In order to know whether there was a Capital Gains Tax liability in the first place you need to consider (at least!) the following:Whether one of the couple's properties was designated as the couple's principle private residence (PPR) at all and, if so, which (and for what periods). If it was this property, then the question doesn't even arise (the couple can choose to designate either regardless of actual living arrangements). If neither was designated, then which is regarded as the PPR depends on what HMRC would regard as the facts of the case.What the buying and selling costs of the property were (these are offsettable against any capital gain)Whether any capital sums were spent on the property (these are also offsettable against any capital gains)The fact that any capital gain after the above costs would be pro-rated for the period during which it was the PPR (at least the period between purchase and marriage), reducing the capital gain on which tax MIGHT be payableThe fact that, regardless of whether the property was designated as the couple's PPR, the last 9 months of ownership attract CGT reliefWhether there was a period when the property was rented out - if so, then although it couldn't be a PPR for that period, at the time of sale there was still lettings relief (since scrapped) which would have reduced CGT liabilityThe fact that everyone has a capital gains allowance before any liability arises. If the property was put in both names before sale then the couple would be able to use both their allowancesWhether there were any capital losses brought forward from previous years (e.g. on sales of shares or other assets) which could be offset against the possible capital gain on the propertyWhether there were any capital losses in the same tax year which could be offset against the possible capital gainGiven that no-one, except the couple, their accountants and HMRC is in a position to know the above, I suggest that the whole discussion is absolutely futile - and begins to sound like a witch hunt.I would also suggest that, given the complexity of capital gains tax and that all the above is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the discussions around this topic, it would be extremely easy, as Janice suggests, for someone to make an innocent mistake
Andrzej Kowalski ● 20d