Share this content

This week's PRR question!

Unable to occupy nominated residence during COVID - effects on PRR?

Didn't find your answer?

This week's PRR conundrum put to me by one of my clients...

Two concurrent residences - one in the City (weekday residence when working), the other in Devon (weekend with family). The residence in the City has always been the 'nominated' residence. Since lockdown, homeworking and travel restrictions has meant full-time in Devon and has not been to the City residence for 6 months.

It is well known that actual occupation is required for a PRR nomination elections (except in cases of deemed residence). Deemed residence does not apply here, so we must look at actual residence. There is no longer actual residence in London (although no doubt there will be when the world returns to normal). Does this, therefore, invalidate the nominated residence election wef the date that there was a 'change in the combination of residences', such that the Devon home now de facto becomes the only actual residence?

Thanks.

Replies (18)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Apr 2021 10:38

I thought The Dullard effectively answered that question as part of the discussion on your last 'conundrum'. (If you need a further pointer, re-read your OP... especially the bit about the consequences of the world returning to normal.)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Software Seeker
09th Apr 2021 12:14

Tax Dragon wrote:

I thought The Dullard effectively answered that question as part of the discussion on your last 'conundrum'. (If you need a further pointer, re-read your OP... especially the bit about the consequences of the world returning to normal.)

Thanks. I'll re-read. Although two different sets of circumstances (the former query related to non-concurrent residences, without a S222(5) nomination). But I'll re-read my previous 'conundrum' thread.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Software Seeker:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Apr 2021 12:45

Deemed and actual can run concurrently, remember. (A point I thought I had made last thread.)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paul.benny
09th Apr 2021 11:06

Deleted - I had not realised there had been quite some recent discussion around this subject already. No need to cover the same ground again

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The Dullard
09th Apr 2021 12:12

Isn't this exactly the same question just put in a different box?

Thanks (1)
Replying to The Dullard:
RLI
By lionofludesch
09th Apr 2021 12:31

The Dullard wrote:

Isn't this exactly the same question just put in a different box?

I thought that.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By The Dullard
09th Apr 2021 12:41

It's like getting back the present that you gave somebody for Christmas last year.

Thanks (0)
Replying to The Dullard:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Apr 2021 12:43

There's always next year.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Software Seeker
12th Apr 2021 10:44

Thanks to the responders - much appreciated. I'd just mention that this query is in relation to concurrent occupation, with a S222 election in place; the previous one wasn’t and didn’t. This query is not about consecutive periods of occupation; the previous one was. This query has nothing to do with deemed occupation during a qualifying period of absence; the previous one did. By saying this query is the same as the previous query (and I really like the Christmas pressie jibe - made me chuckle), it appears you're saying that the rules are the same for concurrent and non-concurrent periods of occupation. If this is right, then I've learned something new, and so thanks for that. Have a good week peeps.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Software Seeker:
avatar
By The Dullard
12th Apr 2021 11:35

Your query is about absence from the London property. That is why you are concerned. The response is the same as for your other query he can be deemed to be occupying the property that he is absent from, while is actually occupying the property he is present in.

Are you really sure that you should be providing advice to fee paying clients?

Thanks (0)
Replying to The Dullard:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Apr 2021 11:53

The Dullard wrote:

he can be deemed to be occupying the property that he is absent from, while is actually occupying the property he is present in.

Or, in a word, 'concurrently'.

@OP... in 2017, I moved from A to B, retaining and letting out A. You seem to think that my (period of) absence from A starts when I cease to be resident at B. I think it started when I ceased to live at A.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By The Dullard
12th Apr 2021 11:58

Tax Dragon wrote:

Or, in a word, 'concurrently'.

I took the view that more syllables might be useful. I now realise that conventional wisdom is to seek to use fewer syllables.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Software Seeker
14th Apr 2021 15:54

Thanks for your input.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Software Seeker:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th Apr 2021 16:05

You're quite welcome.

(Regarding the same question on your previous thread, and my A+B example, I did wonder - though not hard enough to think much about it - whether that was one of the things that changed, intentionally or otherwise, in 2015. If period of absence used to be defined in terms of not having a(nother) residence qualifying for relief, then [unlike now] back then a P of A could not run concurrently. If that's correct - and writing it out loud like this makes me think it probably is - some care may still be needed when looking at events pre-2015. So you may be right that your questions were different. Or, at least, that the answers could be, as I would presume that your other question did include periods pre-2015.)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By The Dullard
14th Apr 2021 17:50

I don't think there is a difference for periods pre-2015, s 223 was amended by FA 2015 in relation to disposals occurring on or after 6 April 2015, and so benefits absences before that date retrospectively, in my opinion.

Thanks (0)
Replying to The Dullard:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
14th Apr 2021 18:24

You're probably right (and that was my unresearched guess).

But it won't always benefit. What hadn't been a period of absence under pre-FA 2015 s223 has retrospectively been redesignated as such by FA 2015. So, going back to OP's previous thread, in which he contemplated the periods of absence from both properties starting simultaneously [as indeed could have happened under the old rules], instead it could be that for both properties those periods have, under the new rules, been 'used up' by the earlier moving to and fro. So, whereas under the old rules you could have banked three more glorious years, under the new rules you effectively get nothing.

Planning you might have done has been (retrospectively) undone.

Often with CGT, when a change would take something away, they bung in horrendous transitional rules to stop folk 'losing out'. With PRR, I think the opposite is normally true. So, as I say, my best guess is your opinion is correct. But I haven't actually looked.

(For clarity, for the benefit of others, when I have referred to periods of absence, I really mean the deemed residence during such periods.)

Thanks (0)
Replying to The Dullard:
avatar
By Software Seeker
14th Apr 2021 15:50

Thanks for your input.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Software Seeker:
avatar
By The Dullard
14th Apr 2021 15:52

You're very welcome.

Thanks (0)
Share this content