Property values website to go live

D3PO

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.

Your house value has ZERO to do with what you insure it for. You are insuring your house for rebuild and site clearance costs not on what it would sell for.

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

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

could go either way actually, but more often then not yes rebuild would be a lot less then market value.

StillWaters

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.

Even those who are valuin their house at a different value than the Revenue Guide won't have to get a valuation done. It's in only those who are audited will be asked to produce it, or other evidence for the valuation.

I find it very hard to believe that people dont have a clue what their property is worth. Bet the same people harping about how are they expected to know the value of their own house, all knew their house worth in the bubble.

Ritchi

StillWaters wrote: »

Even those who are valuin their house at a different value than the Revenue Guide won't have to get a valuation done. It's in only those who are audited will be asked to produce it, or other evidence for the valuation.

I find it very hard to believe that people dont have a clue what their property is worth. Bet the same people harping about how are they expected to know the value of their own house, all knew their house worth in the bubble.

Yes, I agree. Nobody will have to, but if you are more than one band off, then it might be advisable, as they are likely to come asking. And that's only if there is no other proof available, which there will be in most cases.

username123

StillWaters wrote: »

Even those who are valuin their house at a different value than the Revenue Guide won't have to get a valuation done. It's in only those who are audited will be asked to produce it, or other evidence for the valuation.

I find it very hard to believe that people dont have a clue what their property is worth. Bet the same people harping about how are they expected to know the value of their own house, all knew their house worth in the bubble.

Course people know or have an idea. But Revenue arent going to accept your mental contents as proof are they :rolleyes:

Galwayguy35

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.

My house is insured for 210 k because the bank won't let me value it any less than that as a term of the mortgage but it's not even worth 150 k if I wanted to sell it tomorrow so there is no way I would go by the price I have it insured for.

RATM

StillWaters wrote: »

Even those who are valuin their house at a different value than the Revenue Guide won't have to get a valuation done. It's in only those who are audited will be asked to produce it, or other evidence for the valuation.

I find it very hard to believe that people dont have a clue what their property is worth. Bet the same people harping about how are they expected to know the value of their own house, all knew their house worth in the bubble.

Couldn't agree with this more, back in the boom we were all made suffer by certain people who couldn't tell us fast enough how much their house(s) were worth.

And given that the bands are €50,000 there really is little reason for people claiming they got it wrong. Besides, Revenue are reasonable people, they are not out 'to get' honest people here. If you are honest and genuinely value it incorrectly and have evidence to show why it happened then I'm sure they'll let it slide. I deal with them a lot through work and if you have nothing to hide they're fine to deal with, if you're hiding stuff from them then that is a different matter- that is what their interest and penalties are for- to disincentivise dishonesty.

But this being Ireland there will doubtless be the nod and wink brigade who'll chance their arm and value their property a few bands lower than they know well what it should be. It'll be those people that Revenue will come down on. It might take Revenue three or four or even five years to catch up with them but they will catch up with them, by which time their interest and penalties will be even higher than if they had of just not acted the boll1x in the first place.

None of the above sells newspapers so of course the Irish media have already started their faux shock and horror campaign on the valuing of properties and are already calling Revenue incompetent. Well my experience would be different- they are without doubt the most competent government department out there and while things can move slowly they will get the job done well in the end.

cookie1977

RATM wrote: »

Couldn't agree with this more, back in the boom we were all made suffer by certain people who couldn't tell us fast enough how much their house(s) were worth.

And given that the bands are €50,000 there really is little reason for people claiming they got it wrong. Besides, Revenue are reasonable people, they are not out 'to get' honest people here. If you are honest and genuinely value it incorrectly and have evidence to show why it happened then I'm sure they'll let it slide. I deal with them a lot through work and if you have nothing to hide they're fine to deal with, if you're hiding stuff from them then that is a different matter- that is what their interest and penalties are for- to disincentivise dishonesty.

But this being Ireland there will doubtless be the nod and wink brigade who'll chance their arm and value their property a few bands lower than they know well what it should be. It'll be those people that Revenue will come down on. It might take Revenue three or four or even five years to catch up with them but they will catch up with them, by which time their interest and penalties will be even higher than if they had of just not acted the boll1x in the first place.

