Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

It's going to go upwards at a maximum of 15% per annum,

Things change, and you can't take a politician at his/her word.

alastair wrote: »

(or downwards )

Have we found something we agree on?

alastair wrote: »

and we all knew that the HHC was only an easing-in process for a proper property tax - they told us as much from the outset.

So, no one asked what all the fuss was about, over €2 a week.?
Yes, that was the thin edge of the wedge. It hasn't been driven home fully yet.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Things change, and you can't take a politician at his/her word.

Bit of a cop-out. It's written into the legislation.

Slick50 wrote: »

So, no one asked what all the fuss was about, over €2 a week.?
Yes, that was the thin edge of the wedge. It hasn't been driven home fully yet.

You find me anyone who thought that the HHC was anything like a reflection of what a proper property taxation scenario would cost, and you'll be showing me an exceptional individual. Everyone knew we would pay more than that - that reality sunk in on day one that the HHC was mooted.

bgrizzley

Banjo String wrote: »

I said it too.

I don't think anyone said they'd pay double the income tax though.

i cant remember exactly what i said, but i would pay more than my lpt liability to have the state keep their grubby mitts off my home. (i couldnt afford double my income tax though, but i could easily afford multiples of my lpt)

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

Bit of a cop-out. It's written into the legislation.

That's not a cop out, it's a statement of fact. Legislation changes too.

alastair wrote: »

You find me anyone who thought that the HHC was anything like a reflection of what a proper property taxation scenario would cost, and you'll be showing me an exceptional individual. Everyone knew we would pay more than that - that reality sunk in on day one that the HHC was mooted.

I am not saying such an exceptional person exists. The origional HHC thread ran to around 30k posts, a substantial number of them were posted by people asking what all the fuss was about over €2, do you think they were aware it was going to go up?

You didn't answer this...

alastair wrote: »

(or downwards )

Have we found something we agree on?

I was going to crack open a bottle of bubbly.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd love to see a show of hands: how many of those of you who are arguing against a property tax agree with darkhorse that we should be increasing income tax on minimum wage earners instead?

darkhorse wrote: »

That would be interesting. I'd love to see a show of hands as to who would prefer to have a further income tax deduction, or to pay a tax on their home.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Goalpost shift alert: that's not what I asked.

Just on this, oB, you say: "that's not what I asked", when I posted my post above, and I know that's not what you asked. I did say in answer to your post, "That would be interesting", and I was being genuine when I acknowledged your post, and I decided to follow through with the above, instead of making two separate posts, so no, I wasn't trying to shift the goalposts.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused. You dodge the question about the difference between a tax and a charge with a smart-arsed answer, then come back and continue to flog the dead horse?

Tell me: if income tax was renamed in the morning to "income charge", would that make it not a tax? Is the USC not a tax?

Why, exactly, are you labouring this point?

Yes, the USC is a tax on income, and, that the government choose to call it a charge, I do not know, why not call it what it is. Income tax is a tax on income, which is obvious. The LPT is a tax residential homes, which replaced the Household Charge. I know what you're saying, however, unless I am mistaken, right from the start, we were told by Minister Phil Hogan that the HHC was going to be a flat charge of one hundred euro in 2012, and then, from the 1st of July 2013, he was going to introduce a Property Tax. So, is this not the case, and if I am wrong, would someone point out to me where the HHC in 2012 was a tax?

Godge

hju6 wrote: »

A 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it,

You made up a figure off the top of your head that I have completely discredited, just remember that. Where did you get your figure from, how could you possibly think that a 0.5% rise in corporation tax would more than cover it? Have you never read an Exchequer statement?

hju6 wrote: »

Your figures are from the lads who 'found' 6 billion lying about a couple of years ago,
I await a better solution from yourself that doesn't include taxing the working heart out of the country with charge after charge that will rise year after year,
Just to service the interest on other people's debt that was foisted upon us..

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7486&CatID=5&StartDate=01+January+2013

Now you tell me that my figures are off because they are 2013 projections!!! You are really desperate, it is quite sad.

