residency permit problems

susiesusie


Joined: 09/03/2009
Posts: 337

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 13:07

Just been to renew this morning.

Got a ticket and waited for our turn......... Handed over our copy of the contract (bought in 2002) . was told that i need a tax stamp on i to prove i have paid it. Was directed to tax office as i thought this must now be a standard problem arising from the new changes . They said i must go to the solicitors and get proof that all relevant taxes were paid, that were due at that time.

solicitor says this is illegal !!!!. We already have our Kocan (albeit a shared land type) but the immigration would not see sense.

Was also told i needed a letter from a noter to state that my partner and i were living together at the same address and i will support her. (40ytl) then another from the muhtar stating what is essentially the same., as well as the normal muhtar paperwork.

Quite farcical and worrying. will go back tomorrow and try and see someone else.

cyprusairsoft



Joined: 22/06/2009
Posts: 2066

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 13:12

susie we have to have a notar letter to say we support my 82 year old mother who lives with us every year



not a problem just get it done and hand it it



you must have some receipts for your taxes see if your solicitor can get your contract to tax office and stamp it as paid with copies of your receipts

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 13:19

So,above all you've stated,whats wrong?

They are normal procedures,that I'd have to do if I went to UK with a partner that I'm not married to.Unfortunatly,this is what happens when you decide to live in foreighn country that isnt in EU.

Moaning about it would only make you another whinger,and it wont solve your problem either.



Just put your head up and get on with it.Remember,"you choose to live here."and not been forced I hope,like most others.

cyprusairsoft



Joined: 22/06/2009
Posts: 2066

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 13:53

with you on that yorg

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 14:21

suddenly nipping over the border every 90 days don't sound such a bad idea....

susiesusie


Joined: 09/03/2009
Posts: 337

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 15:02

Yorg.....what is wrong!!!!!!!!. This is very wrong.

Immigration demand a sale agreement with a tax stamp on it. ????? We bought in 2002 , got our kocan in 2006. stamp duty didnt come into force until 2008 where it was necessary to pay and have it stamped on your agreement.

I have paid ALL my taxes appropriate at that time . I now need to pay even more. Would you like to pay more tax on something you bought 7 years ago just to satisfy the new tax laws.???? Do not think so.

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 15:17

It's retrospective legislation on Tax Laws but what the Bar Council is proposing, is new legislation to make things easier, cheaper, streamlined for further, new prospective purchasers but will not be retrospective to those that are trapped in the present mess! What a lot of ............................................................!!!



Richard

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 17:43

I bought my first house in Cyprus in 1999,and paid %6 stamp duty on it,never mind not being in force!!

T he only thing I'd ask from people is honesty,other than that if you need my help as an interpretor....shout.My e-mail is not hidden.

Wont wish you luck,cause it has nothing to do with it.

0533 873 9181 is my no,I'm also in Lefkosha tomorrow.

susiesusie


Joined: 09/03/2009
Posts: 337

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 18:58

I am not talking about the %6 tax at the land registry. We all have had to pay that. along with the builders share cos the builder wont pay. i am talking of the tax you have to pay when you register your contract at the tax office . I cannot get this stamp as it was not in force till 2008.. I cannot therefore show this document to the immigration , hence i cannot apply for my 6th year of residency.

I cannot create a new contract to pay this as that is illegal. Sorry if you misunderstood.

Oleander


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 302

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 19:15

So, are you saying that they are asking you to produce proof of something you didn't pay at the time because you couldn't because there was no requirement to pay it back then so you couldn't possibly have the 'proof' of it? And something you cannot pay now because it would be illegal to do so?



That seems ridiculous. I am sure there has been a misunderstanding on one or both sides if that is the case.



Regarding the cohabitation stuff. That is quite normal for lots of countries outside the EU. One of my children actually opted to marry their long time live in partner before relocating, because it was a damn sight easier than going through the alternative rigmarole! (Pleased to say they have stayed happily married for a long time since then!)

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 19:24

I think you have a language problem there susiesusie,%6 is a stump duty like %3.5 now.Only difference being,you pay %.5 when you register your property up front now.As for second property,it would be %6 if it has not changed.

As for your case,I also think they have made a mistake.

But like I said in my earlier post:

Well,cant be bothered to write it all again.

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 21:29

Stamp duty;



I paid mine 5 days after signing the contract in 2005.



susiesusie has her wires crossed somewhat.

scruff


Joined: 15/07/2008
Posts: 1070

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 22:27

Actually Newscoop, susiesusie hasn't got her wires crossed because back in 2002 when she signed her contract, this charge for stamping the contract may have been in existence but nobody was paying it & the lawyers weren't doing anything about it.

Then the last Government realised that they were missing a nice letter earner & when they introduced the "Estate Agents" Act at the end of 2007, they said everyone could register their contract retrospectively at the Tapu.

However you would have to pay this stamp duty which was 1.5% of the amount that your property cost. They introduced a discounted rate for this of 0.5% for a short period.

The other charge is 6% payable when title deeds are ready or 3% one time only option. This is the sum that is currently being discounted by the Government to 0.75% until the end of this year.

