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

Phoebas

Going Forward wrote: »

He could have used it to his advantage: "I said it 20 years ago, and I stand by it now"/"Its a long held conviction of mine", etc, etc.etc.

He could have sacrificed a sound policy decision for personal political gain.
Thankfully he isn't so cynical.

hju6

Phoebas wrote: »

He could have sacrificed a sound policy decision for personal political gain.
Thankfully he isn't so cynical.

He can say whatever he wants, lies, promises, odd truth even, but the personal gain stays,

Going Forward

Phoebas wrote: »

He could have sacrificed a sound policy decision for personal political gain.
Thankfully he isn't so cynical.

I obviously have much to learn.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

I'm not clear that you've any point here. You certainly haven't articulated any.

The point I was making is, it doesn't have to be agricultural or commercial land, to be discounted for LPT valuation purposes, once it is over one acre.

alastair wrote: »

Where's the benefit? Large gardens raise the market value of a house, even if you pretend that the gardens don't extend beyond an acre. You don't 'deduct' anything from the value of your house if you've a large garden. Two identical houses next to each other - one with a small garden, one with a big one - which will have the higher market value? In the end of the day - it's market value determines which band of LPT you pay.

Good loser wrote: »

Slick 50 listen to this: principal private residences with grounds of up to one acre maximum are exempt from Capital Gains Tax.

The LPT is chargeable on residences with up to one acre curtilege. If this was not so taxpayers could claim five, ten, 100 acres+ were 'attached' to their residences and exempt from CGT.

Two identical houses next to each other, one on one acre, the other on four acres. Both will be valued the same for LPT purposes, because of the one acre rule. The house plus one acre is all that you need to value.
From Michael Noonan's response in the dáil

If a property is situated on grounds in excess of one acre, while the LPT will only apply to the house plus one acre,

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

Two identical houses next to each other, one on one acre, the other on four acres. Both will be valued the same for LPT purposes, because of the one acre rule. The house plus one acre is all that you need to value.
From Michael Noonan's response in the dáil

That ignores the reality that a house with a larger garden will hold a higher market value then one without. Since market value is the determinant of LPT band, it doesn't really matter that the additional garden isn't officially liable for LPT.

creedp

alastair wrote: »

That ignores the reality that a house with a larger garden will hold a higher market value then one without. Since market value is the determinant of LPT band, it doesn't really matter that the additional garden isn't officially liable for LPT.

By that reckoning I must have been correct in thinking the exemption is completely superfluous. I wonder why it was inserted into the legislation .. slow day at the office.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

By that reckoning I must have been correct in thinking the exemption is completely superfluous. I wonder why it was inserted into the legislation .. slow day at the office.

It was included for the already articulated reasons (CGT exemption).

creedp

alastair wrote: »

It was included for the already articulated reasons (CGT exemption).

From Mick Noonan's link earlier
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

Presumably from this he thinks there is a loss of revenue associated with land in excess of 1 acre not being liable to LPT - so I was wrong the exemption does have a purpose in limiting the LPT liability for residential properties with trophy gardens after all.

alastair

creedp wrote: »

From Mick Noonan's link earlier
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

Presumably from this he thinks there is a loss of revenue associated with land in excess of 1 acre not being liable to LPT - so I was wrong the exemption does have a purpose in limiting the LPT liability for residential properties with trophy gardens after all.

Nope - it's an inevitable consequence of their being liable for CGT. Noonan's 'in any case' musings are not the reason for the exemption - just a follow-up.

creedp

alastair wrote: »

Nope - it's an inevitable consequence of their being liable for CGT. Noonan's 'in any case' musings are not the reason for the exemption - just a follow-up.

I suppose it could be argued that its often kind of difficult to diferentiate between Mick's musings and actual solid, reasoned and factually based discussion.

Mr.Micro

creedp wrote: »

By that reckoning I must have been correct in thinking the exemption is completely superfluous. I wonder why it was inserted into the legislation .. slow day at the office.

