Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

Will this, literally, be the cost to Turkish Cypriots if this law is passed and subsequently there's an agreement. Perhaps it's Turkey's less than subtle way of throwing a spanner in the works.

For me it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal and I say that as a 'current user' of disputed land in the north. If the legal status of the land I am current user of changes to undisputed freeholder of said land as a result of a settlement at the IPC, and the effective value of that land increases by say 30% as a result then why should I not pay the 30% ? I am the one that will accrue the increased value. If it is done in such a way that I have a choice that when the IPC settles a claim on the land I am the current users of (and will become undisputed freeholder of post the claim be settled) to either pay the 30% there and then on current value or defer it to when I sell the property as a 30% sales tax on whatever the value is when I sell it, I would be all in favour of such a law. For me at least this is not trying to throw a spanner in the works at all, quite the contrary. To me this seems like a fair and realistic proposal to help facilitate resolution of property disputes which in turn can only make a wider agreed settlement easier.

in the mean time what will happen to the tc properties in the south. who is going to pay compensation for them. particularly the 41 years of rent as well as the current value.

[DrCyprus]

Will this, literally, be the cost to Turkish Cypriots if this law is passed and subsequently there's an agreement. Perhaps it's Turkey's less than subtle way of throwing a spanner in the works.

For me it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal and I say that as a 'current user' of disputed land in the north. If the legal status of the land I am current user of changes to undisputed freeholder of said land as a result of a settlement at the IPC, and the effective value of that land increases by say 30% as a result then why should I not pay the 30% ? I am the one that will accrue the increased value. If it is done in such a way that I have a choice that when the IPC settles a claim on the land I am the current users of (and will become undisputed freeholder of post the claim be settled) to either pay the 30% there and then on current value or defer it to when I sell the property as a 30% sales tax on whatever the value is when I sell it, I would be all in favour of such a law. For me at least this is not trying to throw a spanner in the works at all, quite the contrary. To me this seems like a fair and realistic proposal to help facilitate resolution of property disputes which in turn can only make a wider agreed settlement easier.

in the mean time what will happen to the tc properties in the south. who is going to pay compensation for them. particularly the 41 years of rent as well as the current value.

For the rent you can ask Turkey.

[Jerry]

Will this, literally, be the cost to Turkish Cypriots if this law is passed and subsequently there's an agreement. Perhaps it's Turkey's less than subtle way of throwing a spanner in the works.

For me it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal and I say that as a 'current user' of disputed land in the north. If the legal status of the land I am current user of changes to undisputed freeholder of said land as a result of a settlement at the IPC, and the effective value of that land increases by say 30% as a result then why should I not pay the 30% ? I am the one that will accrue the increased value. If it is done in such a way that I have a choice that when the IPC settles a claim on the land I am the current users of (and will become undisputed freeholder of post the claim be settled) to either pay the 30% there and then on current value or defer it to when I sell the property as a 30% sales tax on whatever the value is when I sell it, I would be all in favour of such a law. For me at least this is not trying to throw a spanner in the works at all, quite the contrary. To me this seems like a fair and realistic proposal to help facilitate resolution of property disputes which in turn can only make a wider agreed settlement easier.

You may be able to pay the 30 - 40% increase but I doubt the majority of people living in GC property or on GC land will be able to afford it or want to pay it. Many of the carpetbaggers "bought" in the north because it was cheap and I can't see the settlers wanting to pay for property they were gifted. If this law is passed and there is a settlement then there will be an obligation to find the cash for compensation but without a settlement the current occupier will only have to pay up if the GC owner applies to the IPC - a body which appears to be collapsing through lack of Turkish funding.

Because of this many living in the north may be tempted to vote against a settlement.

