- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
Good day sir,
Thanks for the amazing lectures and lecture notes. They’re really helpful. I have a query regarding the Letting Relief from the BPP study text.
The BPP study text says that the letting relief is only available for the periods in which the owner was absent i.e it wasn’t actually occupied or deemed occupied. If the property was completely let for, lets say, 4 years, then out of those 4 years, letting relief will only be available for 1 year as for the remaining 3 years, the property will be deemed occupied (absence for any reason).
I’m confused regarding the 3 years part. We know that the property is let in those years, but we’re still assuming it is occupied by the owner and hence including it in PPR exemption. Shouldn’t we provide letting relief for those 3 years instead of PPR exemption?
Thanks in advance.
Another question:
Qualifying Corporate Bonds (QCB) refers to loan notes which cannot be converted into cash, i.e. Convertible Loan Notes. Am i right?
@f6ali said:
Another question:Qualifying Corporate Bonds (QCB) refers to loan notes which cannot be converted into cash, i.e. Convertible Loan Notes. Am i right?
I’m sorry i meant to say loan notes which CAN be converted into cash i.e Non-convertible loan notes.
If a property is occupied, either actual or deemed then that period is already exempted within the PPR relief so there can be no lettings relief for that period as there is no chargeability for that period – so the lettings relief will apply to those periods of non occupation in which the property was also let out.
We always apply PPR relief for both the actual and deemed periods of occupation (including therefore the 3 years for any reason!) BEFORE the lettings relief.
A QCB is defined as sterling denominated non convertible loan stock issued at a normal commercial rate of interest – the “non convertible” is nothing to do with cash – it is convertibility to equity (shares)One last question regarding PPR Exemption. This is a question from BPP Kit.
BPP Kit, page # 56, Jorge (Dec 2011):
34 months – Occupied
18 months – Unoccupied – Travelling overseas
24 months – Unoccupied – Working overseas
11 months – OccupiedIn this question, they have taken above 2 deemed occupies together and not ignored 1 of them. As far as i know, 2 deemed occupies cannot be taken together, there must be 1 actual occupy and then 1 deemed occupy. Can you please explain why have they done this?
There is actual occupation before periods of absence and there is actual period of occupation after periods of absence which allows both periods of absence to count as deemed occupation, travelling overseas due to the 3 years for any reason and working overseas for any period of time. It does not matter that one follows the other
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.