General knowledge question

thejourney

Two questions of general interest came up last night in Pub, Not asking for advice.

There is no set price on a house in Ireland ?

Ireland is a Free market. Correct?

The market sets the price. what the buyer is willing to pay...correct?


Billy could play his son Jim in a game of cards. If Jim wins, he gets the family house. There is no tax on gambling. So Jim does not pay tax...Correct?

Penguin3029

Stamp duty taxes documents, not gambling. So, the transfer of the house would be a stampable conveyance and charged at the higher of either the market value or the consideration.

So, there would be tax. Could also be gift tax implications for transferring it undervalue. Doesn't matter it came from a game of cards, particularly since the two are connected.

_Brian

Are we talking poker or 25 ?

Steve

Death and taxes are the only guaranteed things in this country.

As Penguin said, tax is on market value, not sale value.

adrianw

thejourney wrote: »

Two questions of general interest came up last night in Pub, Not asking for advice.

There is no set price on a house in Ireland ?

Ireland is a Free market. Correct?

The market sets the price. what the buyer is willing to pay...correct?


Billy could play his son Jim in a game of cards. If Jim wins, he gets the family house. There is no tax on gambling. So Jim does not pay tax...Correct?

This type of question has been asked before.
Ignoring other taxes other than CAT, this may work if Billy and Jim are professional gamblers, have a history of gambling amounts of this size and other strangers were involved in the game.
If billy and jim work in 9-5 jobs and the only history of gambling is a €5 bet on Cheltenham once a year, the legitmacy of this bet may be difficult to argue with Revenue.

thejourney

Steve wrote: »

Death and taxes are the only guaranteed things in this country.

As Penguin said, tax is on market value, not sale value.

But who determines the market value. If he held an auction the house could sell for any price....correct?


Also there is no tax on gamblingin ireland. therefore there is no tax as he can sign the deeds and give him the keys that night...correct?

Beasty

adrianw wrote: »

This type of question has been asked before.
Ignoring other taxes other than CAT, this may work if Billy and Jim are professional gamblers, have a history of gambling amounts of this size and other strangers were involved in the game.
If billy and jim work in 9-5 jobs and the only history of gambling is a €5 bet on Cheltenham once a year, the legitmacy of this bet may be difficult to argue with Revenue.

If they were professional gamblers they could end up paying income tax on their gambling profits

thejourney

adrianw wrote: »

This type of question has been asked before.
Ignoring other taxes other than CAT, this may work if Billy and Jim are professional gamblers, have a history of gambling amounts of this size and other strangers were involved in the game.
If billy and jim work in 9-5 jobs and the only history of gambling is a €5 bet on Cheltenham once a year, the legitmacy of this bet may be difficult to argue with Revenue.

Now we are getting somewhere. If there was a lawyer and and an accountant present during the game. And it was record on live stream?

Penguin3029

Market value is open market, ie genuine, arm's length sale. Estate agents and valuers can value it fairly and independently.

See above about stamp duty being a tax on documents, ie signing that deed.

thejourney

Beasty wrote: »

If they were professional gamblers they could end up paying income tax on their gambling profits

what about if jim became an artist....he does not pay income tax

Penguin3029

Artists exemption is only for income from art, eg books, music, etc. Max is €50,000 exempt in a year. It's not a complete exemption.

thejourney

Penguin3029 wrote: »

Market value is open market, ie genuine, arm's length sale. Estate agents and valuers can value it fairly and independently.

See above about stamp duty being a tax on documents, ie signing that deed.

but that only 1%..correct ?

thejourney

Penguin3029 wrote: »

Artists exemption is only for income from art, eg books, music, etc. Max is €50,000 exempt in a year. It's not a complete exemption.

Ok, So Bono does pay tax? My bad:(


So with witnessess ( accountant & lawyer) . The game was recored on live stream. All documents were in place. No drink or drugs invloved.

There would be no tax on the winnings

Steve

thejourney wrote: »

There would be no tax on the winnings

Income tax / CAT and stamp duty are not the same.