None of the above sells newspapers so of course the Irish media have already started their faux shock and horror campaign on the valuing of properties and are already calling Revenue incompetent. Well my experience would be different- they are without doubt the most competent government department out there and while things can move slowly they will get the job done well in the end.

For me revenue valued my apartment in band 4 between 200,000-250,000 yet a sale in November 2012 went through at 110,000 according to the property price register which is some way out.

My house was valued at 250,000-300,000 and from the price property register again, an average price for the last 12 houses sold on my street (between 2010 and 2013) is 287,000 +/-50,000 so they were pretty bang on there in my mind.

It's a crude tool and I think they could have done it a lot better as it seems hit and miss to me. If anyone got a listen to Olivia O'leary's drivetime column this evening I thought she was bang on with her observations. It's not up yet as a pod cast but if you get a chance have a listen. Personally I agree with her 100%.
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/drivetime/


Edit
Show podcast is up now at link above. Olivia's column kicks in at 1:08:30

P. Breathnach

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

My house is insured for 210 k because the bank won't let me value it any less than that as a term of the mortgage but it's not even worth 150 k if I wanted to sell it tomorrow so there is no way I would go by the price I have it insured for.

While you might think you are refuting my suggestion, my point is made: you understand the basis on which your house is valued for insurance purposes, and you equally understand the market value of the house.

Let's be honest with ourselves: most people have a fair idea of what their property is worth.

Bullseye1

Your point is incorrect. House insurance value is rebuild, clearance and professional fees. It may also have contents value. It has absolutely nothing to do with market value.

P. Breathnach

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Your point is incorrect. House insurance value is rebuild, clearance and professional fees. It may also have contents value. It has absolutely nothing to do with market value.

I suspect that you didn't read carefully what I posted. I didn't say that insurance values and LPT values are necessarily identical. Perhaps I coloured the discussion in saying that in relation to my own home I thought the values fairly similar. I did suggest that if there is a big difference (my example was €150k vs €400k - now, you might agree that is a big difference) there might be grounds for suspicion.

My core point is that most people can make a reasonable estimate of the value of their homes.

RATM

cookie1977 wrote: »

For me revenue valued my apartment in band 4 between 200,000-250,000 yet a sale in November 2012 went through at 110,000 according to the property price register which is some way out.

My house was valued at 250,000-300,000 and from the price property register again, an average price for the last 12 houses sold on my street (between 2010 and 2013) is 287,000 +/-50,000 so they were pretty bang on there in my mind.

It's a crude tool and I think they could have done it a lot better as it seems hit and miss to me. If anyone got a listen to Olivia O'leary's drivetime column this evening I thought she was bang on with her observations. It's not up yet as a pod cast but if you get a chance have a listen. Personally I agree with her 100%.
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/drivetime/


Edit
Show podcast is up now at link above. Olivia's column kicks in at 1:08:30

Well then if everything is as you says it is you have nothing to worry about. Use the Property Price Register and take screenshots of those houses/apartments in the area that sold for the prices you say they did. Make sure there was nothing wrong with them (i.e. that they weren't cheap for a reason) and ensure you are comparing like for like. Keep evidence of asking prices in the area for current properties for sale to back up this evidence even further.

I really don't see what the problem is here, this isn't rocket science despite some in the media trying to scare people and make out like it is. The website that went live was never touted by Revenue as a definitive list of valuations, they flagged as much last week when they said it was merely a guide and that in up to 40% of cases it may not be accurate. They are operating off very limited data sets and they have had less then six months to come with this tax on 1.6m households, this is on top of their normal job of collecting PAYE, PRSI, Capital Gains, Customs & Exise duties, VRT, VAT, stamp duties, corporation taxes, etc the list goes on and on. So it shouldn't be all that surprising that there are some kinks in the system but they'll get ironed out over the next couple of years and underpayers who were genuinely dishonest will be tackled.