Maybe it was with the poor old farmers in mind....:D

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

That ignores the reality that a house with a larger garden will hold a higher market value then one without. Since market value is the determinant of LPT band, it doesn't really matter that the additional garden isn't officially liable for LPT.

No, it does not. To use a well worn phrase, 'it's in the legislation'. You only value the house plus one acre.

The only wonder is, that they didn't just let this little clause slide, then tell anyone with a larger than one acre garden that they are liable for CGT too. They could tell anyone who raises a voice of dissent, that their LPT excess is "spent, tough!" like they have done with those who paid stamp duty.

alastair

Slick50 wrote: »

No, it does not. To use a well worn phrase, 'it's in the legislation'. You only value the house plus one acre.

The only wonder is, that they didn't just let this little clause slide, then tell anyone with a larger than one acre garden that they are liable for CGT too. They could tell anyone who raises a voice of dissent, that their LPT excess is "spent, tough!" like they have done with those who paid stamp duty.

You value the house, which, if it comes with a larger garden, will consequently add value to the house itself - ask any estate agent. You can't divorce the house value from the features.

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

You value the house, which, if it comes with a larger garden, will consequently add value to the house itself - ask any estate agent. You can't divorce the house value from the features.

Going on previous form, you're not going to admit you're wrong. Even though it is in the legislation.

Godge

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1007/478877-property-tax-revenue/


"The Revenue Commissioners estimates that 90% of property owners have complied with the tax nationally."


So much for the claims that nobody would pay it.

Hijpo

What percentage are having it stolen from there wages?

What percentage are single residence owners compared to multiple property owners?

How accurate are the revenues "estimates" when it comes to putting a spin on figures?

What happens when people cant afford the tax because house values increase (which they have started already) which increases the tax?

Plenty of scenarios that need to play out yet.

Going Forward

Godge wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1007/478877-property-tax-revenue/


"The Revenue Commissioners estimates that 90% of property owners have complied with the tax nationally."


So much for the claims that nobody would pay it.

Bait, anyone?

Yawns...................

brokenarms

Godge wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1007/478877-property-tax-revenue/


"The Revenue Commissioners estimates that 90% of property owners have complied with the tax nationally."


So much for the claims that nobody would pay it.

The latest update from the tax authority shows almost one third of homeowners believe their property is valued at between €100,000 and €150,000.

Oh how times have changed... Was not long ago people were boosting of how much its worth. Now its how little it worth.

When sending in my forms I used the resister to show what the house opposite mines sold for last year. 120k. They bought it in the boom for 300k. Fairly hard hit for a first time buyer.:(

bgrizzley

Quarter of homes valued below €100,000 for Local Property Tax

At E45 each, that will just about cover the cost of that referendum that the fg/sf just lost...

Slick50

What percentage of these 'compliant' figures, are people who have had their wages incorrectly deducted? I personally know three people who have had their wages docked, for properties they rented years ago. Good job revenue:rolleyes:.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

What percentage of these 'compliant' figures, are people who have had their wages incorrectly deducted? I personally know three people who have had their wages docked, for properties they rented years ago. Good job revenue:rolleyes:.

Did Revenue contact them before the deductions began?

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did Revenue contact them before the deductions began?

Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.

Haven't they informed Revenue of their new addresses? It's generally a good idea.

If the tax has been deducted incorrectly, it will be refunded.

highgiant1985

Slick50 wrote: »

Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.

I think you're being unfair to employers here.

The employer has to accept the details revenue send its not up to them to decide should they apply it or not... They can only take information as received by Revenue. Any employee complaints must be handled between the employee and revenue which is the approach revenue have gone with not the employers choice.

oscarBravo

highgiant1985 wrote: »

I think you're being unfair to employers here.

The employer has to accept the details revenue send its not up to them to decide should they apply it or not... They can only take information as received by Revenue. Any employee complaints must be handled between the employee and revenue which is the approach revenue have gone with not the employers choice.

