddyFagan

More interestingly to my mind - if the value of the car exceeds 3k, revenue can pursue you for 33% of the value as gift tax - might prove entertaining! http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/cat/gift-inheritance.html

Paddy

goz83

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

'Avoidance' possibly, but definitely not 'evasion. Big distinction as I'm sure you're aware.

I said that it was evasion in my opinion, not the laws. Though the law is blind.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

We've gone from 'fraudulent' to 'not fraud'....sure that's what I've said all along

Again. I specifically said "not fraud" in the wording of the law. So, fraudulent still stands.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

12:58 and 12:59 are the times shown. Pretty sure that's one minute....:P

I'm on the phone, got someone elses post quoted as mine mixed up

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Anyway, must go now. Too many High Horses attempting to bully the rest of us into believing something that's just not true.

I gotta go too. But I had a little extra time, because I wasn't pretending to sell my car in order to get out of paying car tax the rest us pay. I'm sure it was a proud moment for the OPs parents when he figured out how to screw the system out of a few euro. Classy stuff.

mgbgt1978

goz83 wrote: »

Seems to me like this advice is often given to people to evade tax. What the op is doing is fraudulent. Sorry to be on the HH here, but it seems they just didn't pay their car tax for a period of time, while still having insurance and use of the car. In my view, that's wrong. If they were not using the car, it should have been declared OTR. Maybe tell your parents to pay their tax rather than finding fraudulent ways to evade it.

goz83 wrote: »

I said that it was evasion in my opinion, not the laws. Though the law is blind.

No mention of the words 'in my opinion' here........
Some people try to give correct advice in the motors forum (whether you , or others, agree with it or not). It might not always suit those who are convinced they are on the moral high ground.

Others come here and simply try to shove their opinion down people's throats....doesn't make them right, even when they attempt to soften their opinion and claim that that's not quite what was meant.

As it stands anyone is entitled to change ownership of a vehicle and this will negate any Motor Tax arrears....that is the law. If anyone would like to think that this is illegal,a form of tax evasion, immoral, fraudulent, etc. that is only their own opinion and has no bearing on the OP's question.

He asked a question.
He was told that changing ownership will negate the arrears.
Nothing illegal was suggested.
End of story.

goz83

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

No mention of the words 'in my opinion' here........

Taken from post #9

goz83 wrote: »

Granted, there is no law to stop people from transferring ownership of a car to one person and then back to themselves. But that's why I suggested the loophole needs to be closed. Otherwise, we are just back to the old days of not taxing the car for a few months, filling out a form and getting away with it, no penalty at all. Tax evasion in my opinion.

Less of the skim reading could help.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Some people try to give correct advice in the motors forum (whether you , or others, agree with it or not). It might not always suit those who are convinced they are on the moral high ground.

Well, i'm just not one to tell people how to get away with what is deceitful, even if it is lawful.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Others come here and simply try to shove their opinion down people's throats....doesn't make them right, even when they attempt to soften their opinion and claim that that's not quite what was meant.

And others like to think that only their opinion matter, while forgetting the points others were actually making. Perhaps because they too behave in a deceitful, but lawful way. That's just conjecture though.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

As it stands anyone is entitled to change ownership of a vehicle and this will negate any Motor Tax arrears....that is the law. If anyone would like to think that this is illegal,a form of tax evasion, immoral, fraudulent, etc. that is only their own opinion and has no bearing on the OP's question.

Your wording here is quite deliberately misleading to what the op was about. Yes, it's legal to change ownership of a vehicle and it doesn't even have to mean that money exchanged hands. But, the reason in the op case is deceitful and anyone with an ounce of decency would not even try to argue against that. And IN MY OPINION (maybe you'll remember that one) it is a form of evading tax (which is not lawfully due at that time due to legal wording), it is behaving in a fraudulent way and it is immoral.

I myself take steps to avoid paying as much tax as I do, but it's all done legally AND morally in my view. I wouldn't transfer my business to a new owner (family member) once a year, just to avoid paying higher taxes, by availing of the benefits given to a business in the first year. But, it is legal to do so. I wouldn't set up a new trading name and open a new business account every 2 years to get the free business online banking, which costs €360 a year. But, it is legal to do so. There are plenty of legal things I could do, which I believe to me wrong. I said it before. If the law is all we have to live by and use as our shield whenever we do something questionable, then it's a pretty lame argument (in my opinion).

