Second house in husband's name still liable to charge

Your personal finance questions answered

Q:Q My son lives alone in a second house that I own. I do not accept rent from him. The house is in my name only. My wife and I live in another house nearby. This house is in our joint names. The mortgage, which has been in our joint names, has been fully paid up.

I own only one house – ie the house my son lives in.

Surely, it cannot be accepted that I own a second property and am subject to the €200 NPPR charge.

The Act states that the main types of residential property that are liable for the charge are private rented property, vacant property and holiday homes. The house I own is not rented, not vacant and not a holiday home. Am I or am I not subject to the charge?

Mr J.McW., Donegal

AYou are subject to the charge. I think the kernel of the issue is summed up in the opening of your letter when you refer to "a second house that I own".

The property you own jointly with your wife is, in tax terms, a property that you own. Equally, it is a property that she owns.

This is why, for instance, when someone who has never bought property marries a person who has bought property and availed of first-time buyer relief, they are suddenly excluded from consideration as a first-time buyer in future – even though they themselves have never bought property. A married couple is considered as one unit in such situations.

The second property – the one in which your son resides – is also your property and Irish tax law says you can only have one “principal private residence” or family home.

There is nothing to prevent you charging rent to your son or letting the property to someone else who will pay rent. The fact that you choose not to do so does not alter the position that you own a second home and are therefore liable for the €200 non-principal private residence charge.

While the initial deadline for paying this sum has passed, there is a month-long grace period. This means that no additional charge will be levied on second home owners who have not yet paid until after October 31st.

Are Minmet shares worth anything?

QI have 10,000 shares in MinMet, little consolation since they are no longer quoted on the Irish Stock Exchange. Are they still of value? There has been no correspondence from the company about agms etc.

Mr J.K., Donegal.

AMinMet shares are still of value but, to be fair, not much. They were suspended from the London AIM market back in November of last year. At the time, they were worth 1.8 pence each, making your holding worth £180. Since then, the shares have not appreciated notably.

MinMet is now effectively a private company and you remain a shareholder of that private company pending any move by a bidder to acquire your interest.

The group has been subject to more than its fair share of confusion in recent times with various takeover or merger approaches and shareholder anger over what they saw as conflicts of interest at various points.

However, the company does remain in business and your investment is still worth something. If there is a takeover, then it might even be at a premium to the current value of the shares.

Unless your shares are held in a nominee account, you will be notified of any annual meetings or offers for your shares, unless your address has changed from that listed with the company’s share registrar.

I am told by the company that the best way of keeping up to date with information is through the group’s website, www.minmet.ie. A separate website, www.minmet.info, was set up by disgruntled shareholders some time ago but I cannot confirm if it is still active.

In any case, I wouldn’t be planning any major outlay on the back of your holding.

Guarantee extension approved in principle

QIn a response to a question last month, you advised on the Government Bank Guarantee Scheme that "the Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan announced in the Dáil this week that it was being extended to run five years – ie to September 2013".

I was unaware that this extension had been made and checked with the Department of Finance which advised that “the Minister has been empowered by the Dáil to extend the scheme but has yet to secure Dáil agreement/approval to the extension “.

Basically as I understand the position, the Minister was given “approval in principle” to extend the scheme but has NOT yet brought to the Dáil or secured agreement to the extension.

If this is correct, perhaps you might advise readers.

Mr C.F., e-mail

AMr Lenihan's comments were made in presenting the draft Nama Bill to the Dáil on September 16th. You are correct that they will not take force until after that legislation passes through the Oireachtas.

Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, QA, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by e-mail to dcoyle@irishtimes. com. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice.

Due to the volume of mail, there may be a delay in answering questions. All suitable queries will be answered through this column. No personal correspondence will be entered into.