Very true. Revenue regularly send me P2C files (the digital equivalent of tax deduction cards, I guess) which contain changes to individuals' tax details. I import those into my payroll software and it does the rest. I don't get to decide whether or not to deduct the taxes.

It hasn't arisen yet, but if an employee came to me and said the basis of his or her tax calculation was wrong, I'd send them to the local tax office.

kippy

Slick50 wrote: »

Revenue, presumably, sent demands to the address they rented years before. First they new of it was when they checked their pay slips. A poor reflection on their employers too, mind.

And in no way the fault of the person themselves, of course............

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

What percentage are having it stolen from there wages?

What percentage are single residence owners compared to multiple property owners?

How accurate are the revenues "estimates" when it comes to putting a spin on figures?

What happens when people cant afford the tax because house values increase (which they have started already) which increases the tax?

Plenty of scenarios that need to play out yet.

None of which remove the reality that the tax is now bedded in, and isn't going away.

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

Quarter of homes valued below €100,000 for Local Property Tax

At E45 each, that will just about cover the cost of that referendum that the fg/sf just lost...

That'll be €90 in short order, and you have to assume Revenue will start checking the legitimacy of some of those assessments once they get past chasing non-payers.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

None of which remove the reality that the tax is now bedded in, and isn't going away.

Alot like the reality that just because its bedded in doesnt mean people can magicaly pay whatever increases arrise over the next few years. It was only half the year this time round for example.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

Alot like the reality that just because its bedded in doesnt mean people can magicaly pay whatever increases arrise over the next few years. It was only half the year this time round for example.

No magic required. It's simply a taxation overhead that people will need to adjust to - same as all other taxes.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

No magic required. It's simply a taxation overhead that people will need to adjust to - same as all other taxes.

If only people had the finances to live so easily. An adjustment here a little tweak there. Youd be a contorted mess by the end of it all.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

If only people had the finances to live so easily. An adjustment here a little tweak there. Youd be a contorted mess by the end of it all.

Or else you'd just budget for your outgoings as normal. I don't see UK/French/German society falling over with their higher tax burden than we endure.

bgrizzley

alastair wrote: »

That'll be €90 in short order, and you have to assume Revenue will start checking the legitimacy of some of those assessments once they get past chasing non-payers.

I hope they do, as i seem to remember one prohometax poster here suggesting that people should defraud the state by undervaluing. (Not your good self of course:))

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

Or else you'd just budget for your outgoings as normal. I don't see UK/French/German society falling over with their higher tax burden than we endure.

41% PAYE, 4% PRSI and 7% USC aswell as water rates and property taxes then to drink, feed, medicate and educate we pay 23% VAT.
All these taxes and charges for sub standard quality. Does the UK, France and Germany act the same? What are there income tax rates like? how about VAT rates? what do they pay VAT on?

Meanwhile back in ireland,
Are they still paying to store the evoting machines they never used?
Are they still budgeting €13billion for all the quangos?
What about the 500k in allowances TD's claimed in august even though they are not sitting in the Dail?

List could go on and on.

Then you have fools that will defend a property tax and water rates and dont bat an eye lid at the waste that goes on.

Its a waste of time debating with such ignorance.

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Haven't they informed Revenue of their new addresses? It's generally a good idea.

I'll have to ask, but it hasn't been an issue up to now.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the tax has been deducted incorrectly, it will be refunded.

Why should these people have the hassle of fighting to get their money, that should never have been taken, back.

highgiant1985 wrote: »

I think you're being unfair to employers here.

The employer has to accept the details revenue send its not up to them to decide should they apply it or not... They can only take information as received by Revenue. Any employee complaints must be handled between the employee and revenue which is the approach revenue have gone with not the employers choice.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It hasn't arisen yet, but if an employee came to me and said the basis of his or her tax calculation was wrong, I'd send them to the local tax office.

