- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by
Tax Tutor.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
New! BPP Books for ACCA September 2022 Exams are now available, get your discount code >>
Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA TX-UK Exams › 174 David and Angela (Kap)
Hello sir,
Why in the following ques 3years for any reason is deemed to be occupied is ignored
https://photos.app.goo.gl/66fNKjeTRjQTRq6z8
On 30 September 2020 David and Angela sold a house for £381,900. The house had been
purchased on 1 October 2000 for £86,000.
David and Angela occupied the house as their main residence from the date of purchase until
31 March 2004. The house was then unoccupied between 1 April 2004 and 31 December
2007 due to Angela being required by her employer to work elsewhere in the United
Kingdom.
From 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2014 David and Angela again occupied the house as
their main residence. The house was then unoccupied until it was sold on 30 September
2020.
Throughout the period 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2020 David and Angela did not have
any other main residence.
There is no actual period of occupation after this period of absence from the property and prior to sale – therefore 3 years for any reason not available
So sir,
Does it mean that
3 years for any reason is available for
Ineligible occupation rather than for absence or no occupation at all.?
No – it refers to a period of absence that will be treated as deemed occupation
Have you watched the lecture along with working through the relevant section of the study notes?
From 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2014 David and Angela again occupied the house as
their main residence. The house was then unoccupied until it was sold on 30 September
2020.
What about the the periods from 31st dec 2014–Until sold on 30th September..
2020
Why is inoccupancy not deemed to be occupied under
“3years is deemed to be occupied for any reason”
Sorry sir got confused a bit..
But now i understood that since there was no “re occupation”
The deemed occupancy is irrelevant
Correct