Exemption from one does not mean exemption from all.

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

Two questions of general interest came up last night in Pub, Not asking for advice.

There is no set price on a house in Ireland ?

Ireland is a Free market. Correct?

The market sets the price. what the buyer is willing to pay...correct?


Billy could play his son Jim in a game of cards. If Jim wins, he gets the family house. There is no tax on gambling. So Jim does not pay tax...Correct?

What's Jim staking, in the event that he loses??

Anyway the answer to your question is quite simple, as others have pointed out, unless these 2 gentlemen were quite wealthy and accustomed to very high stakes gambling, there's absolutely no way Revenue would entertain the notion that this was a bona fide betting transaction.

If nothing else, they would invoke the general anti avoidance provisions in section 811 TCA 1997, although seeing as a bet isn't legally enforceable in Ireland I'd say they could simply assert the bet means nothing and ignore it anyway, without necessarily invoking section 811...

thejourney

barneystinson wrote: »

What's Jim staking, in the event that he loses??

Anyway the answer to your question is quite simple, as others have pointed out, unless these 2 gentlemen were quite wealthy and accustomed to very high stakes gambling, there's absolutely no way Revenue would entertain the notion that this was a bona fide betting transaction.

If nothing else, they would invoke the general anti avoidance provisions in section 811 TCA 1997, although seeing as a bet isn't legally enforceable in Ireland I'd say they could simply assert the bet means nothing and ignore it anyway, without necessarily invoking section 811...

Ok, Yeah, so lets say that they were wealth. As wealth people have money as wealth families have money and own property.The son could have money. How can the revenue prove they don't bet regular in high stake games. Its not talked about. There is no way revenue could prove that in Court?

seeing as a bet isn't legally enforceable in Ireland...So paddy power does not have to pay when they lose?

So an oral agreement made on camera and signed in writting in front of an accountant and lawyer at a card game is not legal?

U sure?

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

Ok, Yeah, so lets say that they were wealth. As wealth people have money as wealth families have money and own property.The son could have money. How can the revenue prove they don't bet regular in high stake games. Its not talked about. There is no way revenue could prove that in Court?

seeing as a bet isn't legally enforceable in Ireland...So paddy power does not have to pay when they lose?

So an oral agreement made on camera and signed in writting in front of an accountant and lawyer at a card game is not legal?

U sure?

Yep I'm sure.

Firstly, its not up to Revenue to prove anything; if they raise a tax assessment it's up to the individual appealing against their tax assessment to satisfy the appeal commissioners or the courts, that the assessment is wrong.

Seeing as they had a "lawyer" and an accountant present at, and indeed recorded, this particular card game, and since your argument is that there's nothing unusual about this particular card game, they should have a whole gallery of similar recordings of their other high stakes card games... and hence lots of other similar large movements of money and assets... lifestyles of the rich and famous eh!

Re Paddy Power, you're absolutely right, but can you guess what happens if / when they start choosing not to honour bets... hint: they're out of business within days, if not hours.

And please, don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say whether or not a bet is legal - frankly I don't know whether it is legal or not, whatever that even means in this context. I said a bet is not legally enforceable, and that is very important, because in this highly contrived situation that you're proposing it means one person is choosing to transfer valuable property to a relative.

thejourney

barneystinson wrote: »

Yep I'm sure.

Firstly, its not up to Revenue to prove anything; if they raise a tax assessment it's up to the individual appealing against their tax assessment to satisfy the appeal commissioners or the courts, that the assessment is wrong.

Seeing as they had a "lawyer" and an accountant present at, and indeed recorded, this particular card game, and since your argument is that there's nothing unusual about this particular card game, they should have a whole gallery of similar recordings of their other high stakes card games... and hence lots of other similar large movements of money and assets... lifestyles of the rich and famous eh!

Re Paddy Power, you're absolutely right, but can you guess what happens if / when they start choosing not to honour bets... hint: they're out of business within days, if not hours.