Look there are the 2012 outcome. Corporation tax was €4.2 bn, not much different to the €4.1 bn projection I used. Think I will stick with my figures.

Which of course means once again that your idea of increasing corporation tax to replace the LPT is clearly demonstrated as pointless. As I said in my previous post, it could lead to decreased overall tax revenue.

hju6 wrote: »

Not once have you proposed any ideas to raise finances on this thread, it's like Edna bleats and you run for your sheepskin wallet, god help you in a few years time when it all comes home to roost.

When what all comes home to roost?

If you went through my post history over the last few years you would see plenty of ideas on how to solve the country's finances. Here are a few:

1. Double the rate of LPT
2. Extend commercial rates to B&Bs
3. Introduce a farm tax, similar to LPT
4. Eliminate the special income tax credit for over-65s
5. Tax the remaining social welfare payments exempt from tax
6. Replace child benefit with a system that provides school books, school uniforms and lunches direct to students and also provide for after-school care and pre-school care for working parents only.
7. Eliminate or restrict tax relief for pensions
8. Introduce a new lower-rate of unemployment assistance for those on long-term unemployment who haven't engaged with job opportunities
9. Penal tax on derelict sites inside town and city boundaries
10. Reduce the number of VAT-exempt goods


Those are only a few, I have had many more over the years.

Godge

darkhorse wrote: »

Yes, the USC is a tax on income, and, that the government choose to call it a charge, I do not know, why not call it what it is. Income tax is a tax on income, which is obvious. The LPT is a tax residential homes, which replaced the Household Charge. I know what you're saying, however, unless I am mistaken, right from the start, we were told by Minister Phil Hogan that the HHC was going to be a flat charge of one hundred euro in 2012, and then, from the 1st of July 2013, he was going to introduce a Property Tax. So, is this not the case, and if I am wrong, would someone point out to me where the HHC in 2012 was a tax?

Round and round in circles, this has been answered many times.

A tax is a compulsory contribution to government revenue, no matter what it is called. That makes the HHC a tax.

If we called it the "Houses contribution" it would be a tax. If we called it the "Household Gobbledy-gook", it would still be a tax. If we called it the "payment to annoy darkhorse and others", it would still be a tax.

The label doesn't matter, the purpose does, I thought you would have got that by now.

oscarBravo

darkhorse wrote: »

Just on this, oB, you say: "that's not what I asked", when I posted my post above, and I know that's not what you asked. I did say in answer to your post, "That would be interesting", and I was being genuine when I acknowledged your post, and I decided to follow through with the above, instead of making two separate posts, so no, I wasn't trying to shift the goalposts.

Fair enough; I misinterpreted your reply.

darkhorse

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:
So what's the difference between a charge and a tax?

The difference between a charge and a tax, in my opinion.

A charge is a price/cost that you would pay in a retail outlet, or to a tradesperson/professional for goods or services, that may be negotiable.

A tax is a monetary levy imposed by a government, for which there may not necessarily be any return forthcoming.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

Increasing income tax doesn't reduce take-home pay?

Course it does.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

The difference between a charge and a tax, in my opinion.

A charge is a price/cost that you would pay in a retail outlet, or to a tradesperson/professional for goods or services, that may be negotiable.

Your opinion of what a charge is would fall short of where it's applied on a daily basis then. Neither the HHC or the USC fall into your definition, and both are taxes.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've made the claim that others are arguing that we should have a property tax because other countries do.

Well, yes, and I posted it and reposted the original posters post a couple of times, and I even bolded the appropriate section, and even then, none of the posters who are arguing in favour of the LPT have seen it, so it's no point in me revisiting that one.

darkhorse

oscarBravo wrote: »

Believe it or not, the property tax isn't designed exclusively around your personal circumstances.

OK, agreed.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Well, yes, and I posted it and reposted the original posters post a couple of times, and I even bolded the appropriate section, and even then, none of the posters who are arguing in favour of the LPT have seen it, so it's no point in me revisiting that one.

