Property values website to go live

Ritchi

DavyD_83 wrote: »

As far as I am aware the percentage is applied to the mid value of the 50k range you fall into.
So, yeh a house worth 252,000; will pay the same as a house worth 296K as both are in the 250-300K bracket.
- Cost would be 0.18% of 275K

One of the many issues with the system as it stands.

If they tried to do on the exact valuation, it would be even harder to do. People would be arguing over a few thousand. Putting it into bands is the sensible way to tackle it.

Bullseye1

DavyD_83 wrote: »

As far as I am aware the percentage is applied to the mid value of the 50k range you fall into.
So, yeh a house worth 252,000; will pay the same as a house worth 296K as both are in the 250-300K bracket.
- Cost would be 0.18% of 275K

One of the many issues with the system as it stands.

They really haven't thought this one out. It should have been per square footage. The larger the house the property tax. Of course location had to be taken into account.

D3PO

Ogham wrote: »

Revenue admit that less than half of properties will be valued in the correct band - but 90% should be within 1 band of the correct band.

From Here : http://www.moneyguideireland.com/analysis-of-online-revenue-valuation-tool.html

.

36% in the correct band of boardsies who have responded to my poll. So quite a smidge less than half correct it would seem.

Bannasidhe

Had a look at my mother's house in Ballinlough in Cork city- it's in band 4.

One street away the exact same kind of houses, built at the exact same time, by the exact same builder are in Band 3 - yet are closer to 2 national schools, a swimming pool, local shops, bus routes etc.

The mind boggles.

P. Breathnach

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You said there has been miss categorization.

I did not. Individual properties have not been categorised at all.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I did not. Individual properties have not been categorised at all.

Do you think it was a useful exercise or should Revenue have let folks use superior tools like the one on myhome.ie to research a reailistic value for their property?

IMO what they have done will just confuse people and people with no internet savvy will end up paying Revenue whatever they have estimated.

I'm not going to outright blame Revenue for this fiasco because I don't know where the order came from to develop this "guide". I do not know if the software was developed in house or externally but I'm pretty sure the system architects would have been able to tell the decision makers very quickly that given the data available, the tool would be at best extremely rough around the edges and would never be able to provide anything more than the roughest of estimates.

I wonder at any time did the system architects propose a system like that on myhome.ie that would allow property owners to select similar properties to their own and generate a more accurate valuation that way. Any architect worth his salt would have presented the myhome.ie solution as an option at the early planning meetings, so I suspect it was shot down by a decision maker, who opted for the useless crock we were presented with.

It makes me sad that a supposedly mature state would foist such garbage upon its people and expect it to be taken seriously. They should have said from the start, "we don't have the data yet to tax you according to value, so we're going to tax you according to location and square footage (neither of which can be played...cheating would be easy to audit for) until we have the data to tax you by actual valuation (if that is ever possible)".

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

Do you think it was a useful exercise or should Revenue have let folks use superior tools like the one on myhome.ie to research a reailistic value for their property?

"The Mountain Laboured and Brought Forth a Mouse". What has been produced as a guide was very disappointing.

IMO what they have done will just confuse people and people with no internet savvy will end up paying Revenue whatever they have estimated.

I don't know if internet savvy counts for much here. I get the impression that online discussion is no better than the discussions other people will have in pubs or at coffee mornings.

I'm not going to outright blame Revenue for this fiasco because I don't know where the order came from to develop this "guide". I do not know if the software was developed in house or externally but I'm pretty sure the system architects would have been able to tell the decision makers very quickly that given the data available, the tool would be at best extremely rough around the edges and would never be able to provide anything more than the roughest of estimates.

I don't know the background either. Government is trying to do everything on the cheap these days, and I suspect that this guide is of limited use mainly because it has been done on the cheap.

I wonder at any time did the system architects propose a system like that on myhome.ie that would allow property owners to select similar properties to their own and generate a more accurate valuation that way. Any architect worth his salt would have presented the myhome.ie solution as an option at the early planning meetings, so I suspect it was shot down by a decision maker, who opted for the useless crock we were presented with.

You can make a case for not relying on the Property Price Register on the basis that there is insufficient data. For example, where I live, there have been very few property transactions. Given that there is a large variety of property types, there would be no reference transaction for many of my neighbours. I presume that in drawing up the guide, people have referred to recent transactions. My beef is that the property categories are simply too imprecise: a detatched house might be a near-hovel or a neo-Dallas spread.

It makes me sad that a supposedly mature state would foist such garbage upon its people and expect it to be taken seriously.

Agreed. In time, this tax is expected to raise large amounts of revenue, yet there has not been the will to invest in getting the valuation basis anything like accurate.

They should have said from the start, "we don't have the data yet to tax you according to value, so we're going to tax you according to location and square footage (neither of which can be played...cheating would be easy to audit for) until we have the data to tax you by actual valuation (if that is ever possible)".