And please, don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say whether or not a bet is legal - frankly I don't know whether it is legal or not, whatever that even means in this context. I said a bet is not legally enforceable, and that is very important, because in this highly contrived situation that you're proposing it means one person is choosing to transfer valuable property to a relative.

So we both agree this is possible but a grey area of the law?

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

So we both agree this is possible but a grey area of the law?

Ehhhhhhhhm, no we absolutely do not agree.

There is no "loophole" here. If you do what you're proposing Revenue absolutely will not accept it and will treat the property transfer as the gift that it is.

And you won't find any reputable professional accountant or solicitor (or even lawyer, if you're willing to fly one in) who'd be willing to be a party to the sham.

Good old pub talk... best left there where it belongs though...!

thejourney

barneystinson wrote: »

Ehhhhhhhhm, no we absolutely do not agree.

There is no "loophole" here. If you do what you're proposing Revenue absolutely will not accept it and will treat the property transfer as the gift that it is.

And you won't find any reputable professional accountant or solicitor (or even lawyer, if you're willing to fly one in) who'd be willing to be a party to the sham.

Good old pub talk... best left there where it belongs though...!

So the only answer is to move abroad?

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

So the only answer is to move abroad?

Where did I say that?

Were you in the pub again tonight....?!?:o

thejourney

barneystinson wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Were you in the pub again tonight....?!?:o

hahaha:D gas man barney. I never said that

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

hahaha:D gas man barney. I never said that

thejourney wrote: »

Two questions of general interest came up last night in Pub

?

thejourney

barneystinson wrote: »

?

I had a few earlier alright. But my facts are right

CIARAN_BOYLE

thejourney wrote: »

Ok, So Bono does pay tax? My bad:(

Bono pays tax on his income in Ireland and probably more tax a year than you do in your life.

However some on U2s business is tax resident in Netherlands to benefit from a lower rate of tax. When Bono extracts income from that business he pays tax in Ireland.

Peregrinus

thejourney wrote: »

So the only answer is to move abroad?

How would that help? if the property being transferred is situated in Ireland, then CAT applies, regardless of whether either the donor or the donee is resident here.

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

I had a few earlier alright. But my facts are right

What facts? All I see you posting are unsubstantiated opinions...

relax carry on

God this and the OP's other threads relating to taxation are like watching a car crash. OP, tax and tax law can be a very complex area. If you are actually contemplating some sort of property transaction , get some professional advice, otherwise I think even a trainee would go to town on whatever scam you are contemplating.

Peregrinus

The question really comes down to; is the transaction a genuine bet? As barneystinson points out, the Revenue don't have to prove that it isn't; they just assess it on the basis that it isn't and its then up to the taxpayer to challenge the assessment. Far from helping thejourney's case, the involvement of lawyers, accountants, signed and witnessed documents, etc, etc make the transaction look less like a bet and more like, well, a property transaction.

But there's a bigger problem. The exemption that you'd be chasing arises under Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 s. 82(1)(c), which provides an exemption from CAT for "the receipt by a person of any sum bona fide by means of winnings from betting". Up to know the discussion has mostly focussed on whether this transaction is a bona fide bet - it certainly doesn't look like one. But is the family home a "sum"? I think not. CAT is charged on gifts, and a gift can be a gift of any kind of property, but the betting exemption only covers the receipt of a "sum". So the gift of any property which is not a "sum" - like a house, for example - is not within the exemption.

So, either way, I think you're stuffed. I don't think you'll persuade the Revenue, or a court, that this a bona fide bet. But, even if you do, there is no exemption for a house transferred in settlement of a bet; only for a "sum".

barneystinson

I can picture TheJourney at home this evening, swigging his way through a 6-pack of his favourite tipple (aka "brain food"), in advance of further reiteration of the "facts"...

thejourney

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question really comes down to; is the transaction a genuine bet? As barneystinson points out, the Revenue don't have to prove that it isn't; they just assess it on the basis that it isn't and its then up to the taxpayer to challenge the assessment. Far from helping thejourney's case, the involvement of lawyers, accountants, signed and witnessed documents, etc, etc make the transaction look less like a bet and more like, well, a property transaction.