That's because emboldening the words doesn't change their meaning. You are making a claim for then contrary to their meaning. And this has been pointed out to you multiple times.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86459888&postcount=3798

darkhorse

Banjo String wrote: »

Was vat not raised to make up for this?

Godge wrote: »

What happened was that we removed a stable broad-based tax on property and replaced it with a transactions-based tax dependent on the level of economic activity.

Yes it was. It was raised by 2%.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

Yes it was. It was raised by 2%.

VAT was not increased with the removal of domestic rates.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/rates/current-historic-rates-vat.html

creedp

alastair wrote: »

It's a relatively progressive tax. More expensive properties pay more tax. There's a broad parallel with property value and ability-to-pay and where that isn't the case, there's a mechanism for offsetting that payment. Gardens are not really exempted from the tax either - a house with a large garden will be valued higher than a similar property without a large garden.

Unlike IT there is little progressiveness in the taxable rate as the value of the house increases .. 0.18% for the 1st €1m and then 0.25% on balance. If the same approach was applied to IT then the vast majority of workers would be on the std rate and the high rate would be around 30% and not 42% .. .. maybe I should look again at the definition of progressive or maybe the use of 'relatively' is NB here, e.g. it certainly is relatively progressive when compared to the HHC.

As far as I understand it gardens in excess of an acre are not taken into account when calculating the value of the property for LPT .. now I would think that most ordinary Joes wont have to concern themselves with this exemption.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

Unlike IT there is little progressiveness in the taxable rate as the value of the house increases .. 0.18% for the 1st €1m and then 0.25% on balance. If the same approach was applied to IT then the vast majority of workers would be on the std rate and the high rate would be around 30% and not 42% .. .. maybe I should look again at the definition of progressive or maybe the use of 'relatively' is NB here, e.g. it certainly is relatively progressive when compared to the HHC.

As far as I understand it gardens in excess of an acre are not taken into account when calculating the value of the property for LPT .. now I would think that most ordinary Joes wont have to concern themselves with this exemption.

It's either progressive or regressive, and in this case it's progressive - relatively so. Comparing it to a more progressive tax doesn't undermine that reality.

The value the property is all that determines the tax band - and the valuation will obviously be influenced by the garden size - so regardless of whether a garden over an acre is considered liable to the tax or not, it'll impart greater value on the actual house, so the exemption is moot.

darkhorse

alastair wrote: »

That's because emboldening the words doesn't change their meaning. You are making a claim for then contrary to their meaning. And this has been pointed out to you multiple times.
[URL="http://"][/URL]

No, I will not accede on this one.

alastair

darkhorse wrote: »

No, I will not accede on this one.

But everyone is free to read what he wrote and form the obvious conclusion.

brokenarms

Its started to come out of my wages this week. Booooooooo.

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

The difference between a charge and a tax, in my opinion.

A charge is a price/cost that you would pay in a retail outlet, or to a tradesperson/professional for goods or services, that may be negotiable.

A tax is a monetary levy imposed by a government, for which there may not necessarily be any return forthcoming.

Mod

A poster was kind enough to put up the definitions of both terms, a charge is a lien against a property, obviously introduced by statute in this case with penalties and/or interest if not paid. It is not a price or a quote, you can't go into your local council office and haggle over it.

No, I will not accede on this one.

From the charter:

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request

You've not posted anything whatsoever to back up your opinion, you've had plenty of chances to post something, and at this stage it has gone on long enough.

Do not post on this thread again thank you.

Zubeneschamali

brokenarms wrote: »

Its started to come out of my wages this week.

Thank you for posting this, I think you are the first poster to state this in person.

Banjo String

I see from a report this morning that consumers will be obliged to pay vat on their water bills.

Irish water will be a private company, and therefore obliged to charge it.

Nicely done govt. Farm it out to a 'private' company, then reap the rewards via vat receipts.
A tax, in a tax.


Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

creedp

alastair wrote: »

It's either progressive or regressive, and in this case it's progressive - relatively so. Comparing it to a more progressive tax doesn't undermine that reality.

The value the property is all that determines the tax band - and the valuation will obviously be influenced by the garden size - so regardless of whether a garden over an acre is considered liable to the tax or not, it'll impart greater value on the actual house, so the exemption is moot.

So its either black or white .. no degress of grey .. sound like a lot of discussion on here. I think you'll find there are degress of progressiveness and you cant say two different taxes are the same when one is much more progressive than the other. Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes. I wonder how introducing a relatively unprogressivness tax like the LPT would impact on our result?

There is either an exemption for the value imputed to gardens in excess of 1 acre or there isn't .. so what's the moot point all about? Did the legislation contain a frivolous provision?

It seems to me that the views expressed in certain posts are pro-Government policy for the sake of it irrespective of what the issue is .. e.g broadcasting charge and LPT. I would have though that even if someone was a Government spokesperson (not saying anyone on here is!) they could admit to flaws, even minor ones, in Govt policy on an anonomous internet forum. No policy is perfect!

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

That's a bit of a deviation from two weeks ago, where you were claiming that Revenue weren't actually garnishing salaries.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

So its either black or white

Precisely. It's either progressive, or it's not. This is.

oscarBravo

creedp wrote: »

So its either black or white .. no degress of grey .. sound like a lot of discussion on here. I think you'll find there are degress of progressiveness and you cant say two different taxes are the same when one is much more progressive than the other. Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes. I wonder how introducing a relatively unprogressivness tax like the LPT would impact on our result?

Taking all that on board, something that's important to keep in mind is that progressiveness is not the only metric by which a tax (or a tax regime) should be judged. We could make corporation tax progressive by charging 1% corporation tax on cottage industries and 99% on Google and Intel - but that wouldn't be a good idea.

Progressiveness is just one metric by which to judge a tax. Sustainability is another, and the two are, to an extent, mutually exclusive. The challenge is to find the balance.

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes.

Our existing system is too progressive. Half of all workers pay no income tax. The top 5% of earners pay half of all income tax. This is why you hear all the talk about broadening the tax base.

If we just added the 500 mil planned from LPT to income taxes, it would mostly fall on the same very narrow base.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

There is either an exemption for the value imputed to gardens in excess of 1 acre or there isn't .. so what's the moot point all about? Did the legislation contain a frivolous provision?

It seems to me that the views expressed in certain posts are pro-Government policy for the sake of it irrespective of what the issue is .. e.g broadcasting charge and LPT. I would have though that even if someone was a Government spokesperson (not saying anyone on here is!) they could admit to flaws, even minor ones, in Govt policy on an anonomous internet forum. No policy is perfect!

The LPT bands are based on market value. Market value cannot ignore a larger garden - it will inevitably be factored into the price of the house itself. That's just the reality of the situation, whether there's a notional exemption on anything over an acre or not. You can't divorce one from the other.


Based on the Dail questions - it seems that the exemption of anything over an acre is based on a technicality:

282. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the reason for allowing property owners to be exempt from the proposed property tax for land over one acre; and if he will estimate the revenue he is willing to forego by limiting the property tax to the valuation of property on one acre. [5782/13]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that in line with other taxes such as Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT), where the market value of residential property is relevant to the assessment for a tax, the curtilage of the dwelling house includes an area of up to one acre. This is regarded as land which is enjoyed as an amenity with the dwelling-house and includes driveways, yards and gardens which belong with the dwelling-house. The tax is intended to be a tax on residential property as normally defined so I do not agree that taxing a residential property plus one acre means that revenue is being foregone. In any event, it is not possible to estimate what yield would arise from applying the Local Property Tax to a larger area as no valuation of such property is available. If a property is situated on grounds in excess of one acre, while the LPT will only apply to the house plus one acre, the balance of the property will be liable to CGT on disposal as it will not benefit from the CGT relief for principal private residences.

And your shill paranoia is pretty tired.

