Property tax - Valuations/Letters - Greystones/Delgany etc

tp25

mickdw wrote: »

I think you are confusing property market value with build cost.
Are you suggesting that it is possible to build a 4 bedroom house including site value, materials and labour and associated fees and build it to comply with the current building regulations and have it complete for 100k?

I'm not confusing anything. We are talking about tax here.

tp25

Yes, even cheaper. And let's realize there is not that many 4 bedroom houses in Charlesland.

Depreciation of the building also need to be added to decrease the value further.

****************

The least what people can do in Charlesland is to request copies of these official valuations from their solicitors or from the bank. you can all see how low they were and even that the banks have allowed to borrow multiple times more.

****************

mickdw

tp25 wrote: »

Yes, even cheaper. And let's realize there is not that many 4 bedroom houses in Charlesland.

Depreciation of the building also need to be added to decrease the value further.

****************

The least what people can do in Charlesland is to request copies of these official valuations from their solicitors or from the bank. you can all see how low they were and even that the banks have allowed to borrow multiple times more.

****************

Im not disagreeing re market values but in relation to build costs, you are so wrong you dont even know. Build costs depressed marginally due to cheaper labour of late. This was somewhat balanced by increasing material costs. Additionally, the current energy regs would likely add 15 to 20k onto the build cost of a 4 bed house versus those in force a few years back. There is no economic sense in building right now versus buying.
As I say, im not referring to valuations or current sale prices. They are what matter re this tax. Likewise I dont see why you should make a statement about build cost when you are a million miles off on price ecen if build cost was relevant to the discussion.

snowman224

TP25 - the property tax has NOTHING to do with rebuild costs.
It is solely based on the market value of the property.
They (government) had another option to place a value based on the site size, which would have resulted in a definitive value.
Instead they went with market value. Which, as we all know is what someone is prepared to pay, not static and open to opinion.

Bottom line, if Revenue massively undervalue your property and you pay the tax accordingly, you will not be penalised.

Cerco

snowman224 wrote: »

TP25 - the property tax has NOTHING to do with rebuild costs.
It is solely based on the market value of the property.
They (government) had another option to place a value based on the site size, which would have resulted in a definitive value.
Instead they went with market value. Which, as we all know is what someone is prepared to pay, not static and open to opinion.

Bottom line, if Revenue massively undervalue your property and you pay the tax accordingly, you will not be penalised.

Your bottom line statement is completely wrong. In the first instance Revenue do not value your property. They are providing an estimate, grossly inaccurate in many instances, of the average property price for categories in your electoral area. The onus is on the property owner to self assess the property value. If they massively underestimate the value and resultant tax then they will be subject to penalties.

snowman224

Cerco wrote: »

Your bottom line statement is completely wrong. In the first instance Revenue do not value your property. They are providing an estimate, grossly inaccurate in many instances, of the average property price for categories in your electoral area. The onus is on the property owner to self assess the property value. If they massively underestimate the value and resultant tax then they will be subject to penalties.

Am afraid to say, that I am far from wrong.
Yes, Revenue will provide an estimate. Which is to be considered an average for your area. If you have a massively larger house than what is considered average you should increase that estimate.
However,
(1) Charlesland is more or less a uniform estate
(2) We, the general public are not professional property evaluators
(3) If you have received a tax bill, and paid it, do you really see how you can be penalised ?
Revenue would have to present the case that you deliberately undervalued your property. You would not have done that by accepting their estimate.
Revenue have stated that if you accept their estimate there will no queries from them.
Also, how can a court of law to find that you deliberately misled revenue by accepting their estimate, given that you are not in a position to question it. The only way to verify their estimate is to have a professional evaluation done and there is no requirement for that in the tax return.

Cerco

snowman224 wrote: »

Am afraid to say, that I am far from wrong.
Yes, Revenue will provide an estimate. Which is to be considered an average for your area. If you have a massively larger house than what is considered average you should increase that estimate.
However,
(1) Charlesland is more or less a uniform estate
(2) We, the general public are not professional property evaluators
(3) If you have received a tax bill, and paid it, do you really see how you can be penalised ?
Revenue would have to present the case that you deliberately undervalued your property. You would not have done that by accepting their estimate.
Revenue have stated that if you accept their estimate there will no queries from them.
Also, how can a court of law to find that you deliberately misled revenue by accepting their estimate, given that you are not in a position to question it. The only way to verify their estimate is to have a professional evaluation done and there is no requirement for that in the tax return.