But there's a bigger problem. The exemption that you'd be chasing arises under Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 s. 82(1)(c), which provides an exemption from CAT for "the receipt by a person of any sum bona fide by means of winnings from betting". Up to know the discussion has mostly focussed on whether this transaction is a bona fide bet - it certainly doesn't look like one. But is the family home a "sum"? I think not. CAT is charged on gifts, and a gift can be a gift of any kind of property, but the betting exemption only covers the receipt of a "sum". So the gift of any property which is not a "sum" - like a house, for example - is not within the exemption.

So, either way, I think you're stuffed. I don't think you'll persuade the Revenue, or a court, that this a bona fide bet. But, even if you do, there is no exemption for a house transferred in settlement of a bet; only for a "sum".

Very Good reply. We are getting closer.


So if the father sells the house and keeps the money in January. He then puts a be on with his son that if waterford lose the all Ireland, he'll pay him him 400,000 thousand. However if longford win he must pay the father 400,000. The write down the bet on sign.

The father loses the bet and pay the son 400,000 to honour the bet. The son pays no tax on his winnings under the law

The father then writes of the lose of 400,000 against his income of 100,000 at the end of the tax year

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

Very Good reply. We are getting closer.


So if the father sells the house and keeps the money in January. He then puts a be on with his son that if waterford lose the all Ireland, he'll pay him him 400,000 thousand. However if longford win he must pay the father 400,000. The write down the bet on sign.

The father loses the bet and pay the son 400,000 to honour the bet. The son pays no tax on his winnings under the law

The father then writes of the lose of 400,000 against his income of 100,000 at the end of the tax year

God loves a tryer!

The end of that story is inevitable: a couple of years later, the son ends up paying CAT plus interest and a penalty, while daddy has to pay a fine whack of income tax plus interest and a penalty...

Beasty

barneystinson wrote: »

God loves a tryer!

The end of that story is inevitable: a couple of years later, the son ends up paying CAT plus interest and a penalty, while daddy has to pay a fine whack of income tax plus interest and a penalty...

An alternative scenario is daddy has a heart attack when Revenue come knocking on his door. Taxman gets his income tax, plus interest and penalties. That reduces the value of the estate and saves quite a bit of inheritance tax - everyone wins!

Well, OK daddy's dead and son's inheritance is diminished, but more goes into the government coffers allowing them to pay a bit more towards hospitals and schools, so there are only two losers....


:pac:

Peregrinus

thejourney wrote: »

Very Good reply. We are getting closer.


So if the father sells the house and keeps the money in January. He then puts a be on with his son that if waterford lose the all Ireland, he'll pay him him 400,000 thousand. However if longford win he must pay the father 400,000. The write down the bet on sign.

The father loses the bet and pay the son 400,000 to honour the bet. The son pays no tax on his winnings under the law

The father then writes of the lose of 400,000 against his income of 100,000 at the end of the tax year

The father can't argue both that the transaction is a bet and that he is entitled to an income tax deduction for the amount he pays out on the bet. Just as gambling winnings are not assessable to income tax, so gambling losses are not deductible for income tax purposes.

In your new scenario, the house is irrelevant. The father has 400,000. The son has 400,000. They each purport to stake their 400,000 on a bet, the winder to collect the whole 800,000. Whichever one wins is 400,000 to the good. Is he assessbble to CAT on the basis of receiving a gift of 400,000?

The answer is no, provided the taxpayer got the 400,000 "bona fide by means of winnings from betting". The Revenue are going to look at all the circumstances to decide whether they will treat this as a bona fide bet. I don't think they will. This was an even money bet, but were both outcomes equally likely? Waterford are currently 13/2 with Paddy Power to win the All Ireland Hurling Final; no odds are quoted on Longford. No rational gambler would price the bet outlined in your post at 50:50, which strongly suggests that this is not a bona fide bet. A similar analysis applies if you assume the final referred to is football, not hurling.