At the end of the day this is a self assessed tax so it is up to you to self assess. So long as you do that honestly with the available data then you won't have a problem.

cookie1977

RATM wrote: »

I really don't see what the problem is here, this isn't rocket science despite some in the media trying to scare people and make out like it is. The website that went live was never touted by Revenue as a definitive list of valuations, they flagged as much last week when they said it was merely a guide and that in up to 40% of cases it may not be accurate. They are operating off very limited data sets and they have had less then six months to come with this tax on 1.6m households, this is on top of their normal job of collecting PAYE, PRSI, Capital Gains, Customs & Exise duties, VRT, VAT, stamp duties, corporation taxes, etc the list goes on and on. So it shouldn't be all that surprising that there are some kinks in the system but they'll get ironed out over the next couple of years and underpayers who were genuinely dishonest will be tackled.


At the end of the day this is a self assessed tax so it is up to you to self assess. So long as you do that honestly with the available data then you won't have a problem.

I think as Olivia said in her podcast just on the point of the "guide", if revenue hadn't produced a "guide" which still puts the onus on you to correctly pay the right sum (whether revenue under or over value your property on the "guide") and instead just told us all to go get valuations and submit them with the LPT it would have been a whole lot better process for everyone as a whole. Rather than potentially confusing it for some/many. Media frenzy aside.

Infoanon

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect that you didn't read carefully what I posted. I didn't say that insurance values and LPT values are necessarily identical. Perhaps I coloured the discussion in saying that in relation to my own home I thought the values fairly similar. I did suggest that if there is a big difference (my example was €150k vs €400k - now, you might agree that is a big difference) there might be grounds for suspicion.

My core point is that most people can make a reasonable estimate of the value of their homes.

Insurance is based on rebuild cost and contents - property value is based on other factors, primarily location.

Regarding your core point - unless you have an active market with normal market conditions applying (eg no quick sales re inheritances) it is very difficult to calculate the market value,
For many any valuation shall be based on low level observed inputs - the only objective value is if you sell the property.
Of course all this was avoidable if the tax had been based on the size of the property.

murphaph

Infoanon wrote: »

Insurance is based on rebuild cost and contents - property value is based on other factors, primarily location.

Regarding your core point - unless you have an active market with normal market conditions applying (eg no quick sales re inheritances) it is very difficult to calculate the market value,
For many any valuation shall be based on low level observed inputs - the only objective value is if you sell the property.
Of course all this was avoidable if the tax had been based on the size of the property.

Spot on.

They've made a balls of this completely. There are properties out there that will be very difficult to value without putting them on the market and actually selling them!

It should have been based on square footage of house /garden until more data was available (in about a decade maybe).

The insurance argument is a red herring: Rebuilding a 4 bed detached house in Fingal will cost more or less the same as the same house in D4 but the market value would be wildly different. It's because builders travel times to different sites won't make a big difference in cost, but where the property is makes a huge difference in resale value (but NOT build cost).

The chosen system is simply not the right choice. I blame mostly the government for that however. Revenue just collect the taxes thy're told to collect. I am a firm supporter if property taxation in Ireland (despite being a property owner there) as I believe it is in the long term interests of our country, but the manner in which they are doing it is nothing short of farcical ("keep newspaper clippings for a possible audit" is laughable to me, when they could have chosen a system that would have been very difficult to cheat). Land values in a given electoral districts would be fairly similar (though still not perfect...Irishtown/Ballsbridge type situations would still occur but would be less frequent than the current anomalies) and this value would just need a multiplier for the type of property (house, apartment etc.) and the square footage. You would need to declare these to revenue and Revenue would then calculate your liability. It's not easy to cheat as they things you declare are tangible.

cast_iron

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect that you didn't read carefully what I posted. I didn't say that insurance values and LPT values are necessarily identical.

I read it carefully.
It said:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Most house owners insure their properties. That entails declaring a value.

This is incorrect. Others have stated why so I won't repeat it.

Perhaps I coloured the discussion in saying that in relation to my own home I thought the values fairly similar.

That didn't colour anything. It merely stated your position.