That might have been a better approach. But that ship has sailed, and we are not on it.

RATM

Not wrote: »

LOL (that's a delayed reaction following My God!!!:eek::eek:)

Last property to sell around here sold for just over a quarter of it's revenue valuation. Has anyone told revenue about the property crash ? Seriously..... ?

My guess is that Revenue's strategy is to over value houses a lot more often than they undervalue them. Because it is a self assessed tax the owner will then submit a value one bracket down from where Revenue initially valued them. The people who down their value by two or more brackets can probably expect an audit at some stage in the future, probably not immediately but at some stage down the line. After they clear that up they'll then focus on people who down valued by one bracket.

One thing any self employed person will tell you is that Revenue always get you in the end so no point blagging them or you'll face interest and penalties.

To show you how far they can go think about this a minute- Revenue have a specific tax code and tax rate to tax the proceeds of drug dealing. Despite drug dealing being illegal that don't matter to them, they have a way of taxing drug dealers after the cops/CAB catch up with them. Nothing is left to chance with these guys, the house always wins the long term game.

gmisk

So I am buying a house at 135..........the area says 200-250...........what should I be paying?!?!

Ritchi

gmisk wrote: »

So I am buying a house at 135..........the area says 200-250...........what should I be paying?!?!

That should be an easy one, the market value is what you are paying for it, so you're in the 100-150k bracket. Ignore the revenue site in this case.

P. Breathnach

gmisk wrote: »

So I am buying a house at 135..........the area says 200-250...........what should I be paying?!?!

What Ritchi said.

If your new neighbours' houses are similar to yours, they might be very pleased to get an up-to-date value.

Galwayguy35

It would be hard to go by the price of houses that were sold where I live considering it's been 4 years since a single house sold.

Sarn

This guide is meaningless in an area with a range of property types. Out of curiosity (I'm only renting) I checked what band my apartment would be in, band 7 (>350k).

From the property register I can see that a house around the corner went for €1.9m last year (band 7), whereas an equivalent apartment to my own went for €150k (band 2) around the same time. Putting the proposed band for my property out by 5 bands. Elderly people without internet savvy could be seriously misinformed by this guide and pay higher tax unecessarily.

It also massively underestimates the band for the large houses based on recent sales.

MicktheMan

Surely the following is not beyond the abilities of revenue and would be, imo, a hell of a lot better than their crystal clear "guide" -

Everyone who bought a house know what they paid for it and when they bought (even those who inherited would know the value placed on the inheritance).
There is annual information on house price inflation/deflation and average mortgage drawdowns going back years.
Why couldn't revenue use this information to create an annual index or multiplier to apply to the price paid for the house.
Example: house bought in 1990 for 100k, multiplier for 1990 is 1.6, therefore 2013 "market value" is 160k.
These multipliers are then updated annually going forward depending on the property market movement.

OR:
currently the housing sales market is not functioning as a normal market, but the rental market is. Use the rental market to establish the economic or commercial value of a house/apartment using a gross yield of say 8% and taking it from there.
Example: Monthly rent of 1000, annual rent 12000, 8% yield suggests economic value is 150k.

deandean

monkeypants wrote: »

Why is everything in shades of bleedin' orange. I'm giving myself a headache looking at the damned thing. Will get the missus to do it.

I think that is as much use as anybody can get out of this POS.

WE HAVE BEEN TANGOED

monkeypants

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It would be hard to go by the price of houses that were sold where I live considering it's been 4 years since a single house sold.

I took a look at where my folks live. Nothing on the price register for the area at all.

mathie

MicktheMan wrote: »

Surely the following is not beyond the abilities of revenue and would be, imo, a hell of a lot better than their crystal clear "guide" -

Everyone who bought a house know what they paid for it and when they bought (even those who inherited would know the value placed on the inheritance).
There is annual information on house price inflation/deflation and average mortgage drawdowns going back years.
Why couldn't revenue use this information to create an annual index or multiplier to apply to the price paid for the house.
Example: house bought in 1990 for 100k, multiplier for 1990 is 1.6, therefore 2013 "market value" is 160k.
These multipliers are then updated annually going forward depending on the property market movement.

OR:
currently the housing sales market is not functioning as a normal market, but the rental market is. Use the rental market to establish the economic or commercial value of a house/apartment using a gross yield of say 8% and taking it from there.
Example: Monthly rent of 1000, annual rent 12000, 8% yield suggests economic value is 150k.

So a house bought in 2006 for 400K is now worth?

You'd have to account for the bubble and it'd turn out to be a nightmare.

MicktheMan

mathie wrote: »

So a house bought in 2006 for 400K is now worth?

You'd have to account for the bubble and it'd turn out to be a nightmare.

