Property tax letter

murphaph

limklad wrote: »

Yes there will be many people who will afford to comply with this Tax. The Rich and the poor (Exempt) The rest will be force to pay whenever they can afford to or not.

Josephine Feehily will probably be the most hated Irish female right now for issuing all those letters with added complications admitted with her by her own comments.
http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0307/3498700-interview-revenue-chairperson-josephine-feehily/
Micheal Noonan will be the most hated male.

I can also see a lot of rents rising putting more pressures to those who can barely afford to rent where ever the Landlord is complying with the Laws of the state or not.

I can see more people defaulting on their mortgages and a lot of people punished because they cannot afford to pay with rising cost and rising taxes and cuts in wages.

I can see more family courts going force fathers to pay this tax for houses they do not live in and no longer own as it sign over the the mother of his child as the Tax is additional expense to support his child/ren and its mother and probably her other children and partners. They probably cannot afford to pay more, most will default on payments.

I can see more suicides and unnecessary additional pain to people who will no longer want to obey the law and society ethics as this letter with other financial pressures will break the last of their mental strength along with their financial back. They will say "I am damn if I do, and I am damn if I don't, so why bother paying? why bother living? The government, the politicians and state do not represent me and have failed me".

I feel sorry and sympthy for all those people who are in financial pain and who will have to face this terrible letter.

Fcukin hell...all over €200 a year? Maybe cut the Sky/UPC subscription or heaven forbid, the telephone DSL before we go killing ourselves over this.

Btw, if Michael Noonan is the most hated man in Ireland then people are even stupider than I gave them credit for. FG should be handling this mess better IMO BUT the villains here are Bertie Ahern and his ilk and their spendthrift policies. Policies enough of the electorate were willing to buy into and support to see FF in government for 14 odd years. People need to take a good look at themselves (not everyone supported FF before anyone jumps down my throat, but enough did and we rise and fall as a society)

Zamboni

It is kind of there.

Section 34 provides for a recipient of a notice, who does not
consider himself or herself to be a liable person, to advise the
Revenue Commissioners in writing and to include any relevant
supporting documentation within 30 days of the receipt of the notice.
The Revenue Commissioners will then make a determination on the
matter. A person who is dissatisfied with the Revenue
Commissioners’ determination can appeal to the Appeal
Commissioners.

The bit in bold is vague but the underlined bit basically the Revenue can decide what they consider as relevant supporting documentation.

Shocking piece of legislation built upon a principle of "guilty until proven innocent" and coercion into providing data outside of their remit.

P. Breathnach

Zamboni wrote: »

Thanks for the link, I failed to see this in my earlier scan!



I don't see how any of this is legal as I don't see where it is covered under the legislation.
It is coercion by the Revenue on tenants.

If I receive income on behalf of a tax dodger and pass it on to him, I can be asked to say where I sent the money. If I refuse, the Revenue can take the position that I am the beneficial recipient of the money, and require me to pay tax on it.

Similarly, if I occupy a property the Revenue can presume that I am the beneficial owner unless I show them otherwise by telling them who I pay rent to. You might feel that it is a bit like "guilty unless proven innocent". It does indeed have a bit of that character. But it is part of a pattern of law that has existed for a long time. If you are indeed innocent in the sense of not being the person liable for the tax, all you have to do is tell the Revenue who you pay your rent to.

And now for the good news: this will probably lead to the Revenue discovering a good number of landlords who, until now, have been evading tax on their rental profits.

murphaph

Zamboni wrote: »

Thanks for the link, I failed to see this in my earlier scan!



I don't see how any of this is legal as I don't see where it is covered under the legislation.
It is coercion by the Revenue on tenants.

I'd agree. Unless this is explicitly allowed for in the legislation then Revenue can send all the tax demands to tenants they like. There is no liability there so Revenue haven't a leg to stand on with this. They'd be made look like fools if they tried to prosecute, which they wouldn't once their own lawyers had taken a look at things.

The whole thing smacks of the Keystone Cops because there is no single database and no compulsion to register land in Ireland. Until it becomes compulsory for all land/property to be formally registered, it'll continue to be an amateur effort by Revenue. Their hands are tied in this respect.

The state should know with 100% certainty at any given time who owns every square inch of the country's real estate.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And now for the good news: this will probably lead to the Revenue discovering a good number of landlords who, until now, have been evading tax on their rental profits.

As a fully tax compliant landlord, I hope it uncovers the ones who aren't, but I also hope the numbers are small as I believe landlords are unjustly demonised by popular culture in Ireland. It's a throwback to colonial days that hasn't gone away. Fact is, the Irish state cannot house all its people without private landlords. The state doesn't build enough social housing to do so.

