Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Non Principal Private Residence €200 Charge & Household €100 Charge Question

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    jmaycock wrote: »
    Aren't you very full of yourself Mrs Byrne.

    A fight is coming and I will be involved. Just watch.

    Excuses, excuses. No database. Yada yada yada. This would not be accepted in any other country in the world. A sham and a disgrace.

    Well I'll keep a close eye on the press then and hope to see you soon on the front pages with the OP and an army of barristers funded by your good self fighting the NPPR penalties in the high court. Yada yada yada can be your slogan.


  • Options
    #63
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    I would be interested as to whether PTRB, utilities etc are providing info to the revenue now, so that they are able to cross reference peoples residence against their ownership. I don't know how else they would know to bill the OP

    At this stage I'm beginning to think that Govt agencies are cross referencing using the PPS number and that is being used to create a profile of tax, social welfare, financial items.


  • Options
    #64
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    Well I'll keep a close eye on the press then and hope to see you soon on the front pages with the OP and an army of barristers funded by your good self fighting the NPPR penalties in the high court. Yada yada yada can be your slogan.

    Could you please stop rising to the bait, or you will be infracted too.


  • Options
    #65
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    MouseTail wrote: »
    how so? The OP only has one house, so how would paying one LPT flag up that it was a NPPR? As for the PRTB list, lots of second homes that are not rented out. There was simply no way of knowing which houses are NPPRs.

    This is how that works:
    OP paid LPT on the NPPR property as was their liability.
    Cross referencing with utility companies, SW, electoral register etc revealed that OP did not actually live st the address for which they accepted liability for LPT.
    Thus making that house their NPPR.
    in comes the bill.


  • Options
    #66
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    Could you please stop rising to the bait, or you will be infracted too.

    Sorry. I'm as weak as water.only flesh and blood. Won't reply to it again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    I would be interested as to whether PTRB, utilities etc are providing info to the revenue now, so that they are able to cross reference peoples residence against their ownership. I don't know how else they would know to bill the OP

    Yes Revenue certainly are entitled to access databases held by any other state or semi state body. And not before time. It was written into the legislation surrounding the HC / LPT. Cross referencing is what is enabling them now to catch up with those who having paid.


  • Options
    #68
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    At this stage I'm beginning to think that Govt agencies are cross referencing using the PPS number and that is being used to create a profile of tax, social welfare, financial items.

    I'm not a tinfoil hat person, but I think that before very long there will be a database containing every bit of info available on every citizen. Medical history, academic achievements , credit rating, the lot. Personally, I don't have a problem with this. It should make form filling for state benefits etc a lot more straight forward. Just your name and PPSN is enough?


  • Options
    #69
    Leslie91
    Registered Users Posts: 4,017 ✭✭✭Leslie91


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    This is how that works:
    OP paid LPT on the NPPR property as was their liability.
    Cross referencing with utility companies, SW, electoral register etc revealed that OP did not actually live st the address for which they accepted liability for LPT.
    Thus making that house their NPPR.
    in comes the bill.

    Wow if that is what happened....

    I guess it means there are 100s if not 1000s out there who purposely tried to evade this tax and who may or may not get caught based on the above method.

    Another thing I found interesting when I learned of it was that it was up to the individual to tell Revenue from what date it became an NPPR. I wonder is that being checked too.


  • Options
    #70
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Leslie91 wrote: »
    Wow if that is what happened....

    I guess it means there are 100s if not 1000s out there who purposely tried to evade this tax and who may or may not get caught based on the above method.

    Another thing I found interesting when I learned of it was that it was up to the individual to tell Revenue from what date it became an NPPR. I wonder is that being checked too.

    I would guess that if you've made a payment and are on the database you're probably OK. They will be focussed on current data I imagine.....to go through and check historic data would be a whole other level of administration.


  • Options
    #71
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Leslie91 wrote: »
    Wow if that is what happened....

    I guess it means there are 100s if not 1000s out there who purposely tried to evade this tax and who may or may not get caught based on the above method.

    Another thing I found interesting when I learned of it was that it was up to the individual to tell Revenue from what date it became an NPPR. I wonder is that being checked too.

    I have to go now but just to say that there is a definite determination to eradicate fraud in this country and compell reluctant citizens to meet their obligations. We are decades behind other countries in this regard. It will make it a more even playing field for everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    Leslie91 wrote: »
    Wow if that is what happened....

    I guess it means there are 100s if not 1000s out there who purposely tried to evade this tax and who may or may not get caught based on the above method.

    Even if not caught based on the above, (and thats impressive cross checking I wasn't aware of), all outstanding penalties would have had to be paid on sale/inheritance anyway. Anyone evading this tax was nuts.


  • Options
    #73
    Leslie91
    Registered Users Posts: 4,017 ✭✭✭Leslie91


    MouseTail wrote: »
    Even if not caught based on the above, (and thats impressive cross checking I wasn't aware of), all outstanding penalties would have had to be paid on sale/inheritance anyway. Anyone evading this tax was nuts.

    Yes... if the fact that it was an NPPR is discovered.


  • Options
    #74
    Ogham
    Registered Users Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Ogham


    It seems that local authorities do have some discretion when trying to collect the penalty charges.
    http://www.moneyguideireland.com/penalties-of-e6320-to-be-charged-on-unpaid-nppr-of-e1000.html

    It seems they can reduce late fee liabilities in "circumstances in which the local authority considers that to do so would be most efficient for the collection of the undischarged charge and liabilities"

    So - if someone is in put in hardship by paying the penalties they may be able to get them reduced or written off.