1. Charlesland is only part of the electoral area. The estimates are for average properties in the electoral area.

2. I agree most people are not professional property valuers. This is why this whole concept of self evaluation is ridiculous. We are the only country in the developed world which has chosen to use this method.
Only one other country, Bogota, uses this system. Yet again we find ourselves with strange bedfellows.

3. You are still making a false assumption. Owners will not receive a tax bill. They will not provide you with an estimate for your property. It is an estimate for an average property in your electoral area.
In my opinion it is less than useless. Paying the estimate will get you through the initial stages but should you sell a massively undervalued (your words) property in future at the market rate then you will be penalised.


Revenue have been given extreme powers in the legislation introducing the property tax. They will not have to present a case. You would be required to prove that you did not deliberately underestimate the value.
They can issue an attachment order to your bank account or other assets.
You would need deep pockets to fund a court challenge. I would love to see a constitutional challenge to this bill.

Annasopra

Cerco wrote: »

1. Charlesland is only part of the electoral area. The estimates are for average properties in the electoral area.

2. I agree most people are not professional property valuers. This is why this whole concept of self evaluation is ridiculous. We are the only country in the developed world which has chosen to use this method.
Only one other country, Bogota, uses this system. Yet again we find ourselves with strange bedfellows.

3. You are still making a false assumption. Owners will not receive a tax bill. They will not provide you with an estimate for your property. It is an estimate for an average property in your electoral area.
In my opinion it is less than useless. Paying the estimate will get you through the initial stages but should you sell a massively undervalued (your words) property in future at the market rate then you will be penalised.


Revenue have been given extreme powers in the legislation introducing the property tax. They will not have to present a case. You would be required to prove that you did not deliberately underestimate the value.
They can issue an attachment order to your bank account or other assets.
You would need deep pockets to fund a court challenge. I would love to see a constitutional challenge to this bill.

Valuations decided this year will stay until 2016. I would assume in 2017 there will be revaluations.

tp25

mickdw wrote: »

...

then how much are 2,3 and 4 beds properties in Charlesland worth in your opinion? Would you agree with
revenue?

Cerco wrote: »

I would love to see a constitutional challenge to this bill.

Would you be willing to go this route?
I can see that it is quiet easy to find advocates for revenue, why people are giving so much grace and acceptance to what you were told...

I think that properties in Charlesland are worth between €50,001 and €99,000 and this is the case I will try to make when dealing with revenue.

Not to mention that at the time of the purchase (no matter if this was a family home or investment) there was no such a tax, my cash flow projections did not include such expense.

tp25

snowman224 wrote: »

...

okay then what it have to do with?

It sounds like so many people just believe that revenue is right... - until someone wins against revenue and then ''some many people'' will realize that their belief was so wrong... Somehow it takes years to prove it or even centuries (in case of Ireland).

Annasopra

tp25 wrote: »

It sounds like so many people just believe that revenue is right... - until someone wins against revenue and then ''some many people'' will realize that their belief was so wrong... Somehow it takes years to prove it or even centuries (in case of Ireland).

To be honest - I have read your posts and it sounds to me like you believe you are right and everybody else is wrong.

tp25

mango salsa wrote: »

To be honest - I have read your posts and it sounds to me like you believe you are right and everybody else is wrong.

No, I think that revenue is wrong.

Could I ask, what do you think is the value of 2,3 and 4 beds properties in Charlesland estate as of this year?

matt-dublin

Does anyone else think that those who believe that the revenue have undervalued their property type may have over valued their home???

Seriously folks, there's a 1400 sq ft apt in the crescent 300k - won't sell, an 1100sq ft for 200k, won't sell. If you believe your home price is excessively more than what the revenue are telling you and you don't live in the burnaby you are likely grossly overvaluing your property

I own an apartment, I believe that noone will ever buy an apartment in Charlesland for 10 years. This to me means my apartment is valueless for the next 10 years.

I also pay in excess of 1500 in management fees, which cover common areas maintenance such as gardens, street lighting, water mains maintenance (which we paid for in the crescent to fix the whole estate one year), insurances, bins and recycling. Why the hell should I be paying the government more????

Jimjay

It states on the revenue site that if you sell your home for more than the submitted valuation then the revenue can look at back charging you the difference in property tax plus fines and interest.

Annasopra

tp25 wrote: »

No, I think that revenue is wrong.

Could I ask, what do you think is the value of 2,3 and 4 beds properties in Charlesland estate as of this year?