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

He asked a question.
He was told that changing ownership will negate the arrears.
Nothing illegal was suggested.
End of story.

Yeah. He came to boards and was told how he could legally laugh in the face of everyone else who actually pays their road tax. This, even though ownership hasn't actually changed from the parents of the OP, who continue to be insured on a car, that is not at this time, legally their car. Good stuff there.

mgbgt1978

goz83 wrote: »

Seems to me like this advice is often given to people to evade tax. What the op is doing is fraudulent.

Taken from post #6....which, if I'm not mistaken, would be well before post #9.

When making a bold statement without any legislation to back it up there is little point in coming back several posts later and saying that it was really just your opinion or belief.
If it was then state that in the original post.
You cannot accuse somebody of evading tax or commiting fraud when they are doing nothing of the sort.
What you might believe is your business and has no basis in Irish Law.

If you feel that the current situation with regards to motor tax is either wrong or immoral I suggest you contact your TD rather than wrongly accuse somebody of committing a crime.

visual

The motor tax system is wrong and immoral so if someone finds a loop hole fair play to them

goz83

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Taken from post #6....which, if I'm not mistaken, would be well before post #9.

When making a bold statement without any legislation to back it up there is little point in coming back several posts later and saying that it was really just your opinion or belief.
If it was then state that in the original post.
You cannot accuse somebody of evading tax or commiting fraud when they are doing nothing of the sort.
What you might believe is your business and has no basis in Irish Law.

If you feel that the current situation with regards to motor tax is either wrong or immoral I suggest you contact your TD rather than wrongly accuse somebody of committing a crime.

Haha. We are in the motors forum, not the legal forum. And when you said "no mention of (in my opinion)", it had already been stated "well before" your statement that I said no such thing (in post 32) so your post on that point was irrelevant and now you're just nit picking and back tracking.

Most of what is said on forums is someones opinion. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact (in my opinion :P). Did you know that most laws start with an opinion? That opinion gets recognition and then may become the law of the land.

goz83

goz83 wrote: »

Seems to me like this advice is often given to people to evade tax. What the op is doing is fraudulent. Sorry to be on the HH here, but it seems they just didn't pay their car tax for a period of time, while still having insurance and use of the car. In my view, that's wrong. If they were not using the car, it should have been declared OTR. Maybe tell your parents to pay their tax rather than finding fraudulent ways to evade it.

They need to update the system to close this loophole. If backtax is owed, it should not carry to the new owner, but if the old owner suddenly becomes the owner again within a 6-12 month period, the backtax should then become due again.

Yawn, it never ceases to amaze me how anal some people can be when it comes to rules, especially when there is money to be saved. Life must be tough keeping every single rule and regulation.

PaddyFagan wrote: »

More interestingly to my mind - if the value of the car exceeds 3k, revenue can pursue you for 33% of the value as gift tax - might prove entertaining! http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/cat/gift-inheritance.html

Paddy

It would be considered loan as it being signed back would constitute repayment. In anycase there is an exemption on gift tax up to around 200k between parents and their children.

goz83

Yusuf Fluffy Scavenger wrote: »

Yawn, it never ceases to amaze me how anal some people can be when it comes to rules, especially when there is money to be saved.

Clearly you're easily amazed aswell as obnoxious.

filbert the fox

Ladi daw..

Same ol' same ol'.

the fact that everyone powers their vehicle with fuel should encourage a fairer system by piggybacking the car tax onto the price of a litre.

mgbgt1978

filbert the fox wrote: »

the fact that everyone powers their vehicle with fuel should encourage a fairer system by piggybacking the car tax onto the price of a litre.

Ah, you can't let the Leaf Driver's off scot free.:)

filbert the fox

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Ah, you can't let the Leaf Driver's off scot free.:)

Now mgbgt1978 you know as well as I do that the oul' electric doesn't come free.....

or do you know better?

TheCoolWay

can you still do this