(In fact, there's a second argument the Revenue could run here. Suppose the sport involved is football, and the bet is a straightforward one on Waterford winning the All-Ireland. In the betting market, you can get 5000/1. If I offer to enter into an even money bet with you, my willingness to make the bet is itself a valuable benefit to you, since you can make the bet with me, lay off the risk to yourself by making a counterbet with Paddy Power, and be guaranteed an enormous profit. I think the Revenue would have a pretty good go at seeking to bring into the charge to tax not the winnings on the bet, but the inherent value of the right to place a bet at such preferential odds.)

You also mention that the father "writes of the loss of 400,000 against his income of 100,000". The suggestion that a man with an income of 100,000 would place a bet of 400,000 is a surprising one; this is another factor which will lead the Revenue to conclude that this is not likely to be a bona fide bet.

So, for this to have any chance of working your bet has to look like a genuine bet, meaning that the stake and the odds must both be credible, having regard to the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the event on which the bet is placed.

thejourney

Peregrinus wrote: »

The father can't argue both that the transaction is a bet and that he is entitled to an income tax deduction for the amount he pays out on the bet. Just as gambling winnings are not assessable to income tax, so gambling losses are not deductible for income tax purposes.

In your new scenario, the house is irrelevant. The father has 400,000. The son has 400,000. They each purport to stake their 400,000 on a bet, the winder to collect the whole 800,000. Whichever one wins is 400,000 to the good. Is he assessbble to CAT on the basis of receiving a gift of 400,000?

The answer is no, provided the taxpayer got the 400,000 "bona fide by means of winnings from betting". The Revenue are going to look at all the circumstances to decide whether they will treat this as a bona fide bet. I don't think they will. This was an even money bet, but were both outcomes equally likely? Waterford are currently 13/2 with Paddy Power to win the All Ireland Hurling Final; no odds are quoted on Longford. No rational gambler would price the bet outlined in your post at 50:50, which strongly suggests that this is not a bona fide bet. A similar analysis applies if you assume the final referred to is football, not hurling.

(In fact, there's a second argument the Revenue could run here. Suppose the sport involved is football, and the bet is a straightforward one on Waterford winning the All-Ireland. In the betting market, you can get 5000/1. If I offer to enter into an even money bet with you, my willingness to make the bet is itself a valuable benefit to you, since you can make the bet with me, lay off the risk to yourself by making a counterbet with Paddy Power, and be guaranteed an enormous profit. I think the Revenue would have a pretty good go at seeking to bring into the charge to tax not the winnings on the bet, but the inherent value of the right to place a bet at such preferential odds.)

You also mention that the father "writes of the loss of 400,000 against his income of 100,000". The suggestion that a man with an income of 100,000 would place a bet of 400,000 is a surprising one; this is another factor which will lead the Revenue to conclude that this is not likely to be a bona fide bet.

So, for this to have any chance of working your bet has to look like a genuine bet, meaning that the stake and the odds must both be credible, having regard to the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the event on which the bet is placed.

Ok, Thanks for reply.

Or if the father was really smart he would just put the money in a new bank account AIB and give his son the bank card to use ;)

Peregrinus

Well, you can't really withdraw 400,000 on a bank card. Not unless you give up your job and spend your days walking from cash machine to cash machien.

But, yeah, paying money to someone via a bank account - whether it's his account or yours - is no different from handing him a suitcase full of banknotes. They are all gifts, and they will all be taxable, or not, on the same terms.

Assuming there are no other gifts or inheritances that need to be taken into account, the father can gift the son 310,000 without the son incurring any liability to gift tax.

