Civil partners and PPR

Civil partners and PPR

Didn't find your answer?

Can someone point me to where in the legislation it says that a couple who are living together as husband and wife, but who are not married, are still only entitled to one PPR between them.

Many thanks

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By carnmores
12th Jun 2013 15:57

where did you get that from

its 2 surely ? even if one is rented out and subject to restriction or are yuo after 2 PPR s on the same property

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By KarenCCarr
12th Jun 2013 16:05

I am assuming only one is available and that is the argument in Llewellyn v HMRC  http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02726.html 

So do you get two with couple who are living together as husband and wife?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By taxhound
12th Jun 2013 16:09

Only true if they are married

A married couple (including CPs) can only have one main residence between them, but for unmarried couples, there is no such restriction as far as I am aware.

http://hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cgmanual/CG64525.htm

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Soper
12th Jun 2013 16:20

Misleading question

If they are civil partners their status is exactly the same as if they are married, they would simply be of the same gender. As they are clearly not of the same gender I suspect you are referring to the misnomer of the 'common law' marriage which does not exist at all. One residence each provided that each has occupied the property sufficiently for it to be classed as a residence.

 

In the Llewellyn case the taxpayer had two potential residences as one was jointly owned with his 'partner' and he did not make the election to determine which was his main residence.  As a result whether the second property was a main residence had to be determined in fact and that he was unable to establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he had resided in it sufficiently to establish it as a residence.

Thanks (1)
By Steve Kesby
12th Jun 2013 16:17

Llewellyn

Seems to have been decided on the basis that there wasn't sufficient quality of residence at the disposed property for it to have been his main residence.

The use of the word partner throughout could have done with clarification, but the suggestion seems to be that they were only common law partners (so able to each have different main residences, either as a question of qualitative fact or by election) and not civil partners.

There appears not to have been any election, so the matter was decided by qualitiative fact.

Thanks (1)