Zamboni

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If I receive income on behalf of a tax dodger and pass it on to him, I can be asked to say where I sent the money. If I refuse, the Revenue can take the position that I am the beneficial recipient of the money, and require me to pay tax on it.

Similarly, if I occupy a property the Revenue can presume that I am the beneficial owner unless I show them otherwise by telling them who I pay rent to. You might feel that it is a bit like "guilty unless proven innocent". It does indeed have a bit of that character. But it is part of a pattern of law that has existed for a long time. If you are indeed innocent in the sense of not being the person liable for the tax, all you have to do is tell the Revenue who you pay your rent to.

And now for the good news: this will probably lead to the Revenue discovering a good number of landlords who, until now, have been evading tax on their rental profits.

I agree that, from a tax payers perspective, this is a positive result.
Once...tax dodging landlords do not blame tenants for the disclosure of the LL details.
The tenants are being coerced under the legislation.

flutered

Zamboni wrote: »

It is kind of there.



The bit in bold is vague but the underlined bit basically the Revenue can decide what they consider as relevant supporting documentation.

Shocking piece of legislation built upon a principle of "guilty until proven innocent" and coercion into providing data outside of their remit.

i have to say that the legal eagles are rubbing their hands with glee, it is not going to be all plain sailing for the revenue in their attempt to collect this tax, they are like long fill, using quite a bit of bluster, plus advertising, if a legal eagel had been on the telly with she who cannot afford a dentist, she would be taking xanax today,

P. Breathnach

Zamboni wrote: »

...
The tenants are being coerced under the legislation.

Yes. But that's not unique to the property tax. All legislation is coercive in some way or another.

Zamboni

flutered wrote: »

i have to say that the legal eagles are rubbing their hands with glee, it is not going to be all plain sailing for the revenue in their attempt to collect this tax, they are like long fill, using quite a bit of bluster, plus advertising, if a legal eagel had been on the telly with she who cannot afford a dentist, she would be taking xanax today,

Her teeth were a right state in fairness.
We must not be paying our senior civil servants enough money.
But I digress...

darkhorse

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Good.

Why?

TheBandicoot

darkhorse wrote: »

Why?

I want people to pay tax due.

My comment was more in relation to the line in the OP:

A lot of landlords who are not tax compliant are going to have a very bad year.

But I think since then the thread has been focusing on the first bit of the OP re:letters.

Kosseegan

Zamboni wrote: »

Her teeth were a right state in fairness.
We must not be paying our senior civil servants enough money.
But I digress...

I don't want botox for civil servants coming out of public funds. Bad teeth are a sign of poverty in early life. Her family obviously couldn't afford an orthodontist. Like most Civil Servants she probably buys her clothes in Clerys and has a bath once a week.

RATM

Zamboni wrote: »

I would like to see the documentation/legislation that states a tenant can be penalised for non compliance in relation to a tax that is of no concern to them.
It sounds like an idle threat to make tenants do the investigation work on behalf of the Revenue through fear.

It is pretty much that way. I've never heard of Revenue taking a tenant to court or otherwise for not collecting a non-residents tax out of the rent. If it was happening we'd likely hear about it on this forum or on the Pin.

In my own case my landlady is in Canada. I have an email from her stating that she is 100% tax compliant with the Revenue and that I need not worry about collecting the 20%, she has looked after it. If I ever did get taken to court by Revenue for not doing so then I'll be producing that email and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that a judge will hear the case after that.

And in the unlikely event he did then I would comply and collect the 20%. However I'd be deducting my own fee from that as if Revenue want me to do their tax collecting for them then they had better pay me to do so; I don't work for free. My fee would be 99% of what ever the 20% sum is, I don't come cheap

Kosseegan

RATM wrote: »

It is pretty much that way. I've never heard of Revenue taking a tenant to court or otherwise for not collecting a non-residents tax out of the rent. If it was happening we'd likely hear about it on this forum or on the Pin.

In my own case my landlady is in Canada. I have an email from her stating that she is 100% tax compliant with the Revenue and that I need not worry about collecting the 20%, she has looked after it. If I ever did get taken to court by Revenue for not doing so then I'll be producing that email and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that a judge will hear the case after that.

And in the unlikely event he did then I would comply and collect the 20%. However I'd be deducting my own fee from that as if Revenue want me to do their tax collecting for them then they had better pay me to do so; I don't work for free. My fee would be 99% of what ever the 20% sum is, I don't come cheap

There have been cases referred to the Ombudsman where the revenue made a tenant pay the witholding tax. The court won't give a damn about your landlady's email. It is hearsay and would not even be admissible in court.

Sarn

That's an interesting point. If revenue take the time to cross check everything, a number of non-resident owners will be identified. This could lead to issues down the road for tenants where tax has not been witheld (in cases where there is no agent). However, at this stage there's no point in speculating.