My point was the first they new about the deduction was when they checked their pay slip. I think it was bad form, that their employers didn't even mention to them, the fact that they had recieved the orders from revenue, regarding them.

kippy wrote: »

And in no way the fault of the person themselves, of course............

That's right, in no way.

Aside: There doesn't seem to be much to support the fallacy, that increasing income tax would drive a flight of higher earners/brain drain on tonights prime time.

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

I'll have to ask, but it hasn't been an issue up to now.

Presumably that's because they haven't had to do any form of self-assessment before.

I really don't understand why you wouldn't inform Revenue of a change of address, though.

Why should these people have the hassle of fighting to get their money, that should never have been taken, back.

Because (presumably) they didn't bother keeping Revenue informed about where they live. In my experience, if you keep them informed as to your circumstances, you get dealt with fairly and efficiently.

Also, there's no fighting involved. Revenue have no interest in collecting taxes they aren't owed. If you can show you don't owe property tax, you'll get it back promptly and with zero fuss.

My point was the first they new about the deduction was when they checked their pay slip. I think it was bad form, that their employers didn't even mention to them, the fact that they had recieved the orders from revenue, regarding them.

You're missing my point. I get P2C files from Revenue all the time. I generally get them in response to my employees' changing circumstances: the missus got a job and they're splitting the tax credits, that sort of thing. They get imported into the payroll software, which does its own thing with them.

Now, if I were to say to an employee "I had a read of your payslip as it came out of the payroll software, jaysus that's a nice chunk of tax you got back", do you think I'd get told to mind my own f*cking business? What makes you think I'm going to go trawling through the P2Cs I've received in order to check how much property tax my employees are paying?

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

Then you have fools that will defend a property tax and water rates and dont bat an eye lid at the waste that goes on.

You do? I haven't seen any.

Zubeneschamali

Hijpo wrote: »

41% PAYE, 4% PRSI and 7% USC aswell as water rates and property taxes then to drink, feed, medicate and educate we pay 23% VAT. All these taxes and charges for sub standard quality. Does the UK, France and Germany act the same?

No, they charge a lot more tax than ours do to pay for their Government.

And after FF running the Government on the VISA card from 2008 to 2011, our Government should be charging a sh!tload more right now to pay off the VISA card IMF faster.

And the fact that Irish voters actually think they are paying too much tax now shows that the Government has utterly failed to explain exactly how much sh!t we are in.

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

41% PAYE, 4% PRSI and 7% USC aswell as water rates and property taxes then to drink, feed, medicate and educate we pay 23% VAT.

Dunno what you're eating and drinking that carries 23% VAT, but a diet of booze and crisps wouldn't be the healthiest. You pay 0% VAT on medicines and education.

And the evoting machines were sold off years ago.

Hijpo

alastair wrote: »

Dunno what you're eating and drinking that carries 23% VAT, but a diet of booze and crisps wouldn't be the healthiest. You pay 0% VAT on medicines and education.

And the evoting machines were sold off years ago.

Bottled water carries 23%, tap water is **** however we are now going to be charged for. 23% VAT on eBooks which is the future of schooling. Non oral medicine is 23% VAT

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, they charge a lot more tax than ours do to pay for their Government.

And after FF running the Government on the VISA card from 2008 to 2011, our Government should be charging a sh!tload more right now to pay off the VISA card IMF faster.

And the fact that Irish voters actually think they are paying too much tax now shows that the Government has utterly failed to explain exactly how much sh!t we are in.

Lumping private debt onto the back of national debt forced us to borrow more than we origionaly needed to.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do? I haven't seen any.

You only see the posts of those who suit your disagreement

Zubeneschamali

Hijpo wrote: »

Lumping private debt onto the back of national debt forced us to borrow more than we origionaly needed to.

How interesting. If we had defaulted on all that "private debt", how much would we have had to borrow? Who would have lent it to us, and at what rate?

How many times more than what we're paying now would we have had to pay per year? 4 times? 10?