I don't know but under 100,000 is completely ridiculous

3 charlesland properties sold for 154,000, 210,000, and 150,000 this year
8 sold last year for 258,000, 120,000, 205,000, 260,000, 220,000, 168,000, 205,000, 190,000

2011

mango salsa wrote: »

3 charlesland properties sold for 154,000, 210,000, and 150,000 this year
8 sold last year for 258,000, 120,000, 205,000, 260,000, 220,000, 168,000, 205,000, 190,000

If that is the case you simply match your property with the average sale price of the most similar from the above. If this results in a lower price than what revenue have suggested you can make a very strong case to show that your (cheaper) valuation is more accurate.

vinpaul

Did some analysis for a number of estates in Greystones. All data taken from Property Sales prices 2010 to date.

Langerland

matt-dublin wrote: »

Does anyone else think that those who believe that the revenue have undervalued their property type may have over valued their home???

Seriously folks, there's a 1400 sq ft apt in the crescent 300k - won't sell, an 1100sq ft for 200k, won't sell. If you believe your home price is excessively more than what the revenue are telling you and you don't live in the burnaby you are likely grossly overvaluing your property

I own an apartment, I believe that noone will ever buy an apartment in Charlesland for 10 years. This to me means my apartment is valueless for the next 10 years.

I also pay in excess of 1500 in management fees, which cover common areas maintenance such as gardens, street lighting, water mains maintenance (which we paid for in the crescent to fix the whole estate one year), insurances, bins and recycling. Why the hell should I be paying the government more????

There have been some apartment sales. I've spoken to Sherry Fitz about it and it's mainly by older couples trading down. Very low prices of course. So you are probably in neg equity so on balance your apartment is worth a lot less than you can afford, but not worth 0 in the revenues eyes.....unfortunately..... I feel your pain.

loyatemu

http://www.daft.ie/property-tax/

seems to be reasonably accurate

(we only bought our house last year - I'd love to accept the Revenue's ludicrously low valuation, but as they have the PPR, and our stamp-duty return, I'll have to go with what we paid as the value).

cocker5

Anyone get their notification / letter from the revenue yesterday?
Got mine, valuation is actually kinda in line with what i expected...

€315 for the 6 months from July - Dec 2013... then €630 for 2014 :eek:

while its inline with what i expected... to go from €100 to €630 in two years is kinda annoying! :cool:

Charlie-Bravo

Ooh look at you with the big expensive house! Actually, that's probably modest for Greystones - haven't even looked at this yet. I wonder what the letters say for houses in the Burnaby. They could vary greatly.

cocker5

astrofluff wrote: »

Ooh look at you with the big expensive house! Actually, that's probably modest for Greystones - haven't even looked at this yet. I wonder what the letters say for houses in the Burnaby. They could vary greatly.

God i wish...
its going on how many bedrooms, bathrooms, semi / detached / garden etc

Im in Deglany... house next door to mine to literally double to size.... OUCH!!

Cerco

cocker5 wrote: »

Anyone get their notification / letter from the revenue yesterday?
Got mine, valuation is actually kinda in line with what i expected...

€315 for the 6 months from July - Dec 2013... then €630 for 2014 :eek:

while its inline with what i expected... to go from €100 to €630 in two years is kinda annoying! :cool:

I admire your temerity. I would put it differently but it would not be appropriate for a public forum. So I will just say it is outrageous. :mad::eek::mad:

matt-dublin

Estimated value of property:
€222,586

Valuation band
€200,000 to€250,000

Estimated property tax 2013:
€202.50

Estimated property tax 2014:
€405

Quackhart

vinpaul wrote: »

Did some analysis for a number of estates in Greystones. All data taken from Property Sales prices 2010 to date.

Vinpaul any chance you did a separate table that included Charlesland as well?

grudgehugger

Got my letter from revenue.

Reckon they've undervalued the house (4 bed semi, Heathervue) by one "band" by putting it in the 250-300 band - see the Excel sheet posted recently on this thread for recent sale prices in the estate for the source of my reasoning....

That said, I have paid the tax per revenue's estimate. Can't see them questioning it.

vinpaul

Quackhart wrote: »

Vinpaul any chance you did a separate table that included Charlesland as well?

No didn't do one, but if time permits I'll have a go at it. It could take some time as there has been a great deal of activity in the Charlesland area as regards sales over the last 3 years.

conlof

grudgehugger wrote: »

Can't see them questioning it.

Agreed. Paid 157. As assessed. Can't see them ever getting around to questioning their own assessment what with all the non-payers they will have to chase down.

loyatemu

when you guys say "paid" - I thought it wasn't due until July...?

Annasopra

loyatemu wrote: »

when you guys say "paid" - I thought it wasn't due until July...?

Thats what they said ages ago but now it looks like you only get till May to file payment