Govt. Threat to Re-Possess Homes Owned by Foreigners? |
 |
Aug 4th, 2006, 14:11
| #1 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: May 2005 Location: Goa and Penzance, Cornwall
Posts: 152
| Govt. Threat to Re-Possess Homes Owned by Foreigners? Hi everyone, We have had an email from a friend in Bardez, Goa, saying that notices have appeared in the newspapers saying that unless properties are owned by foreigners who have residency papers, the properties will be re-possessed by the Government. It doesn't matter whether you had the appropriate residency papers at the time you purchased, you need to always have a residency certificate. This is a real problem for me, as I now cannot get an employment or business visa as I am now retired. I can't get an X-Visa either as they have stopped issuing those in London. So, I'm on a tourist visa, which says I can't stay for longer than 180 days at a time. Kafkaesque, or what? Can anyone throw any further light on what's going on ? Much appreciate any input, Best wishes, Annie
__________________ AnnieG Live life to the full - you never know what's around the corner. |
|  |
|
Aug 4th, 2006, 15:33
| #2 |
| This is just a cameo appearance  Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India
Posts: 38,252
| The notice may be the one psted today in this thread here Check it out and see if the one your friends saw is different. What is this business about X visas not being availale in London? This is the second time I've heard it said. Not available to foreigners? to property owners? or not available to anyone? And since when? Any more info on this would be very much appreciated. |
|
| |
|
Aug 4th, 2006, 21:16
| #3 |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Goa and Penzance, Cornwall
Posts: 152
| Apparently, not available at all any more. That's what my husband was told when he went to London visa office about a month ago. Which means we can't get residency certificate, which means we are up the proverbial creek if the rumours are true, that to continue to own a property in Goa and to avoid reposession by the Govt. then you have to always have a residency status. :-( |
|
| |
|
Aug 4th, 2006, 21:27
| #4 |
| This is just a cameo appearance Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India
Posts: 38,252
| "residency" as in Resident Permit or as in FEMA 182-day rule? It seems to be the latter that matters for property ownership, and that you may be able to satisfy? Any idea what they are now recommending to spouses of Indian Citizens, spouses of business-visa holders etc etc? What on earth is going on? |
|
| |
|
Aug 4th, 2006, 21:36
| #5 |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Goa and Penzance, Cornwall
Posts: 152
| As I understand it, 'residency' as in Resident's Permit, but it might be the 182 day rule. I think that the person who emailed me was just panicking - I have read the other thread you mentioned, and it quotes the Notice in full, and I can't see anything there about on-going residency (as in permits or 182 days) - it seems to be all about requirements for purchase, not requirements for continued ownership. In any case, if that is true, we will simply transfer ownership to a company. So, I think this is a fuss about nothing. However the X Visa thing is true, as far as I know - they are no longer available, at least from the UK. |
|
| |
|
Aug 4th, 2006, 23:29
| #6 |
| Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: uk
Posts: 65
| As with UK law (especially tax law), in India the term "residency" is highly contextual. Below is a quote from http://www.kdpaccountants.com/newnri.htm#4 "Residential status under FEMA is the basis of applicability of FEMA i.e. transactions of a resident even outside India are covered by FEMA. The determination of residential status under FEMA is substantially different as compared to that under the Income Tax Act. Under the Income Tax act, residential status is determined based only on the number of days of stay in India. Under FEMA, residential status is determined based on primarily the intention of the person" Now, I think this is quite worrying for those foreign nationals who thought they satisfied the 182 day rule in order to buy a property as a holiday/retirement place and then returned home, even with the intention of sometime in the future residing in India. The whole business needs to be clarified, and we need to know what is meant by "appropriate action" for those deemed in violation of the rules. We also need to know who, (RBI, Judiciary etc), will make the judgements on this and what legal appeals would be available. |
|
| |
|
Aug 4th, 2006, 23:44
| #7 | |
| This is just a cameo appearance Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India
Posts: 38,252
| Quote:
This company is aiming at NRIs and thus the advice that they give may well correctly differ from that which applies to non-Indian foreigners. | |
|
| |
|
Aug 5th, 2006, 00:28
| #8 | |
| Infidel Sufi  Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: styx
Posts: 14,218
| Quote:
whatever that can be construed to mean. | |
|
| |
|
Aug 5th, 2006, 00:34
| #9 |
| Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: uk
Posts: 65
| Well Nick, the following is taken from RBI website FAQ under the section Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India by a person Resident outside India. "A.53 From FEMA angle, a person resident in India means a person residing in India for more than one hundred and eighty-two days during the course of the preceding financial year (April-March) and who has come to or stays in India either for taking up employment, carrying on business or vocation in India or for any other purpose, that would indicate his intention to stay in India for an uncertain period. In other words, to be treated as `a person resident in India' under FEMA a person has not only to satisfy the condition of the period of stay (being more than 182 days during the course of the preceding financial year) but has also to comply with the condition of the purpose / intention of stay." The word "and" in the first sentence is crucial to the interpretation, as is "purpose/intention" (as you rightly mention) in the second. |
|
| |
|
Aug 5th, 2006, 02:35
| #10 |
| This is just a cameo appearance Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India
Posts: 38,252
| Indeed. So both are requirements. However the 182 days is a lot more tangable, and without it all the intention in the world won't do. OTOH, without the intention......... |
|
| |
|
Aug 5th, 2006, 02:49
| #11 | |
| Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: uk
Posts: 65
| Quote:
 very good Don't forget the "uncertain period" too! BTW it must be very late there. | |
|
| |
|
Aug 5th, 2006, 05:50
| #12 | |
| Maha Guru Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,552
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
Aug 7th, 2006, 17:30
| #13 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Chennai
Posts: 169
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
Aug 7th, 2006, 19:26
| #14 | |
| Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Manchester ,United Kingdom
Posts: 37
| Quote:
If people have followed the letter of the law then surely they have nothing to worry about . These scare stories have been going on for months ! Even at the weekend the Daily Telegraph ran a story about the problems for foreigners buying property in Goa.At the end of the article they were advertising property for sale in Goa . Crazy !! | |
|
| |
|
Aug 7th, 2006, 22:47
| #15 |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Goa and Penzance, Cornwall
Posts: 152
| Really? We were told in June / July that they were no longer being issued. Typical. |
|
| |
Linear Mode