Hijpo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How interesting. If we had defaulted on all that "private debt", how much would we have had to borrow? Who would have lent it to us, and at what rate?

How many times more than what we're paying now would we have had to pay per year? 4 times? 10?

Well never know now. Fact of the matter is they never even tried to conjure any kind of a write down.
Nothing has changed in this country for the better, the only thing that has changed is the level of financial hardship for working class home owners (which will probably increase later this month).

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

You only see the posts of those who suit your disagreement

I'm not sure what "suiting my disagreement" means, but presumably you have a long list of posts you can cite where people have said "I don't care about all the waste that's going on"?

alastair

Hijpo wrote: »

Bottled water carries 23%, tap water is **** however we are now going to be charged for. 23% VAT on eBooks which is the future of schooling. Non oral medicine is 23% VAT

Tap water is perfectly good - if you opt to drink bottled water, then that's your choice - no-one's forcing you to pay that 23%.

School eBooks are as cheap as conventional books - despite the higher VAT rate (which is a cross-EU tax law).

Bottom line is that you're simply ignoring the fact that we pay less taxes than most of our neighbours, and pretending that we have some sort of penal VAT structure (mostly on the basis of incorrect claims).

Godge

Slick50 wrote: »

What percentage of these 'compliant' figures, are people who have had their wages incorrectly deducted? I personally know three people who have had their wages docked, for properties they rented years ago. Good job revenue:rolleyes:.

I find this story very strange.

Revenue are basing their trawl on the latest information they have on who lived in those rental properties.

If they rented those properties "years" ago, it is very strange that they are the last people the Revenue has a record of linked to that residence.

Possible explanations:

(1) The property has lain empty for all those years
(2) The landlord didn't pay the HHC
(3) The landlord doesn't make an income tax return on the rent received and didn't in the years they were living there
(4) The landlord never claimed mortgage relief on the properties
(5) Your friends didn't claim rent relief which would have been available "years" ago
(6) Your friends haven't made any claim to revenue for years in relation to tax credits for expenses, medical expenses, mortgage relief etc.

I would suggest that your friends are probably paying too much tax while the landlord they rented from "years" ago is probably paying too little tax. They should probably be good citizens and report him to revenue.

brokenarms

Godge wrote: »

I find this story very strange.

Revenue are basing their trawl on the latest information they have on who lived in those rental properties.

If they rented those properties "years" ago, it is very strange that they are the last people the Revenue has a record of linked to that residence.

Possible explanations:

(1) The property has lain empty for all those years
(2) The landlord didn't pay the HHC
(3) The landlord doesn't make an income tax return on the rent received and didn't in the years they were living there
(4) The landlord never claimed mortgage relief on the properties
(5) Your friends didn't claim rent relief which would have been available "years" ago
(6) Your friends haven't made any claim to revenue for years in relation to tax credits for expenses, medical expenses, mortgage relief etc.

I would suggest that your friends are probably paying too much tax while the landlord they rented from "years" ago is probably paying too little tax. They should probably be good citizens and report him to revenue.

Thanks for this post.
I am getting it drawn from my wages currently. I did not receive any letter from the revenue before hand which has left me a little in the dark over it.
I did not pay my HHC but declared this on the property tax form that I posted back to them .

Is it normal not to receive any statement or contact from them before one is charged?

DoesNotCompute

brokenarms wrote: »

Thanks for this post.
I am getting it drawn from my wages currently. I did not receive any letter from the revenue before hand which has left me a little in the dark over it.
I did not pay my HHC but declared this on the property tax form that I posted back to them .

Is it normal not to receive any statement or contact from them before one is charged?

There is no contract or any obligation whatsoever on revenue to contact you. It is a self declaration tax, so the onus is entirely on you to contact Revenue, not the other way around.

Slick50

oscarBravo wrote: »

Also, there's no fighting involved. Revenue have no interest in collecting taxes they aren't owed. If you can show you don't owe property tax, you'll get it back promptly and with zero fuss.