I did suggest that if there is a big difference (my example was €150k vs €400k - now, you might agree that is a big difference) there might be grounds for suspicion.

This makes no sense. The revenue won't have access as to what you insured your house for, so these "grounds for suspicion" are merely a notion that has no practical application to anyone.

My core point is that most people can make a reasonable estimate of the value of their homes.

I think the only core point we can garner from your contribution is that has done very little other than to add too all the confusion that already exists about how the SELF ASSESSMENT valuation works.

P. Breathnach

cast_iron wrote: »

I read it carefully.
It said:This is incorrect. Others have stated why so I won't repeat it.

That didn't colour anything. It merely stated your position.
This makes no sense. The revenue won't have access as to what you insured your house for, so these "grounds for suspicion" are merely a notion that has no practical application to anyone.
I think the only core point we can garner from your contribution is that has done very little other than to add too all the confusion that already exists about how the SELF ASSESSMENT valuation works.

So do you want to discuss the issue or are you more interested in trying to build a case for nailing me to the wall?

Just leave it.

cast_iron

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So do you want to discuss the issue or are you more interested in trying to build a case for nailing me to the wall?

For the record, I have posted numerous times earlier in the thread explaining to others who were confused about how the process works.

My point in highlighting your mistakes was to show others that you were incorrect and hopefully clarify some of the confusion you created. The insurance issue was already discussed earlier and the poster was corrected. Another poster (you) coming on saying the same incorrect thing only adds to the confusion. Claiming that another poster actually misread what you stated did not clarify your point at all.

I will leave it at that.

oldyouth

The way I see it, this is the background to the website

What has happened?
As Civil Servants, we have developed and delivered a very complex website which has identified every house in the State and allocated an estimated market value to each one.

How do we use it?
If you're used to Google Maps, it will be not bother to you. Once you have located your house, you will see the estimate for your own home. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to rely on this information as being any way accurate at all. We haven't a clue about home values and came up with the numbers using a bingo machine one of the lads has for his regular visits to an old folks home

Why was it produced?
Well, we're Civil Servants and, as part of Croke Park, we agreed to additional productivity. We dragged what we could out of the Household Charge and had to come up with something to do. We take our commitments seriously.

What do we do then?
Well you must accurately value your home, despite having no expertise yourself in this regard. You must factor in that you might never have offered your house for sale in the last 20 years, it may be unique in style and fittings and that the housing market has been depressed for years, to the extent that the qualified housing valuers cannot agree where it will all end

What then?
You must send the value to us for consideration. As mentioned previously, we have no idea what we will be looking at, but if you get it wrong, you will be in the crapper. As part of Croke Park II, we will agree additional productivity to see how we will ensure your stay in the crapper is rather unpleasant.

The_Conductor

I wish it were so simple.
Collection of the Local Property Tax (which is a misnomer if ever I saw one) was originally with the local councils, and was among other things to replace the NPPR. We all know just how well collection of the NPPR went- so the government decided the only way to give collection of the property tax teeth was to rope in the Revenue Commissioners. Given the limited time scale involved, and the bizarre state of the resources at their disposal- someone in there came up with this scheme to colour in ordinance survey maps (in the most shocking shades of orange imaginable).

We were all fed stories of the ESB Networks database, the Property Price Register database and a myriad of other wholly incompatible data sources being used to nail property prices- when none of them had any great commonality that could be used for data normalisation across the myriad datasources they were presented with. Added to all of this- they were given an unrealistic timeframe to implement this- and few resources- and we ended up with our crap maps that mean nothing.

Its a ridiculous situation- but blaming the Revenue Commissioners is refusing to acknowledge they did the best they could, in a ridiculous timeframe, with silly resources at their disposal.

cookie1977

smccarrick wrote: »

I wish it were so simple.
Collection of the Local Property Tax (which is a misnomer if ever I saw one) was originally with the local councils, and was among other things to replace the NPPR. We all know just how well collection of the NPPR went- so the government decided the only way to give collection of the property tax teeth was to rope in the Revenue Commissioners. Given the limited time scale involved, and the bizarre state of the resources at their disposal- someone in there came up with this scheme to colour in ordinance survey maps (in the most shocking shades of orange imaginable).