Godge

creedp wrote: »

So its either black or white .. no degress of grey .. sound like a lot of discussion on here. I think you'll find there are degress of progressiveness and you cant say two different taxes are the same when one is much more progressive than the other. Some time back I remember seeing some study of the progressiveness of tax system across Europe and the Irish system was rated highly progressive because of of our progressive IT tax which masked the regressive nature of VAT and other flat rate taxes. I wonder how introducing a relatively unprogressivness tax like the LPT would impact on our result?

There is either an exemption for the value imputed to gardens in excess of 1 acre or there isn't .. so what's the moot point all about? Did the legislation contain a frivolous provision?

It seems to me that the views expressed in certain posts are pro-Government policy for the sake of it irrespective of what the issue is .. e.g broadcasting charge and LPT. I would have though that even if someone was a Government spokesperson (not saying anyone on here is!) they could admit to flaws, even minor ones, in Govt policy on an anonomous internet forum. No policy is perfect!

People seem to think that progressive = good but that is not necessarily the case.

If your income tax regime is too progressive, you discourage overtime, you discourage entrepreneurs and you discourage people trying to better themselves in going for higher-paid jobs. Why would someone want all the hassle of the extra work/extra duties and responsibility when say 70% of the extra money is lost in tax?

Those behavioural changes that result from overly progressive income taxation act as a drag on economic growth which then requires higher income taxation to pay for the same services which gets us into a vicious circle.

The MacSharry taxation cuts of the late 1980s worked because they jumped the economy on a bandwagon of world economic growth. That hasn't been the case this time but I would be suggesting that if world economic growth does take off, we should be targeting some income tax cuts at higher earners to encourage the job-creators.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

The LPT bands are based on market value. Market value cannot ignore a larger garden - it will inevitably be factored into the price of the house itself. That's just the reality of the situation, whether there's a notional exemption on anything over an acre or not. You can't divorce one from the other.

Wasn't the one acre clause brought in to take account of rural/farm lands, so people weren't being assessed for LPT on agricultural land.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Wasn't the one acre clause brought in to take account of rural/farm lands, so people weren't being assessed for LPT on agricultural land.

No - agricultural land is exempted separately.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

That's a bit of a deviation from two weeks ag]o, where you were claiming that Revenue weren't actually garnishing salaries.

It is?

Anyway. I find it interesting that they need my permission to forcibly take it from me.

Lol.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

No - agricultural land is exempted separately.

How do they seperate the residential part of the farm from the agricultural part?

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

It is?

Damn right it is.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

How do they seperate the residential part of the farm from the agricultural part?

Any land used for commercial purposes is not considered residential.

3. My house is located in the middle of the farm. What should I take into account when valuing my house for LPT purposes?

A residential property is defined in the Local Property Tax (LPT) legislation to include not just the dwelling house itself but also any other buildings or structures and any land that, in a broad sense, belongs with the dwelling house and that are enjoyed as an amenity rather than used for a commercial purpose. These are regarded as an intrinsic part of the dwelling house. Such buildings or structures would include, for example, a garage for the family car but not a shed for the tractor or other farm machinery. Land would include a lawn or flower beds but not a haggard, farmyard or a commercial glasshouse. So in the case of a farmhouse, any land used for farming purposes will not be included in the chargeable value of the farmhouse.

Godge

Banjo String wrote: »

Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

Banjo String wrote: »

It is?

Anyway. I find it interesting that they need my permission to forcibly take it from me.

Lol.

I would suggest that it is your employer who is mistaken as they are the ones who have asked for your consent, not revenue. The law is quite clear on it:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0065.html#sec65

Section 72 is quite clear too:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0072.html#sec72

Think the next one means your employer would be liable for interest if they don't deduct and give the money to revenue


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0075.html

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

Any land used for commercial purposes is not considered residential.

Supposing you have a house situated just off the road, in a ten acre field with no out houses or other buildings.

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Anyway. I find it interesting that they need my permission to forcibly take it from me.