    If a private company imposed such massive late payment penalties I would hope there would be some law to stop them. Banks in the UK were made to pay back unfair penalties they charged on overdrafts.


  • Options
    #75
    Leslie91
    Registered Users Posts: 4,017 ✭✭✭Leslie91


    Ogham wrote: »
    It seems that local authorities do have some discretion when trying to collect the penalty charges.
    http://www.moneyguideireland.com/penalties-of-e6320-to-be-charged-on-unpaid-nppr-of-e1000.html

    It seems they can reduce late fee liabilities in "circumstances in which the local authority considers that to do so would be most efficient for the collection of the undischarged charge and liabilities"

    So - if someone is in put in hardship by paying the penalties they may be able to get them reduced or written off.

    If a private company imposed such massive late payment penalties I would hope there would be some law to stop them. Banks in the UK were made to pay back unfair penalties they charged on overdrafts.

    Too little too late for me. I had to pay mine plus penalties in 2012. I'd like to think my efforts at getting treated fairly helped in getting them to add powers to the local authorities to reduce the penalties somewhat. People like OP might see the benefit of this.

    I see if you hang onto the NPPR and sell it after 2025 you make off like a bandit then eh!?


  • Options
    #76
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Ogham wrote: »
    It seems that local authorities do have some discretion when trying to collect the penalty charges.
    http://www.moneyguideireland.com/penalties-of-e6320-to-be-charged-on-unpaid-nppr-of-e1000.html

    It seems they can reduce late fee liabilities in "circumstances in which the local authority considers that to do so would be most efficient for the collection of the undischarged charge and liabilities"

    So - if someone is in put in hardship by paying the penalties they may be able to get them reduced or written off.

    If a private company imposed such massive late payment penalties I would hope there would be some law to stop them. Banks in the UK were made to pay back unfair penalties they charged on overdrafts.

    Demonstrating hardship is the key. The supreme court ruling in the UK to which you refer only applied to those who were in hardship, or suffered hardship as a result of the bank charges. Banks can, and do, still charge exorbitant unauthorised overdraft penalties.

    Of course in this case with the penalty running into thousands, it may be that hardship can be demonstrated


  • Options
    #77
    Ogham
    Registered Users Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Ogham


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    Demonstrating hardship is the key. The supreme court ruling in the UK to which you refer only applied to those who were in hardship, or suffered hardship as a result of the bank charges. Banks can, and do, still charge exorbitant unauthorised overdraft penalties.

    Of course in this case with the penalty running into thousands, it may be that hardship can be demonstrated

    The discretion is pretty wide ranging for the NPPR - it just says that the council may act as it sees fit to most efficiently collect the NPPR and any late payment fee .


  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The penalty charge for this are needlessly high, it was a poorly thought out and implemented charge at a time when many (relatively) folks were leaving their primary residence for space or work reasons or emmigration etc and realistically could not sell due to negative equity.

    Anyway, it is what it is, hopefully the terms of the payment can be agreed to suit the OP.

    One thing OP, for the future, something to chew over that may be applicable, if you bought your property prior to 2007 and rented it out within 5 years of purchase their may be another bill to be settled sometime, clawback stamp duty as your first time buyer owner occupier status may have changed.


  • Options
    #79
    jmaycock
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭jmaycock


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    This is how that works:
    OP paid LPT on the NPPR property as was their liability.
    Cross referencing with utility companies, SW, electoral register etc revealed that OP did not actually live st the address for which they accepted liability for LPT.
    Thus making that house their NPPR.
    in comes the bill.

    Assuming you are right, can you hypothesise as to why it took them 4 years to carry this out? All of this could have been done after year 1, which would have resulted in fines and penalties much lower than are being imposed now.

    A serious question.


  • Options
    #80
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    jmaycock wrote: »
    Assuming you are right, can you hypothesise as to why it took them 4 years to carry this out? All of this could have been done after year 1, which would have resulted in fines and penalties much lower than are being imposed now.

    A serious question.

    Last year the lpt was introduced. It was only then that the dots could be joined. Read the post you quoted.


  • Options
    #81
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    jmaycock wrote: »
    Assuming you are right, can you hypothesise as to why it took them 4 years to carry this out? All of this could have been done after year 1, which would have resulted in fines and penalties much lower than are being imposed now.

    A serious question.

    Because the NPPR was introduced long before the LPT

    edit - crossed posts


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    jmaycock wrote: »
    Assuming you are right, can you hypothesise as to why it took them 4 years to carry this out? All of this could have been done after year 1, which would have resulted in fines and penalties much lower than are being imposed now.

    A serious question.

    You were told not post in this thread again.


  • Options
    #83
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    jmaycock wrote: »
    Assuming you are right, can you hypothesise as to why it took them 4 years to carry this out? All of this could have been done after year 1, which would have resulted in fines and penalties much lower than are being imposed now.

    A serious question.

    But how could Revenue have discovered that people had an NPPR until they declared their interest in the property by making an LPT return 12 months ago?
    I'm trying to explain how the connections were made. You don't seem to be following. Its quite clear to others.


Advertisement