Transfer apartment to sister

Section 40.

They can charge as low as they want.

It's the recipient of the below market value rent that will have the issue with revenue. It will be deemed a gift and taxed as such.

Section 5 in the act.

Thank you. That is indeed draconian and an aspect that would be politely ignored I'd think by many. Essentially the state is saying you may own property but the state then dictates what choices you make in terms of letting others use it.

How does leave the state itself, as pointed out above, it provides in various ways a very similar dispensation to citizens of lesser means.

the state is saying you may own property but the state then dictates what choices you make in terms of letting others use it

The state does this all the time with many, many aspects of everyone's lives. It's part of living in a civilised society

How does leave the state itself, as pointed out above, it provides in various ways a very similar dispensation to citizens of lesser means.

In much the same way that an individual can't enforce their own prison service - the state and an individual are not comparable or interchangeable in law. This particular law refers to individuals. It does not restrict the state from doing anything.

an aspect that would be politely ignored I'd think by many

They are free to do so. While Revenue are free to enforce the law. And if it comes to court, telling a judge "I think it's draconian, so I don't think the law should apply to me" is going to get you about as far as it would for any case

You've been shown both the Revenue guidance and the primary legislation. You haven't presented a single piece of evidence to say that it's not the case, and continue to post "comparisons" which have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. I'm out

I'm not arguing with you, I've accepted your proof!

I'm simply stating there is a problem. By this situation, from a tax efficiency pov, the OP should ditch her sister and let the state look after her. That's crazy and wrong.

I wonder is this the loophole, pay someone to 'mind' the apartment for a nominal fee.

There's nothing stopping the OP from using their own property as they wish.

I can think of some pertinent points

1. when the law is an ass, when it's unenforceable then people disregard it. I'd be quite sure there are many such quiet arrangements in practice throughout the country. Revenue can check many things but they most certainly are not investigating the living and accommodation situation of each & every taxable individual to see if they are the beneficiary of help from another family member or friend.
2. where such an arrangement is made for an elderly relative, it is clearly in the interests of the state to keep that elderly person in their own accommodation and off the states books. This taxable gift idea for use of property clearly appears to disincentive people helping elderly relatives.
3. how does this relate to co habitating couples? Seán owns an apartment, he meets Sinéad in Coppers and takes a fancy to her. Sinéad leaves her rental where she's paying €1500 a month, moves in with Seán and lives rent free etc Should Revenue be following up on this gift and getting Sinéad to pony up?

1. CAT is a self-assessment tax so, yeah, it can sometimes be evaded in a family situation. But remember the Revenue usually know where you live (because they correspond with you there) and they know who owns the place (because land ownership is registered) and they know whether you're paying any rent and, if so, what rent (because that information can be found in the property owner's tax return) so this is the kind of thing they can pick up on audit without too much difficulty.
2. As for elderly relatives, there's an exemption from CAT for the provision of a dwelling to a "dependent relative", and anyone who is aged over 65 is automatically considered to be dependent.
3. As for cohabiting couples, this isn't an issue at all. It's a taxable gift if you give somebody the exclusive use of a residence. Having somebody stay with you as a guest in your own residence is generally not seen as a gift to that person.

Good news for the OP there as regards #2 above.

Otherwise, we can all see the concept is full of holes and illogicality. As I say when the law is an ass….

There should be difference at all between the OPs situation and say Seán putting Sinéad his partner up in either his own gaff or another he owns.

How many individuals do Revenue audit each year?? Not businesses but plain ordinary citizens.

I haven't read all the way through the thread to see if there's enough detail given about the OP's sister to say that she will qualify as a dependant relative. But, if she does, there are actually two CAT reliefs that are relevant to her — a relief for the provision of a dwelling, and a relief for the provision of reasonable maintenance. If the OP does provide rent-free accommodation to a dependent relative for three years before gifting the house to her, I'd argue that even if giving her the use of the house for three years is not exempt as the provision of a dwelling, it's exempt as the provision of reasonable maintenance. And even if it's not exempt under either of these, between the annual small gifts exemption and the group B threshold it may still be exempt, or largely exempt. So between one thing and another, the sister's CAT liability may be nil or very low.

CGT is a different issue. Any liablity there would be the OP's, not his sister's. The transfer of the property, even by way of gift, would ordinarily be a disposal which would trigger liablity to CGT based on the market value of the property at the date of transfer. But the principal private residence CGT exemption is available to the extent that the property has, during the period of ownership, been the principal private residence of either the OP or of a dependant relative. So if the sister has been living there throughout the period of ownership, and has been a dependant relative the whole time, then there will be no CGT on the disposal.