They don't.

65.—(1) Where a liable person is in receipt of emoluments and section 66 or 68 applies, the Revenue Commissioners may direct an employer to deduct, in a period specified in the direction, local prop- erty tax payable by the liable person from the net emoluments pay- able to the liable person by the employer.

75.—(1) Without prejudice to any action which may be taken under section 76, where an employer who was liable to remit an amount of local property tax in accordance with Regulation 28 or 29, as the case may be, of the PAYE Regulations, which amount was to be determined in accordance with section 72(4), failed to remit this amount and—
(a) did not notify the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with section 72(5)(b) or send a statement to the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with section 73, or
(b) notified the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with section 72(5)(b), but remitted a lesser amount than the amount specified in the notification,
the Revenue Commissioners may give notice to the employer of the amount which the employer failed to remit.
(2) A notice given to an employer under subsection (1) shall be treated as a demand for payment by the Collector-General under section 960E(2) of the Act of 1997 (as applied by section 120) and subsection (3) of that section 960E shall apply accordingly.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Supposing you have a house situated just off the road, in a ten acre field with no out houses or other buildings.

How does that matter? If the field is being used for commercial farming purposes - it's exempt from the LPT, but the house is liable.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

How does that matter? If the field is being used for commercial farming purposes - it's exempt from the LPT, but the house is liable.

It matters because, there is a residential property on it, you need some defining boundary for valuation purposes, one acre.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

It matters because, there is a residential property on it, you need some defining boundary for valuation purposes, one acre.

The defining taxable boundary is whether the land is agricultural, or not. If you farm right up to the walls of your house, it's exempt from the LPT, if not, it's considered a garden, and part of your residence - the only criteria at play is that for CGT reasons, the boundaries of your residential property are limited to an acre. In reality though, they impact on the market value of your house, so would be factored in, one way or another.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

They don't.

I'm wondering what powers they have outside their own jurisdiction?

Like I've stated, I've asked my financial director to come back to me via email and let me know if I'm obliged to consent to this request, as my monies paid from a company not based in the republic.

He's in the process of finding this out for me.

Strange that they've asked for my consent.

brokenarms

Ahh it turns out I have been paying it for a while now and I did not notice the deduction .

Will this bring the TV licence evaders into line as well? I know of many people in the countryside not paying for the yearly fee. And never have?

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

The defining taxable boundary is whether the land is agricultural, or not. If you farm right up to the walls of your house, it's exempt from the LPT, if not, it's considered a garden, and part of your residence - the only criteria at play is that for CGT reasons, the boundaries of your residential property are limited to an acre. In reality though, they impact on the market value of your house, so would be factored in, one way or another.

I think that is your interpretation of it, and you have interprated it wrong.
And were does CGT come into it. If it's a field that is not being farmed, what's to define were the boundary is, when there is no physically demarcation?

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm wondering what powers they have outside their own jurisdiction?

They've got the standard set of powers available domestically, if the country is one that's entered a double taxation agreement with the state.

Slick50

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm wondering what powers they have outside their own jurisdiction?

Like I've stated, I've asked my financial director to come back to me via email and let me know if I'm obliged to consent to this request, as my monies paid from a company not based in the republic.

He's in the process of finding this out for me.

Strange that they've asked for my consent.

You are right, the revenue have no authority outside this jurisdiction. And as it is not a legal obligation on you within your employers jurisdiction, they have no authority to deduct it without your consent. If you were obliged to give consent, it's not consent, and you wouldn't be being asked.

Godge and alastair conveniently overlooked that your employers are based outside of the country.

K-9

Banjo String wrote: »

I see from a report this morning that consumers will be obliged to pay vat on their water bills.

Irish water will be a private company, and therefore obliged to charge it.

Nicely done govt. Farm it out to a 'private' company, then reap the rewards via vat receipts.
A tax, in a tax.


Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

Where they are based is irrelevant really, the important part is where you do your work. If your based here and normally taxed here you'll be subject to Irish Revenue rules.