Will I face a capital gains tax bill on sale of my home because I have a lodger?
the bills
. It is not an issue right now but I am wondering what this will mean if I sell the
house
in the future.
I do not think they come under the
rent-a-room relief
as we have agreed to divide the house so that each of us has our own area to liv
e in without intrusion. But it is still my only home.
I am wondering if this is a situation you have come across before and if you can advise what, if any,
tax
liability I might have if I sell.
Mr B
K
READ MORE
I'm not sure why but this is a situation that has never crossed my desk until now. That's odd because it is not that unusual a position these days.
People who are alone because of bereavement or relationship break-up can find themselves with a home that is often too big for them and bills that can threaten to overwhelm.
Taking in students or a lodger to help meet those costs – or even for a bit of company – is one obvious answer, quite apart from helping to address our current
housing crisis
.
The basic rule is that you do not pay capital gains tax on your principal private residence – your only or family home – as long as it sits on a site of less than one acre and you are selling it for occupation and not for its development potential.
But, if it is a rental property, it is liable to capital gains.
The obvious answer here is rent-a-room relief. Despite its name, it does not restrict you to a single room.
[
Is a room rented under rent-a-room scheme restricted by RPZ rules?
Opens in new window
]
The key criteria are: that the property is your home and you reside there at the same time as your tenant; that the room or rooms are in or attached to the home; the person is staying for more than 29 days; and that the total income you receive for rent and any associated services (utility bills, laundry etc) comes to no more than €14,000 in a calendar year.
A cent more than €14,000 and you no longer meet the conditions for the relief and the whole lot becomes taxable as income. In capital gains terms, that €14,000 threshold is the limit between principal private residence and rental property.
So, regardless of how you have organised your living arrangements, if the annual rental income is below €14,000, you should be OK for the rent-a-room relief and I cannot see Revenue challenging that.
If the figure is above, all is not lost.
If you sell, Revenue will want to look at two things. First, for what proportion of your ownership did you rent out some of the space? Second, how much of the space did you rent out?
[
Can I lose access to capital gains tax relief if I sell a section 23 property at a loss?
Opens in new window
]
In fairness, this would apply also if you were running a business out of part of the property.
You've given me no figures here so I'll just give you a very basic example and you can adjust it to meet your circumstances.
Say, you own the home for 30 years and you take in a tenant other than under rent-a-room relief for the last 11 of those years. The final year of ownership is regarded as owner-occupied regardless of the actual circumstances, so you will be considered to have rented the property for 10 of the 30 years, or one-third of your period of ownership.
There is a second element. How much of the home did they exclusively occupy, and that 'exclusively' is important. If you shared the kitchen or a dining area, a sittingroom and/or a bathroom, they don't count.
[
Q&A: I have owned a home for 33 years but rented it out for some time. What is the likely capital gains tax?
Opens in new window
]
Let's just assume the house was split 50/50: you lived downstairs and they lived upstairs with their own makeshift kitchen etc.
So, for one-third of your period of ownership, one-half of the property was rented and the balance was occupied by you as owner-occupier.
In those circumstances, Revenue would assess capital gains on one-sixth of the financial gain made on the sale of the property as one half of the home has been rented out for one-third of the period of ownership.
As a formula, that is 10/30 x 50 per cent. You know how much of the home they exclusively occupy and for how long, so you can simply replace those figures with your own. The same basic principle applies if you have more than one tenant.
If the house was bought before the end of 2002 – as it is in our example – you would also be able to apply an indexation factor – available
here
– to the original purchase price to allow for inflation. You can also takes any costs incurred in buying and selling the house, such as legal and estate agent fees, from any capital gain before assessing tax liability.
Of course, if you hold on to the house until you die, any capital gains tax liability will die with you.
Remember, the first €1,270 of any capital gain arising is exempt from tax. It's not a huge amount in the context of a house sale but every little counts.
Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to
dominic.coyle@irishtimes.com
, with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Post
3 hours ago
- Irish Post
Republican Congress members calls for investigation into Ireland's 'discriminatory' Occupied Territories Bill
A REPUBLICAN Congresswoman is leading calls for an investigation into Ireland's proposed Occupied Territories Bill, which she branded 'discriminatory' and 'dangerous'. Backed by 15 House Republican colleagues, Claudia Tenney sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging him to investigate whether the legislation violates US anti-boycott law. It says the Bill is part of the broader global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which Tenney says 'seeks to economically isolate Israel'. "Such policies not only promote economic discrimination but also create legal uncertainty for US companies operating in Ireland," the letter states. Despite the opposition, Tánaiste Simon Harris has said that Ireland is committed to enacting the Bill. 'Consequences' If enacted, the Bill would ban trade with the Occupied Palestinian Territory and make it an offence to import goods from Israeli settlements in the region. In a press release, Tenney urged the Department of the Treasury to consider adding Ireland to a list of countries that participate in international boycotts against US allies. It added that the measure could subject Ireland to disclosure and reporting requirements under Section 999 of the Internal Revenue Code, impacting foreign investment and bilateral trade. "Ireland's proposed boycott is a blatant attempt to isolate and delegitimise Israel on the world stage," said Tenney. "This proposed boycott is discriminatory, dangerous, and would violate US law. "The Treasury Department has the duty to enforce the law, protect American businesses, and hold countries accountable when they promote foreign boycotts against our allies. "The United States will not stay silent while our allies are targeted by hostile political agendas." Tenney's letter urged Secretary Bessent to 'send a clear signal that efforts to economically isolate Israel will carry consequences'. 'Genocidal activity' Addressing the letter while speaking to the Press on Friday, Mr Harris reaffirmed the government's commitment to the legislation. "Ireland intends to continue to advance our commitment in relation to the Occupied Territories Bill — the Programme for Government is clear in relation to that," he said. "People in Ireland, people in Europe and people right across the world feel extraordinarily strongly about the genocidal activity that we're seeing in Gaza, about the starving children." He added: "We intend to advance with our legislation. "Of course, we'll continue to engage and explain and never allow our position to be misrepresented." See More: Occupied Territories Bill, Simon Harris
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Trump's nominee for the Fed wants to overhaul it
Having railed against the "revolving door" between the executive branch and the US Federal Reserve, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran may now be walking through it after President Donald Trump nominated him to the Board of Governors of an institution Miran would like to radically overhaul. In a report last year co-authored by Miran for the Manhattan Institute, the economist proposed harsh medicine for a series of ills he felt had infected the central bank, from "group think" on monetary policy, to regulatory overreach, to poor accountability and a loss of focus on its core mission of fighting inflation. It was one of two big-think ideas Miran floated last year, along with the so-called Mar-a-Lago accord for devaluing the dollar and restructuring US debt, a proposal that quickly fell into disfavor and was criticised as putting the dollar's global reserve status at risk. His views on the Fed might also be a hard sell. He has argued that the Fed's touted independence has left it unaccountable and ineffective and that it would be better served by a new system where presidents could fire the seven members of the Washington-based Board of Governors at will. To counter that presidential power, authority over monetary policy would shift to the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, whose leaders would all vote on monetary policy and thus be able to outvote the Board, and whose oversight would come under the control of state governors. Instead of a system insulated from politics it would be a system fully infused with it, but in a form of "monetary federalism" Miran argues would increase accountability. Whether that flies with US Senators who have to confirm Miran's selection and who are already on edge about Trump's attacks on the Fed, remains an open question, as does the verdict of global bond markets concerned about the ability of a politically captive central bank to control inflation. Long-term Treasury yields and the interest rate on inflation-protected bonds rose slightly in the hours after Miran's nomination was announced. Expectations of a quarter-point cut at the Fed's September and December meetings changed little.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
J&J's Irish eyecare unit takes €1.06bn hit on accord between Irish and US tax authorities
A Limerick unit of US healthcare giant, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has incurred an exceptional €1.06 billion expense arising from it a new pricing agreement with Irish and US tax authorities. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Ireland UC employs 1,692 people at its base at the National Technology Park in Limerick where it produces eye care products. Across Ireland, J&J employs more than 6,000 across 10 sites in five counties – Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Mayo. In the recently-filed accounts, the directors state that, in December 2024, 'the company reached an agreement with the Irish and US tax authorities on a reasonable attribution of profit between the company and its US affiliate relating to the manufacture and sale of contact lens-related products'. READ MORE The agreement comprised a mutual agreement procedure and an advanced pricing agreement negotiated between the US and Irish tax authorities. A mutual agreement procedure is a dispute resolution mechanism primarily used in international taxation to resolve issues related to double taxation. The directors state that the new pricing arrangement resulted in the company incurring an exceptional one off expense of €1.06 billion. The said the expense was financed by a company subsidiary, Vision Care Finance UC, transferring $1.176 billion in cash to Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Ireland UC on February 13th this year. 'The funds were then used by the company to settle the intercompany payable position with its US affiliate as a result of the updated pricing arrangement,' the directors said. They said 'the APA [advanced pricing agreement] negotiated and agreed with the authorities is positive as it provides the company with more certainty going forward'. An advanced pricing agreement between two tax jurisdictions sets down how prices are set for transactions between related companies, such as entities in the same group. 'Under the new methodology the company has continued to generate healthy profits and [this] is forecast to increase further given the planned production increase in future years,' the directors of Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Ireland say in their report. The new accounts, which are for 2023, show that pretax profit fell by 4 per cent to €442.37 million on revenues that were 9 per cent higher at €1.35 billion. Allowing for a corporation tax charges of €35.69 million, the company recorded profits of €406.68 million. Staff costs in 2023 totalled €143.36 million. The profit takes account of non-cash depreciation charges of €83 million, R&D costs of €19 million and R&D tax credits of €4.8 million. Profits were hit by a €48.7 million non-cash impairment of fixed assets. The company had accumulated profits of €3.3 billion at the end of 2023.
