- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
- Posts
I am totally confused in exemption of deemed occupation.
1. for 3 years of absence and 4 years of absence while working, it must be preceded and followed by a period of occupation, right?
but in question, david bought a house in 1 april 1986 and lived until 30 june 1986.
he worked for 2 years abroad and moved back to uk house on july 1988.
he lived in the house until 30 dec 2002 before leaving to live and work elsewhere in uk. he did not return to house and sold on 31 dec 2014.I did not understand why 48 months from 2002 dec 31 was exempt. ? it should be preceded and followed by actual occupation , isn’t it? this is the example from OT.
2. again in second ques,
flint purchased house and moved on 1 july 1988.
he remained in flat until 1 oct 1990, when he accepted a year’s secondment to his firm’s new york office.
he returned uk in 1 oct 1991 and moved into relatives house until he returned to his own home on 31 jan 1992
on 1 july 2002 he changed jobs and rented a flat near employer’s office in newcastle.
here he remained until he sold house on 1 feb 2015.in both ques, last last points are similar. but in ques 1, 48 months are exempt but not in ques 2.
Hi Sasha,
I agree. Because he didn’t go back to his house to live that 10 years shouldn’t be exempt at all. Where did you get that question from? Try to contact the provider school and ask for explanation or a confirmation, if it’s a mistake in the book.
question 1 is from opentuition and 2 is from kaplan. so could not decide which one is correct
There is an “ask the tutor” forum here. Post your question there and see what they say. Now I am curious as well.
Hey,
I remember doing this question But not Accurately..So Pardon me if i am wrong
I think there is an overall 48 months (4 years ) exemption on PPR besides the exemptions you get when you leave to work etc.
But you should confirm it!!! 🙂I think a key point may be connected with the assertion “it must be preceded and followed by a period of occupation” which is absolutely correct but comes with the qualification unless prevented by work from so doing.It could be the case in the first question that since the person in question was working elsewhere in UK that they were unable because of this to resume occupation and so still qualified for the relief.If in second question their principal private residence was located reasonably close to Newcastle that he could have resumed occupation and were therefore not stopped by reason of work from resuming occupation and so do not qualify for relief as a result.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.