There's a lot of contradictions in there. This whole thing is turning natural justice on it's head. The simple fact you have to go looking for your money back, is a fuss.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're missing my point.

I did not miss it. You were talking about (and thanking a post about) my being unfair to the employers, because they were obliged to make the deductions ordered by revenue.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I get P2C files from Revenue all the time. I generally get them in response to my employees' changing circumstances: the missus got a job and they're splitting the tax credits, that sort of thing. They get imported into the payroll software, which does its own thing with them.

So your accountant does that for you?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, if I were to say to an employee "I had a read of your payslip as it came out of the payroll software, jaysus that's a nice chunk of tax you got back", do you think I'd get told to mind my own f*cking business?

Yes, and rightfully so.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you think I'm going to go trawling through the P2Cs I've received in order to check how much property tax my employees are paying?

I don't think that. Snooping through your employees taxes, is different to letting them know you have recieved a demand from revenue, to deduct LPT from their wages.

Godge wrote: »

I find this story very strange.

Revenue are basing their trawl on the latest information they have on who lived in those rental properties.

Why are they doing a 'trawl' of who rented. This tax is on property owners.

Godge wrote: »

(1) The property has lain empty for all those years
(2) The landlord didn't pay the HHC
(3) The landlord doesn't make an income tax return on the rent received and didn't in the years they were living there
(4) The landlord never claimed mortgage relief on the properties
(5) Your friends didn't claim rent relief which would have been available "years" ago
(6) Your friends haven't made any claim to revenue for years in relation to tax credits for expenses, medical expenses, mortgage relief etc.

None of which makes them liable to LPT.

Godge wrote: »

I would suggest that your friends are probably paying too much tax while the landlord they rented from "years" ago is probably paying too little tax. They should probably be good citizens and report him to revenue.

Maybe they have enough to worry about, without looking after other peoples tax affairs

oscarBravo

Slick50 wrote: »

There's a lot of contradictions in there. This whole thing is turning natural justice on it's head. The simple fact you have to go looking for your money back, is a fuss.

If you don't inform Revenue of your changing circumstances, it's possible that Revenue will mistakenly deduct money that you don't owe. If that happens, you'll have to look for it back. You seem to be suggesting that it's Revenue's responsibility to constantly stay on top of every taxpayer's every circumstance. I can't see any tax system working on that basis.

So your accountant does that for you?

No, my payroll software does it for me.

Yes, and rightfully so.

I don't think that. Snooping through your employees taxes, is different to letting them know you have recieved a demand from revenue, to deduct LPT from their wages.

No, it's not. I've told you twice now that I don't "receive a demand from Revenue", I get a P2C file. I don't read those files to see what's in them; nor should I - as you've agreed in the case of increased tax credits.

Why are they doing a 'trawl' of who rented. This tax is on property owners.

They're trying to correlate people with addresses. Every process has errors. Once they're set right, it's all good.

None of which makes them liable to LPT.

So they'll get it back.

Maybe they have enough to worry about, without looking after other peoples tax affairs

So you don't think people should bother to help Revenue in any way, but it's entirely up to Revenue to... what? magically know who owns every property?

Godge

Slick50 wrote: »

There's a lot of contradictions in there. This whole thing is turning natural justice on it's head. The simple fact you have to go looking for your money back, is a fuss.

I did not miss it. You were talking about (and thanking a post about) my being unfair to the employers, because they were obliged to make the deductions ordered by revenue.
So your accountant does that for you?

Yes, and rightfully so.

I don't think that. Snooping through your employees taxes, is different to letting them know you have recieved a demand from revenue, to deduct LPT from their wages.


Why are they doing a 'trawl' of who rented. This tax is on property owners.

None of which makes them liable to LPT.

Maybe they have enough to worry about, without looking after other peoples tax affairs

You know, if people are hiding their current address from the Revenue, they probably have more to worry about that being charged LPT from a previous address.