They can either suck up the gift tax liability on the remaining 90,000, or they can try to structure things that so that it comes within one or other of the exemptions/reliefs available. If the son is under 18, or is under 25 and in full-time education, or is incapacitated, reasonable amounts by way of support, maintenance and education are exempt. 3,000 a year is exempt under the small gift exemption. And so forth.

thejourney

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you can't really withdraw 400,000 on a bank card. Not unless you give up your job and spend your days walking from cash machine to cash machien.

But, yeah, paying money to someone via a bank account - whether it's his account or yours - is no different from handing him a suitcase full of banknotes. They are all gifts, and they will all be taxable, or not, on the same terms.

Assuming there are no other gifts or inheritances that need to be taken into account, the father can gift the son 310,000 without the son incurring any liability to gift tax.

They can either suck up the gift tax liability on the remaining 90,000, or they can try to structure things that so that it comes within one or other of the exemptions/reliefs available. If the son is under 18, or is under 25 and in full-time education, or is incapacitated, reasonable amounts by way of support, maintenance and education are exempt. 3,000 a year is exempt under the small gift exemption. And so forth.

I never said with draw all a once. But for daily expenses like holiday booking, paying for food and all that kind of stuff

So let say he gives 310,000 tax free and then just lets his son use his bank card to buy stuff and withdraw cash a machine

CIARAN_BOYLE

thejourney wrote: »

I never said with draw all a once. But for daily expenses like holiday booking, paying for food and all that kind of stuff

So let say he gives 310,000 tax free and then just lets his son use his bank card to buy stuff and withdraw cash a machine

Well that's a gift. It's therefore taxable under c.a.t.

Probably happens regularly without people declaring it but it would be illegal.

thejourney

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well that's a gift. It's therefore taxable under c.a.t.

Probably happens regularly without people declaring it but it would be illegal.

Yes, I agree its a grey area but not illegal, but rather a loop hole.

Loopholes are not illegal, they are grey areas

Its happens but no one can prove it

CIARAN_BOYLE

thejourney wrote: »

Yes, I agree its a grey area but not illegal, but rather a loop hole.

Loopholes are not illegal, they are grey areas

Its happens but no one can prove it

It's not a loophole. It's an illegal act that is difficult to prove. I could murder someone tonight and dispose of the body in a way that leaves no evidence. The fact that there's no evidence doesn't mean it's not illegal. It's illegal not a loophole.

Secondly don't underestimate the ability of Revenue to bring someone up for audit based on the most innocuous of reasons.

There are people who have been brought for audit and a case has been successfully pushed on them with Revenue's initial evidence being that the person paid motor tax on a car that was too expensive for their level of earnings to make sense.

thejourney

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It's not a loophole. It's an illegal act that is difficult to prove. I could murder someone tonight and dispose of the body in a way that leaves no evidence. The fact that there's no evidence doesn't mean it's not illegal. It's illegal not a loophole.

Secondly don't underestimate the ability of Revenue to bring someone up for audit based on the most innocuous of reasons.

There are people who have been brought for audit and a case has been successfully pushed on them with Revenue's initial evidence being that the person paid motor tax on a car that was too expensive for their level of earnings to make sense.

Can a husband give his wife 1,000,000 euros and pay not CGT?

No CGT between married couples, They don't even have to tell revenue they are moving the money?

No need to declare as it does not reach the 90% theshold ?

CIARAN_BOYLE

thejourney wrote: »

Can a husband give his wife 1,000,000 euros and pay not CGT?

No CGT between married couples, They don't even have to tell revenue they are moving the money?

No need to declare as it does not reach the 90% theshold ?

CGT doesn't apply to gifts at all. Perhaps you mean CAT.

Gifts between Spouses are exempt for CAT.

barneystinson

thejourney wrote: »

Yes, I agree its a grey area but not illegal, but rather a loop hole.

Loopholes are not illegal, they are grey areas

Its happens but no one can prove it

Yeah you clearly have good knowledge of tax and law, NOT!!