[erolz66]

You may be able to pay the 30 - 40% increase but I doubt the majority of people living in GC property or on GC land will be able to afford it or want to pay it. Many of the carpetbaggers "bought" in the north because it was cheap and I can't see the settlers wanting to pay for property they were gifted. If this law is passed and there is a settlement then there will be an obligation to find the cash for compensation but without a settlement the current occupier will only have to pay up if the GC owner applies to the IPC - a body which appears to be collapsing through lack of Turkish funding

As I said if the current user does not want to pay or is unable to pay the 30% at the point of the status changing from current user to undisputed freeholder then let them defer it as a sales tax due when the property is sold. The state could easily borrow against the assured and guaranteed (by the land itself) future income in order to settle claims. It really is not rocket science. Some times it feels like you are looking for reason that this stuff could not work ? As to those who have been 'gifted' properties in these cases it would be up to the TRNC / TC component state to decide if that gift was justified and if it was to fund the the 70% themselves. So in the case of my Aunt who was 'gifted' property as effective compensation for the murder of her husband in 64, I would expect the TRNC / TC component state to fund the 70% and the 30% would be funded by her, at the time of change of status or deferred as sales tax to be paid when the property is next sold. It really is not that difficult in my mind. The real problem it seems to me is will, not means. And will needs to be on both sides. I would be happy to pay the 30% or defer it as a sales tax to be paid in the future - but I would expect the RoC / GC component state to recognise my status as undisputed freeholder in the event. Would they do this and if not, would it be fair to suggest that in not doing so they are the ones seeking to put a spanner in the works ?

[erolz66]

Because of this many living in the north may be tempted to vote against a settlement.

Would I, or any sane person, be more likely to support a settlement that would give them personally an overnight 30% increase in the value of property they had, at no cost to them, than a settlement that did not ? Of course. However to make out that the only way I (or they) would support such a settlement would be on the condition they got such a 'free' increase in value is just not true - at least in the case of myself and therefore I suspect others as well.

[DrCyprus]

I actually have a feeling that it's all going to work, and it's actually going to go down really smoothly.

[Jerry]

You may be able to pay the 30 - 40% increase but I doubt the majority of people living in GC property or on GC land will be able to afford it or want to pay it. Many of the carpetbaggers "bought" in the north because it was cheap and I can't see the settlers wanting to pay for property they were gifted. If this law is passed and there is a settlement then there will be an obligation to find the cash for compensation but without a settlement the current occupier will only have to pay up if the GC owner applies to the IPC - a body which appears to be collapsing through lack of Turkish funding

As I said if the current user does not want to pay or is unable to pay the 30% at the point of the status changing from current user to undisputed freeholder then let them defer it as a sales tax due when the property is sold. The state could easily borrow against the assured and guaranteed (by the land itself) future income in order to settle claims. It really is not rocket science. Some times it feels like you are looking for reason that this stuff could not work ? As to those who have been 'gifted' properties in these cases it would be up to the TRNC / TC component state to decide if that gift was justified and if it was to fund the the 70% themselves. So in the case of my Aunt who was 'gifted' property as effective compensation for the murder of her husband in 64, I would expect the TRNC / TC component state to fund the 70% and the 30% would be funded by her, at the time of change of status or deferred as sales tax to be paid when the property is next sold. It really is not that difficult in my mind. The real problem it seems to me is will, not means. And will needs to be on both sides. I would be happy to pay the 30% or defer it as a sales tax to be paid in the future - but I would expect the RoC / GC component state to recognise my status as undisputed freeholder in the event. Would they do this and if not, would it be fair to suggest that in not doing so they are the ones seeking to put a spanner in the works ?

People usually sell a house and buy another with a view to improving their lives or changing jobs. I don't know what expenses are involved in selling in the north but someone moving house will have less than 60% - 70% of the sale price with which to buy. Consequently the only time these properties would come on the market would be when the occupier passes away and that could involve further complications if the property is occupied by other generations of the family. If the property is willed to other family members living there would the tax be payable? Your situation may be straightforward, I doubt many others are.

Your last sentence is clutching at spanners, a component state implies that there has been agreement so of course you would be recognised as undisputed freeholder.

[Lordo]

Will this, literally, be the cost to Turkish Cypriots if this law is passed and subsequently there's an agreement. Perhaps it's Turkey's less than subtle way of throwing a spanner in the works.

