Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are landlords selling up ?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    And how would you prove that?

    This is based on the assumption that all the bills in the house being rented are in the landlords name and for his/her primary residence they're in a different name.

    I'd let the revenue work it out. It wouldn't be mine to prove. I'm sure that they could get to the truth.

    I would hope so anyway. Be a simple matter of looking at deeds or mortgage repayments etc.

    Interesting that there is some support for tax evasion here.


  • Options
    #93
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    I'd let the revenue work it out. It wouldn't be mine to prove. I'm sure that they could get to the truth.

    I would hope so anyway. Be a simple matter of looking at deeds or mortgage repayments etc.

    Interesting that there is some support for tax evasion here.

    I never indicated support for tax evasion my question was simply how could you prove it.

    All you said above still isn't significant enough. The landlord could claim they were estranged


  • Options
    #94
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Barely Hedged wrote: »
    I never indicated support for tax evasion my question was simply how could you prove it.

    All you said above still isn't significant enough. The landlord could claim they were estranged

    You don't think much of Irish revenue.

    He can claim what he wants. In a criminal (and I assume civil) case they can take statements from other "licensees" as to where he really lived, neighbours nesr his real home as to whether he lived there, even online pictures of clear non- estrangement would be detrimental to his case.

    Maybe the revenue just ask "this guy says you don't live at 1 shantytown with the licensees but live at 2 bourgeois avenue with your wife and two kids where they go to school, you are a member of the local golf club, and the house is where appear on many Facebook posts. Do you?" And if you say "No" they leave it at that. I doubt it.


  • Options
    #95
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    If I were your licensee under this arrangement (I wouldn't be as I was always on a lease when I rented) I would be straight to revenue about you if you decided to evict without cause.

    It would be pretty clear where you lived.

    I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He said he wouldn't say he lived there to Revenue. He would use it to establish the claim that they are licensees, not to abuse the rent a room scheme.

    And yes, we don't approve of tax fraud or advice supporting it in this forum.


  • Options
    #96
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    You don't think much of Irish revenue.

    He can claim what he wants. In a criminal (and I assume civil) case they can take statements from other "licensees" as to where he really lived, neighbours nesr his real home as to whether he lived there, even online pictures of clear non- estrangement would be detrimental to his case.

    Maybe the revenue just ask "this guy says you don't live at 1 shantytown with the licensees but live at 2 bourgeois avenue with your wife and two kids where they go to school, you are a member of the local golf club, and the house is where appear on many Facebook posts. Do you?" And if you say "No" they leave it at that. I doubt it.

    Yeah, I don't.

    Do you know what defines whether he/she lived there or not, at the tenanted house that is? Just to reiterate the point above - this is not for tax evasion reasons, but to qualify the tenants as licensees


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Maireadio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭Maireadio


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He said he wouldn't say he lived there to Revenue. He would use it to establish the claim that they are licensees, not to abuse the rent a room scheme.

    And yes, we don't approve of tax fraud or advice supporting it in this forum.

    Apologies, I misread, and thought Nox was advocating keeping a room in the house to avail of the rent a room scheme.


  • Options
    #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He said he wouldn't say he lived there to Revenue. He would use it to establish the claim that they are licensees, not to abuse the rent a room scheme.

    This is what I meant, thanks! I probably didn't word it very well.


  • Options
    #99
    sunsetter
    Registered Users Posts: 19 ✭sunsetter


    hmm, I bought an apt that was a bank-forced sale and lived in it last year. I have now emigrated and am a non-resident landlord. I pay an EA to rent it out for me and make a tiny profit each month, I will pay 20% tax on the rent so thankfully I'm not getting ripped at 52%. I don't have to think about the apt as I pay someone else to do that for me.

    I do see that lots of apts in my block are now for sale but I think it is because the banks are 'allowing' the underwater landlords who bought them in the boom to sell them as the prices have risen enough to mitigate the potential loss the banks might incur due to write-offs.

    I intend to come back in a few years and live in my apt, and hopefully the people who buy these types of apts are renters who can afford to buy.

    I guess it's just a transfer of wealth/assets from the old-school to the new school. The old landlords have been burned and are too old to deal with it, whereas the new school are coming in with a positive attitude and this may create a better rental experience in Ireland.


  • Options
    #100
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    sunsetter wrote: »
    hmm, I bought an apt that was a bank-forced sale and lived in it last year. I have now emigrated and am a non-resident landlord. I pay an EA to rent it out for me and make a tiny profit each month, I will pay 20% tax on the rent so thankfully I'm not getting ripped at 52%. I don't have to think about the apt as I pay someone else to do that for me.

    You are liable for full tax, the 20% is just Revenue taking the minimum that would be due. If more tax is due you will have to pay that, it's not that living abroad is a cheap way to rent out a property!


  • Options
    #101
    sunsetter
    Registered Users Posts: 19 ✭sunsetter


    athtrasna wrote: »
    sunsetter wrote: »
    hmm, I bought an apt that was a bank-forced sale and lived in it last year. I have now emigrated and am a non-resident landlord. I pay an EA to rent it out for me and make a tiny profit each month, I will pay 20% tax on the rent so thankfully I'm not getting ripped at 52%. I don't have to think about the apt as I pay someone else to do that for me.

    You are liable for full tax, the 20% is just Revenue taking the minimum that would be due. If more tax is due you will have to pay that, it's not that living abroad is a cheap way to rent out a property!
    Add your reply here.

    I'm my case the full tax I would be liable for would be 20% but it will be less than that when expenses are considered


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    April 73
    Registered Users Posts: 846 ✭✭✭April 73


    I'm not an accidental landlord, I made a conscious decision to invest in property. I couldn't count myself as a professional landlord either though as it's not my full-time occupation.

    The investment decision was a way of supplementing a defined contribution pension. Myself and my OH manage the two properties ourselves - letting, decorating, repairs & maintenance that don't require a professional. We chose tenants very carefully - our one tenant mistake was made early on when we used an agent - we decided we would never hand over keys to someone we had never met again & thankfully we have always had good tenants since.

    Between tax & expenses every year, we put a fair amount of money in to the properties but that is more than offset by the amount that is coming off the principal loans. I see that as investing our money though. I would like to see 100% of interest being tax deductible.

    We are currently debating the wisdom of buying a property in the area we now live - with the intention of having the mortgage mostly paid down by tenants & then selling our own PPR & downsizing to the smaller house when we retire. We'd love a place in France & to live six months there & six months here. Of course that might be pie-in-the-sky fantasy land. We have two kids to educate & get off our hands & we might be knackered mentally & physically by the time we retire. It's good to dream though!

    I see property as a long-term investment, with cyclical ups & downs. I can see why Celtic-tiger accidental landlords want out, but we're not looking to get exit.


Advertisement