We were all fed stories of the ESB Networks database, the Property Price Register database and a myriad of other wholly incompatible data sources being used to nail property prices- when none of them had any great commonality that could be used for data normalisation across the myriad datasources they were presented with. Added to all of this- they were given an unrealistic timeframe to implement this- and few resources- and we ended up with our crap maps that mean nothing.

Its a ridiculous situation- but blaming the Revenue Commissioners is refusing to acknowledge they did the best they could, in a ridiculous timeframe, with silly resources at their disposal.

Not only that but this year I pay NPPR and LPT on my rental property. A double tax in my mind.

The_Conductor

cookie1977 wrote: »

Not only that but this year I pay NPPR and LPT on my rental property. A double tax in my mind.

It is a double taxation- and if you consider that you now have to pay PRSI on the gross rental income- you could even say its a triple form of tax.......

On the bright side- the government have indicated that the Property tax will be a deductable expense for landlords (while the NPPR was not)- however the PRSI anamoly is being swept under the carpet.

cookie1977

True on everything there.

I'd even have been happy paying half a year NPPR and the LPT (since that's for half a year) but no, the government decide to do the lazy thing. Zero imagination at times from them.

Zamboni

oldyouth wrote: »

The way I see it, this is the background to the website

What has happened?
As Civil Servants, we have developed and delivered a very complex website which has identified every house in the State and allocated an estimated market value to each one.

How do we use it?
If you're used to Google Maps, it will be not bother to you. Once you have located your house, you will see the estimate for your own home. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to rely on this information as being any way accurate at all. We haven't a clue about home values and came up with the numbers using a bingo machine one of the lads has for his regular visits to an old folks home

Why was it produced?
Well, we're Civil Servants and, as part of Croke Park, we agreed to additional productivity. We dragged what we could out of the Household Charge and had to come up with something to do. We take our commitments seriously.

What do we do then?
Well you must accurately value your home, despite having no expertise yourself in this regard. You must factor in that you might never have offered your house for sale in the last 20 years, it may be unique in style and fittings and that the housing market has been depressed for years, to the extent that the qualified housing valuers cannot agree where it will all end

What then?
You must send the value to us for consideration. As mentioned previously, we have no idea what we will be looking at, but if you get it wrong, you will be in the crapper. As part of Croke Park II, we will agree additional productivity to see how we will ensure your stay in the crapper is rather unpleasant.

And now a private company has launched a far superior version.

http://www.daft.ie/property-tax/?utm_source=daft.ie&utm_medium=strap_line&utm_campaign=strap_55_

P. Breathnach

Zamboni wrote: »

And now a private company has launched a far superior version.

http://www.daft.ie/property-tax/?utm_source=daft.ie&utm_medium=strap_line&utm_campaign=strap_55_

I tested both sites with a house that sold about 12 months ago, and thus has a reasonably good recent market valuation. The Revenue guide put it in band 2; the DAFT guide put it in band 3. Which was the better performance? The house had sold for €125k, bang in the middle of the band 2 range.

Yes, I see a point in the DAFT approach, in taking a greater range of factors into account. But in relation to the sample I used, the DAFT guide probably failed because of its approach to location.

Sure you can say that a sample size of 1 does not amount to a thorough test, and I won't argue too strongly with you. The DAFT guide might give better indications far more often than the Revenue site. But most of us are dealing with a sample size of 1.

D3PO

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I tested both sites with a house that sold about 12 months ago, and thus has a reasonably good recent market valuation. The Revenue guide put it in band 2; the DAFT guide put it in band 3. Which was the better performance? The house had sold for €125k, bang in the middle of the band 2 range.

Yes, I see a point in the DAFT approach, in taking a greater range of factors into account. But in relation to the sample I used, the DAFT guide probably failed because of its approach to location.

Sure you can say that a sample size of 1 does not amount to a thorough test, and I won't argue too strongly with you. The DAFT guide might give better indications far more often than the Revenue site. But most of us are dealing with a sample size of 1.

sample size of 1, year old valuation.