For me it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal and I say that as a 'current user' of disputed land in the north. If the legal status of the land I am current user of changes to undisputed freeholder of said land as a result of a settlement at the IPC, and the effective value of that land increases by say 30% as a result then why should I not pay the 30% ? I am the one that will accrue the increased value. If it is done in such a way that I have a choice that when the IPC settles a claim on the land I am the current users of (and will become undisputed freeholder of post the claim be settled) to either pay the 30% there and then on current value or defer it to when I sell the property as a 30% sales tax on whatever the value is when I sell it, I would be all in favour of such a law. For me at least this is not trying to throw a spanner in the works at all, quite the contrary. To me this seems like a fair and realistic proposal to help facilitate resolution of property disputes which in turn can only make a wider agreed settlement easier.

in the mean time what will happen to the tc properties in the south. who is going to pay compensation for them. particularly the 41 years of rent as well as the current value.

For the rent you can ask Turkey.

terggy did not stop me from enjoying my property for 40 years it was roc. in fact roc stopped me from enjoying my property in 1963 long before terggy got involved. i am afraid it is the groc who will pay compensation from 1963 never mind 74. 52 furquine years. terggy can pay the gcs the compensation by all means apply to her she needs some paper for toilet purposes and it will come handy.

[DrCyprus]

Will this, literally, be the cost to Turkish Cypriots if this law is passed and subsequently there's an agreement. Perhaps it's Turkey's less than subtle way of throwing a spanner in the works.

For me it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal and I say that as a 'current user' of disputed land in the north. If the legal status of the land I am current user of changes to undisputed freeholder of said land as a result of a settlement at the IPC, and the effective value of that land increases by say 30% as a result then why should I not pay the 30% ? I am the one that will accrue the increased value. If it is done in such a way that I have a choice that when the IPC settles a claim on the land I am the current users of (and will become undisputed freeholder of post the claim be settled) to either pay the 30% there and then on current value or defer it to when I sell the property as a 30% sales tax on whatever the value is when I sell it, I would be all in favour of such a law. For me at least this is not trying to throw a spanner in the works at all, quite the contrary. To me this seems like a fair and realistic proposal to help facilitate resolution of property disputes which in turn can only make a wider agreed settlement easier.

in the mean time what will happen to the tc properties in the south. who is going to pay compensation for them. particularly the 41 years of rent as well as the current value.

For the rent you can ask Turkey.

terggy did not stop me from enjoying my property for 40 years it was roc. in fact roc stopped me from enjoying my property in 1963 long before terggy got involved. i am afraid it is the groc who will pay compensation from 1963 never mind 74. 52 furquine years. terggy can pay the gcs the compensation by all means apply to her she needs some paper for toilet purposes and it will come handy.

Ok, when Turkey pays my family the rent for our land in Eptakomi I'll let you know to go collect your rent.

[erolz66]

People usually sell a house and buy another with a view to improving their lives or changing jobs. I don't know what expenses are involved in selling in the north but someone moving house will have less than 60% - 70% of the sale price with which to buy. Consequently the only time these properties would come on the market would be when the occupier passes away and that could involve further complications if the property is occupied by other generations of the family. If the property is willed to other family members living there would the tax be payable? Your situation may be straightforward, I doubt many others are.

It really is not that complicated. I bought a property on land that was disputed. It was cheaper than if it had been on land that was not disputed. I estimate in the region of 20% cheaper but lets say it was 30% to keep things simple. If I want to sell it for whatever reason, then if I sell it as is (disputed) I will get X. If I sell it as undisputed at X + 30% and have to pay a 30% sales tax , I am left with X. My ability therefore to be able to afford to sell my house is unchanged , with or without the sales tax. It makes no difference. Of course the tax would pass down generations until it is paid and this represents no problem at all. If the state has borrowed money in lieu of the tax being paid, in order to pay out compensation before it is paid, then any cost of this state borrowing will be offset by natural increase in property value over time. Sometimes it does feel like you are looking for excuses as to why such things could not work ?

Your last sentence is clutching at spanners, a component state implies that there has been agreement so of course you would be recognised as undisputed freeholder.

I assumed we were talking about this proposed 'tax' under either senario - with a settlement or without. If the TRNC was to introduce such a thing before a settlement. do you think the RoC would recognise the undisputed ownership of current users where the pre 74 owner had been compensated by the IPC (70%) and the current user (30%) or not ? Does it recognise such today where the compensation paid has all come from the IPC ?