A child has purchased one third (2/6) of his father’s property. Father now wishes to gift 3/6 of his remaining 4/6 of the property to the son. Son works abroad, but uses the home as his ‘home from home’, retains a room, keys, visits regularly etc… is this sufficient to amount to ‘occupation’. for the purposes of exemption from the reservation of benefit purposes.
Does it in any way make a difference that he has acquired (for full market value) a one third share in the property?
Unfortunately no legislative definition of “occupation” but would expect what you have set out to constitute “occupation”. Access without permission (eg possession of keys) and regular visits and sleep-overs very helpful.
Malcolm Finney
Thanks @MalcFinney for the reply. For clarification, there were two parts to the question. One relates to the occupation which you have answered and is in line with my assumptions. The second aspect is whether it makes any difference if the co-owner acquired a share in the property for full consideration. In this case the son has purchased one third of the property, or 2/6ths… The father is giving 3/6ths from the remaining 4/6ths he owns to the child. Presumably the (for consideration) ownership of the son is irrelevant and the usual conditions need to be borne in mind for the 3/6ths given away. That is for example, father must pay at least 1/6th of expenses (ideally 4/6ths) and son must occupy - and in this case perhaps “occupy more” than they were prior to acquiring the additional 3/6ths. (Although logically I struggle to differentiate occupying and ‘occupying more’!)
The son acquired 2/6 for full consideration; hence, no GWR.
However, gift by father of 3/6 gives rise to GWR with respect to this 3/6. To satisfy co-ownership get-out Father must pay 3/6 of expenses of property (or perhaps ideally, but not necessarily, 4/6).
Acquisition for full value of 1/3 I don’t think is relevant with respect to the implication of the GWR provisions re the 3/6 gift.
Malcolm Finney