The problem that susiesusie seems to have is that for residency you either have to provide a copy of your Kocan or your Stamped (stamp duty paid) Contract.

ctd.

scruff


Joined: 15/07/2008
Posts: 1070

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 22:28

This has been the case on renewed residencies since January 2008 or slightly later.

Seems that because susiesusie has only got a shared kocan for the land without the house on it, then she is still required to provide a copy of the contract when renewing residency?

Seems like she may be between a rock & a hard place because of this.

I'm surprised this issue didn't occur when she renewed her residency in October last year?

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 22:58

Scruff;



read Yorgazlus post; like the UK there has always been a requirement to pay stamp duty.



Ignorance of the law or opting not to pay for personal reasons is no excuse.



Proof of payment has been a requirement for residency the last two years, like you I am surprised she never had the problem last year. Type of kocan doesn't come into it.

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
20/10/2009 23:07

Newscoop



The ignorance is not from the purchaser but from the Advocate they appointed to inform and update their clients of the continuous changes of the 'Law' which they never do!



Richard

scruff


Joined: 15/07/2008
Posts: 1070

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 00:09

Newscoop

Sorry I think you're being pedantic. The "stamp duty" payable in the UK. is not a stamp duty on the contract but is a tax at the point of completion of the sale.

There will be hundreds of people here who received their kocans before 2008 who have not paid this.

Are you suggesting that they should all retrospectively voluntary pay this additional tax? The same people wouldn't have paid 5% KDV either back in 2002.

The previous UBP Government were not enforcing these taxes then.

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 00:16

Brins; the law in question has not been updated. see mess 8.



Scruff; I'm not suggesting anything but if people want to renew their residency?



How can you be sure that kocans were issued without all taxes paid?



Is that what happened to you?

scruff


Joined: 15/07/2008
Posts: 1070

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 00:30

Newscoop

I can be sure because I know many people who purchased & received their Kocans before 2002, I can assure you that they paid no KDV or Stamp duty on the contract. What they did pay was 3% (or 6%) on transfer of title & that's all they paid.

All this changed when the CTP Government was elected in the 2004 & Talat became PM & later Soyer when Talat became President.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 00:49

Richard re msg 16;

You could be wright about this being caused by their Advocate,but that does not change the fact that,they dont have neccesary paperwork as their proof.By all means,they may well have paid this,just dont have the papers to prove it.(ie.not being given by their solicitor).And bearing in mind the non-existing data system they have here,what chance one would stand to prove anything.



LITTLE EXAMPLE:

I lost my sale of contract,went tax office to get another one,and they told me that,I'd have to pay it again (my a**e)

So,basicaly,your papers are you proof of payments.No papers,you are f**ked.Cypriot or not is irrelevant.



Before I forget,I did get my problem sorted without having to pay again.They are now in nice frame hanging on the wall,cant lose them that way.

minertor



Joined: 14/02/2009
Posts: 1238

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 09:14

We were discussing this topic in the pub last night. An expat at the bar commented that over 60's don't have to pay the residency renewal fee. Nobody else had heard of this. The guy said that you have to ask them, they don't volunteer the information. Anybody else heard this, apart from in Kervan last night?



Tony

keithcaley



Joined: 13/06/2008
Posts: 2521

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 10:27

Tony,

I'm afraid that it's probably an 'Urban Myth' - this was recently discussed here: -

http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/21216.asp

- and other places...

If any body does find out any different, PLEASE let me know - I'd qualify!

If no one can say for sure, then I'll ask 'em myself in six months time

Keith.

susiesusie


Joined: 09/03/2009
Posts: 337

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 12:26

thank you scruff. youve got it exactly right.



Been to see a solicitor and basically the immigration chap is talking twaddle!!!!.

Went again today armed with solicitors mobile number and everything i could find relating to this .

BEHOLD wasnt even asked!!.

Seems it depends on who you get. Horrible sleepless night with worry.

Thanks all for your postings.

Ozbey


Joined: 04/03/2009
Posts: 304

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 12:32

suzie,

If you take your kocan then they will not need to see your contract.

Shared kocan is OK, that's all I ever use.

Your kocan means far more than your contract - it means you are recorded as the owner (part owner) of the land and all that stands on it. (Your contract is only your agreement to buy and hopefully one day get your name on the kocan - you have already done that!).

Good luck,

Ozbey.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 13:17

Another case of a civil servant being neither civil or servile!



Glad you've got sorted, Susie!

everon


Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 956

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 13:42

if thats right about being 60 we want a rebate x

susiesusie


Joined: 09/03/2009
Posts: 337

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 13:59

Showed them my kocan with my name on it, but on the reverse side it had the builders name on . I cannot read it but the immigration officer said that it still belonged to them. (probably because it was shared title land) It also showed all the taxes paid. He would have none of it.. hence the problems.

scruff


Joined: 15/07/2008
Posts: 1070

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 15:13

msg. 23

susiesusie. I'm glad you've got this all sorted now.

minertor



Joined: 14/02/2009
Posts: 1238

Message Posted:
21/10/2009 15:20

msg 22: Keithcaley, dunno much about urban myths, used to be a co-oop milkman, learned a lot from urban mythisses.



Tony