2006 multiplier could be say 0.5, so 2006 bought house is now worth 400kx0.5=200k

mathie

MicktheMan wrote: »

2006 multiplier could be say 0.5, so 2006 bought house is now worth 400kx0.5=200k

So depending on the year bought the multiplier changes?
That could work alright.

I think putting the onus on the house owner is the only way to do it.
Get them to do the donkey work.
Get them to research the value of their house.

StillWaters

MicktheMan wrote: »

2006 multiplier could be say 0.5, so 2006 bought house is now worth 400kx0.5=200k

But you have the same problem that Revenue cannot value on a micro level, the house could have had a large extension, a dump could have been built nearby in the interim etc. The only realistic way of doing it is self assessment, with a flag raised for anomalies which will have to be justified by the owner.

P. Breathnach

mathie wrote: »

...
I think putting the onus on the house owner is the only way to do it.
Get them to do the donkey work.
Get them to research the value of their house.

Which is where we are: self-assessment.

With a website that is supposed to be helpful, but isn't very much use.

murphaph

monkeypants wrote: »

I took a look at where my folks live. Nothing on the price register for the area at all.

In cases like these (mostly rural I'd say) you'll end up taking the Revenue guess or getting an auctioneer to value it for you. There won#t be any other way around it that will pass an audit.

username123

murphaph wrote: »

In cases like these (mostly rural I'd say) you'll end up taking the Revenue guess or getting an auctioneer to value it for you. There won#t be any other way around it that will pass an audit.

An auctioneer valuation costs money. So you got to pay money privately to find out how much money to pay the Revenue? Madness.

Ritchi

username123 wrote: »

An auctioneer valuation costs money. So you got to pay money privately to find out how much money to pay the Revenue? Madness.

Lots of people pay accountants to work out how much they owe revenue. It's not that mad a concept.

Most people won't have to get a valuation done, but some may have to.

Ogham

The revenue will be glad to get money in . I would bet that they won't even think about looking at anyone that values their house within a band of the "correct" value. They might eventually look at those in more expensive areas that have undervalued by 3 or more bands.

larchill

These are very general values. If you're house is typical: ie 3/4 bed semi-d/detached typical in town place then yes, the values are probably fairly accurate. But id you've a non-standard house, eg: a mansion or a des res in Castlenock, these are much more individual & vary in type & size. Further research would need to be done here. Examples of this would be: www.propertypriceregister.ie which gives details of houses sold from 2010 to present. One should also consult myhome.ie, & daft.ie for houses of the same/similar type in a given area. Bear in mind that asking prices will invariably be higher than the eventual sale price.

username123

Ritchi wrote: »

Lots of people pay accountants to work out how much they owe revenue. It's not that mad a concept.

Most people won't have to get a valuation done, but some may have to.

I think paying an accountant to keep tax affairs in order is a different ball game to paying an auctioneer for a valuation.

The accountant presumably looks after the persons books in their entirety and is paid for that. You could (presumably) pay a different accountant to do the same job. Its a objective process.

However, auctioneers are notorious for making up different values for properties. Last time I sold a property I had 3 valuations done and they differed by as much as 100k. Ultimately the market dictates the value of a property. An auctioneer makes a subjective valuation. Not the same as an accountant. At all.

Ritchi

username123 wrote: »

I think paying an accountant to keep tax affairs in order is a different ball game to paying an auctioneer for a valuation.

The accountant presumably looks after the persons books in their entirety and is paid for that. You could (presumably) pay a different accountant to do the same job. Its a objective process.

However, auctioneers are notorious for making up different values for properties. Last time I sold a property I had 3 valuations done and they differed by as much as 100k. Ultimately the market dictates the value of a property. An auctioneer makes a subjective valuation. Not the same as an accountant. At all.

I didn't say it was the same, just that having to pay someone to work out how much you owe isn't an unheard of concept.

I think the only truly difficult houses to work out will be rural ones, or any areas which don't have any sales in the past few years. If there are sales, then it's easy enough.

P. Breathnach

Most house owners insure their properties. That entails declaring a value. Many of the same owners may be carping about the difficulty of valuing their homes for property tax purposes.

In my case there is full convergence between the value I intend to declare for LPT, the value I fixed on the house for insurance purposes, and the Revenue guide.

I'd be suspicious of somebody who insured a house for €400k, but declared a value of €150k for LPT.

cookie1977

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Most house owners insure their properties. That entails declaring a value. Many of the same owners may be carping about the difficulty of valuing their homes for property tax purposes.

In my case there is full convergence between the value I intend to declare for LPT, the value I fixed on the house for insurance purposes, and the Revenue guide.

I'd be suspicious of somebody who insured a house for €400k, but declared a value of €150k for LPT.

But is it not the case that rebuild costs would be a lot less then market value?