The_Conductor

Kosseegan wrote: »

I don't want botox for civil servants coming out of public funds. Bad teeth are a sign of poverty in early life. Her family obviously couldn't afford an orthodontist. Like most Civil Servants she probably buys her clothes in Clerys and has a bath once a week.

If you want to rant and rave about civil servants- take it to the Ranting and Raving forum- or elsewhere- Accommodation and Property is however, not an appropriate venue. Please read the forum charter if you'd like to continue posting here- and quit with your offtopic ranting........

murphaph

Kosseegan wrote: »

There have been cases referred to the Ombudsman where the revenue made a tenant pay the witholding tax. The court won't give a damn about your landlady's email. It is hearsay and would not even be admissible in court.

But the ombudsman said it was too onerous a burden on tenants,,,so Revenue have given up trying to enforce it.

Geuze

murphaph wrote: »

The whole thing smacks of the Keystone Cops because there is no single database and no compulsion to register land in Ireland. Until it becomes compulsory for all land/property to be formally registered, it'll continue to be an amateur effort by Revenue. Their hands are tied in this respect.

The state should know with 100% certainty at any given time who owns every square inch of the country's real estate.

But don't they? Doesn't the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds record all houses and their owners?

irishgeo

Geuze wrote: »

But don't they? Doesn't the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds record all houses and their owners?

Landdirect.ie does indeed provide the names and address of everyone owning every piece of land in the country.

murphaph

Geuze wrote: »

But don't they? Doesn't the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds record all houses and their owners?

No.

There is property in Ireland that is neither in the Land Registry nor are the deeds registered with the Registry of Deeds.

The Registry of Deeds is an ancient thing by the way and not a registry of property, just a note in a book about who is named on deeds, but not where they actually live now nor with any way of uniquely identifying someone (no PPS numbers etc.)

We need a modern system that encompasses all property and contains up to date information about who owns what at any given time.

cocobear

Zamboni wrote: »

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/obligations.html



The tenant only must state that they are not the owner.
There does not appear to be any onus on the tenant to provide anything further.

The tenant in his own best interest should provided name and address of owner when they communicate with revenue

Zamboni

cocobear wrote: »

The tenant in his own best interest should provided name and address of owner when they communicate with revenue

Wtf?

There are subsequent posts in the thread...

Welcome to the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum#Thread

The_Conductor

Think_then_talk wrote: »

In the long run the tenant is going to pay it. Like it or not:mad:

Not at all. Noonan is on record as stating that the legislation is to be amended to allow landlord's deduct the property tax as an allowable expense before determination of taxable income (aka the same as most other countries). If/when the legislation is published, there should be no effect whatsoever on a tenants rent- because its revenue neutral from a Landlord's perspective (aside from PRSI etc being deducted from gross rental income- which is an anomaly if ever I heard one).

Mr Cumulonimbus

No sign of the property tax calculator on the revenue website yet.

Victor

RATM wrote: »

It is pretty much that way. I've never heard of Revenue taking a tenant to court or otherwise for not collecting a non-residents tax out of the rent. If it was happening we'd likely hear about it on this forum or on the Pin.

I've heard of at least one case.

Of course, the tenant could simply withhold 100% of the current rent and pay the rent within a few months. Or Revenue could put a lien on the property.

Victor

Zamboni wrote: »

Welcome to the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum#Thread

Behave

Moderator

Victor

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No sign of the property tax calculator on the revenue website yet.

https://lpt.revenue.ie/lpt-web/valuation-guide/index.htm

RATM

Victor wrote: »

I've heard of at least one case.

Of course, the tenant could simply withhold 100% of the current rent and pay the rent within a few months. Or Revenue could put a lien on the property.

How did the case turn out ? Is it listed on the Ombudsmans website, wouldn't mind taking a gander.

If I found myself in that position that is likely what I'd do- 2.5 months rent would cover the 20% for a year. Mind you I've been here for 3 years so it would be more like 7-8 months rent I'd need to hold back to put the matter in order.

That's provided my landlady hasn't paid it of course. She says she has and has assured me of same in an email, I can only take her on her word at the end of the day.

It also seems to me that the vast vast majority of tenants with non-resident landlords do not know of this 20% rule. Although ignorance of the law is no defence I am sure there are some who genuinely never knew of the rule and would be questioning how Revenue went about informing the public of this law. Considering less than 10% of Irish people read a newspaper and as I've never heard it being adverstised on TV/radio they could have a hard time convincing a judge that a tenant definitely should have known about it. Whatever information campaign they did have at the time appears to be woefully inadequate.

cruhoortwunk

I got one of these letters sent to my current address in relation to a property I used to rent. It seems to say the only way of correcting this is to send a letter.
Surely I can email or do it online somewhere? Does anyone know of a way?