Pointless excercise.

How about you give us the address and details of said house, bedromms, bathrooms, garden etc and let us see what we think has given a more appropriate valudaiton daft or the revenue website.

Ogham

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.

.

Looks like Money Guide Ireland has done what you suggested. Here

P. Breathnach

D3PO wrote: »

sample size of 1, year old valuation.


Pointless excercise.

Every property is a sample size of 1.

Following your line of reasoning, using any website to get a measure of the value of a property is a pointless exercise. With which view I agree - it's pretty well the point of my post.

How about you give us the address and details of said house, bedromms, bathrooms, garden etc and let us see what we think has given a more appropriate valudaiton daft or the revenue website.

First, because I value my privacy. Second, because I do not think the opinions of anonymous people who do not know my neighbourhood would yield a worthwhile estimate.

I'm quite happy that I can make a reasonable judgement of the value of my home. I regard it as a fluke that the Revenue website puts it in the same band that I would; I have already commented that I see some neighbouring houses as being wrongly categorised by that site (some too high, others too low). I think it convenient for me that the Revenue and I arrive at the same band. It means that I do not have to argue a case for my valuation. Further, I think it possible that some time in the future the Revenue will audit some declarations for LPT; I don't think I am likely to be challenged.

Although moving house is not on my agenda, if somebody offered me what DAFT calculates as the value of this house, I would be sorely tempted (and Herself would be tempted to kill me!).

D3PO

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Every property is a sample size of 1.

Following your line of reasoning, using any website to get a measure of the value of a property is a pointless exercise. With which view I agree - it's pretty well the point of my post.

First, because I value my privacy. Second, because I do not think the opinions of anonymous people who do not know my neighbourhood would yield a worthwhile estimate.

I'm quite happy that I can make a reasonable judgement of the value of my home. I regard it as a fluke that the Revenue website puts it in the same band that I would; I have already commented that I see some neighbouring houses as being wrongly categorised by that site (some too high, others too low). I think it convenient for me that the Revenue and I arrive at the same band. It means that I do not have to argue a case for my valuation. Further, I think it possible that some time in the future the Revenue will audit some declarations for LPT; I don't think I am likely to be challenged.

Although moving house is not on my agenda, if somebody offered me what DAFT calculates as the value of this house, I would be sorely tempted (and Herself would be tempted to kill me!).

every property isnt really a sample size on one. In an estate the majority of properties will be similar in terms of square footage, garden size, etc.

Regards to your comment re revenue and not having to argue a case. Thats not correct. If revenue have undervalued your property (not saying they have) then the argument that you went with their estimate doesnt hold up, they have been abundantly clear about that.

re annomous people yieding a reasonable estimate. Where do you think the revenue calculation from ?

P. Breathnach

D3PO wrote: »

every property isnt really a sample size on one. In an estate the majority of properties will be similar in terms of square footage, garden size, etc.

Only in some estates. Walk through an estate that was built more than, say, ten years ago, and you will see that many houses have been modified or extended. And you can see that without climbing over back garden walls to check whether a kitchen/living room has been tacked on at the back.

Regards to your comment re revenue and not having to argue a case. Thats not correct. If revenue have undervalued your property (not saying they have) then the argument that you went with their estimate doesnt hold up, they have been abundantly clear about that.

I know that the guide is not being held out as definitive. But I also know that nearly all individuals employed by the Revenue Commissioners are fairly reasonable. In the short-to-medium term, they are not likely to challenge declarations that are consistent with their guidelines: they will see more value in challenging situations where people are declaring values far below the guideline. Then they might have a look at some Celtic tiger mansions. I'll be so far down their list of interesting cases that the chances of their coming after me are negligible. And if they came, they wouldn't spend long on the case before agreeing that I am quite reasonable in my approach.

re annomous people yieding a reasonable estimate. Where do you think the revenue calculation from ?

I'm not saying that the Revenue guide is very useful; rather the opposite. It's a fluke that the guide for my home is the same as my own judgement.