You're right that loopholes aren't illegal, but you're understanding of what constitutes a loophole is waaaaaaaay off. I hope for your sake you haven't been actually exploiting any (of your version of) loopholes, because you stand a good chance of having huge problems with Revenue down the line.

thejourney

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

CGT doesn't apply to gifts at all. Perhaps you mean CAT.

Gifts between Spouses are exempt for CAT.

Yeah, I mean CAT.

So no need to declare then?

thejourney

barneystinson wrote: »

Yeah you clearly have good knowledge of tax and law, NOT!!

You're right that loopholes aren't illegal, but you're understanding of what constitutes a loophole is waaaaaaaay off. I hope for your sake you haven't been actually exploiting any (of your version of) loopholes, because you stand a good chance of having huge problems with Revenue down the line.

No, I have always paid my taxes to Revenue. But that does not stop me from looking for loopholes.

Its up to Revenue to close the loopholes and for us to look for more.

Beasty

thejourney wrote: »

No, I have always paid my taxes to Revenue. But that does not stop me from looking for loopholes.

Its up to Revenue to close the loopholes and for us to look for more.

I think you can safely assume you attempts to find a loophole here has failed. I think you can also safely assume the opportunities out there that offer tax breaks that are not susceptible to challenge are likely to be the ones actively promoted by government.

Trying to find "unintended" loopholes has been an industry for some time, and any such opportunities have diminished significantly. Those that may remain are likely to be exploited by those who can pay for the best advice, and certainly not the sort of information you can pick up from an internet chatroom.

However if you do think you've discovered a loophole yourself I suspect others will have been there before and either decided not to pursue something because it's considered too risky or alternatively found themselves trying to defend what they have done. Of course, it can be quite entertaining for onlookers when the details of some of these "schemes" come into the public domain, perhaps on the back of someone appealing a Revenue decision and finding themselves paying back the tax plus interest and penalties for good measure.

Peregrinus

thejourney wrote: »

Yeah, I mean CAT.

So no need to declare then?

Correct, no need to declare gifts between spouses.

That's not a "loophole", though. It's not an accident or an oversight that gifts between spouses are exempt; it's intentional.

If a gift does have to be declared and the parties fail to declare it, that's not a "loophole" or a "grey area" either. The parties are just engaged in tax evasion, which is a crime.

Mr. Incognito

I could spend a lot of time telling you how you are wrong but it would be a waste of my time.

You should open a tax consultants and sell your fantastic loop holes.

Revenue have 100 years of experience of dealing with "loop holes" and grey areas dreamed up by lads down the pub, some of them even smarter than you. Imagine!

They are all closed. The ones that arent qualified tax consultants sell.

thejourney

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I could spend a lot of time telling you how you are wrong but it would be a waste of my time.

You should open a tax consultants and sell your fantastic loop holes.

Revenue have 100 years of experience of dealing with "loop holes" and grey areas dreamed up by lads down the pub, some of them even smarter than you. Imagine!

They are all closed. The ones that arent qualified tax consultants sell.

Ok, Can you recommend a good tax consultant in Ireland?

Or are those guys just a waste of money or do they have some special knowledge?

Peregrinus

No, there are seriously good tax consultants out there who will help you arrange your affairs in ways that legally and effectively minimise your tax liability.

None of them will advise you to try and characterise the gift of a house to your child as a gambling transaction, though. None of them will recommend any arrangement in which you have to be coy, evasive or misleading in your dealings with the Revenue. Gambits which require being less than upfront have a high risk of failure, for obvious reasons. The best tax strategies are entirely open and transparent.

thejourney

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, there are seriously good tax consultants out there who will help you arrange your affairs in ways that legally and effectively minimise your tax liability.

None of them will advise you to try and characterise the gift of a house to your child as a gambling transaction, though. None of them will recommend any arrangement in which you have to be coy, evasive or misleading in your dealings with the Revenue. Gambits which require being less than upfront have a high risk of failure, for obvious reasons. The best tax strategies are entirely open and transparent.

I agree. When in dout take it out