Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Seller wants to allocate portion of house purchase price for contents

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,531 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    davo10 wrote: »
    How is either of these not legitimate? Are you saying reducing your tax liability by legal means and assigning a value to contents is not legitimate or illegal? What is the basis for your statement?

    In this case, the vendor is putting things which are absolutely not contents on to a list. There is no legitimate reason to do this.

    You may find some contrarian basis for claiming otherwise but its blatant. If you think a boiler is "contents", there isn't even any point debating with you.

    I don't think there has ever been a case here with a vendor looking for a contents payment that wasn't on the take in one way or another - the edge cases where its legit are few and far between to the point that they may as well not exist.


  • Options
    #63
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    L1011 wrote: »
    In this case, the vendor is putting things which are absolutely not contents on to a list. There is no legitimate reason to do this.

    You may find some contrarian basis for claiming otherwise but its blatant.

    I don't think there has ever been a case here with a vendor looking for a contents payment that wasn't on the take in one way or another - the edge cases where its legit are few and far between to the point that they may as well not exist.

    Ok, this is utter rubbish. You are confusing your opinion on the morality of assigning a value to contents, with the legality and legitimacy of doing so, and what's worse, presenting your opinion as fact.

    Before you post anymore gobbildygook, anything which can be removed without causing structural damage can be listed as contents and therefore can be assigned a value. The op can confirm this with his/her solicitor. It is absolutely legitimate to do so.

    I have no interest in debating the morality of doing what the seller did here, that is subjective and I really don't care, the op can reject it or not. But legally, legitimately, the seller can list any item which can be removed without damage as contents. It is also legal and legitimate to reduce your tax bill by whatever means are permitted by Revenue, and despite your claim, assigning a value to contents is permitted.


  • Options
    #64
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,531 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    You think removing a boiler isn't causing damage.

    You're delusional. Remind me never to buy a penny sweet off you let alone a house.

    The vendor is on the take, in one way or another. There are no two ways about it, the details in the OP alone are sufficient to show that.

    You can assign a value to contents but the chances of it being done legitimately are effectively nil, which is what is important here. Edge case babble is of no use to the OP, and that is all you are posting.


  • Options
    #65
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    L1011 wrote: »
    You think removing a boiler isn't causing damage.

    You're delusional. Remind me never to buy a penny sweet off you let alone a house.

    The vendor is on the take, in one way or another. There are no two ways about it, the details in the OP alone are sufficient to show that.

    You can assign a value to contents but the chances of it being done legitimately are effectively nil, which is what is important here. Edge case babble is of no use to the OP, and that is all you are posting.

    Jesus wept

    It's structural damage, if you remove the boiler without doing structural damage. Go out to your boiler and have a look at it, it's just a machine with a couple of tubes going in and out, it's easy to remove and cap the pipes, no damage whatsoever to the structure of the house.

    Whatever the seller's reasons are, you still have not provided any proof to back up your statement that it is not legitimate and that he is on the take. Put up, or shut up.

    I suspect it would take too long to explain the cost of the penny sweet to you.


  • Options
    #66
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,531 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    davo10 wrote: »
    Jesus wept

    It's structural damage, if you remove the boiler without doing structural damage. Go out to your boiler and have a look at it, it's just a machine with a couple of tubes going in and out, it's easy to remove and cap the pipes, no damage whatsoever to the structure of the house.

    Whatever the seller's reasons are, you still have not provided any proof to back up your statement that it is not legitimate and that he is on the take. Put up, or shut up.

    I suspect it would take too long to explain the cost of the penny sweet to you.

    I have an engineering degree, thanks. I'm fully aware of how boilers are fitted.

    Would you consider removing every light switch, light fitting, tap and toilet to be OK? I could disconnect those in my house without causing 'structural damage' but the house would be uninhabitable as a result. Taking out the sinks and bath might damage some tiles. I think the water tank in the attic is freestanding come to think of it...

    You are being contrarian on this thread for absolutely no reason and being of zero help to the OP. Actually a complete hindrance, really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note:

    Davo10 / L1011, take it to PM.


  • Options
    #68
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    L1011 wrote: »
    I have an engineering degree, thanks. I'm fully aware of how boilers are fitted.

    Would you consider removing every light switch, light fitting, tap and toilet to be OK? I could disconnect those in my house without causing 'structural damage' but the house would be uninhabitable as a result. Taking out the sinks and bath might damage some tiles. I think the water tank in the attic is freestanding come to think of it...

    You are being contrarian on this thread for absolutely no reason and being of zero help to the OP. Actually a complete hindrance, really.

    I wouldn't consider taking out any of them, I'm not the seller. But if the seller filled out the f&f's/contents forms and included any of those items which can removed without causing structural damage, then legally he/she can do so and make the contract for these a part of the sale.

    You are discussing the morality of the action, the op has been told that this is a condition of the bid being accepted and the seller is breaking no law in doing this, after all, that is why these forms exist for the seller and their solicitor to fill out. Are you telling the op to say that the listing of contents is not legitimate?

    How could you be an engineer and think that removing a boiler causes structural damage?

    Now, hopefully for the last time, can you please explain how Revenue say it is legal but why it is that you state that assigning a value to contents is not legitimate, please.


Advertisement