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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…777879808183»

Comments

  • #4102
    Slick50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.
    The only change in circumstances that would make you liable for LPT, is to become a residential property owner. That is not the case.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.
    I am not making any such suggestion, but they should have some grounds for deducting a tax. What other wage deduction do revenue make, based on a speculative assumption.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.
    OK, I don't know what the protocol for electronic payroll is, but according to revenue, they stated they would be notifying employers to make the deductions.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    They're trying to correlate people with addresses. Every process has errors. Once they're set right, it's all good.
    So that justifies deducting tax from anybody and everybody they feel like?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So they'll get it back.
    But not without fuss, and why should they be able to deduct whatever ammount they feel like from someone that is not liable for a tax.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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?
    Deducting a tax that somebody doesn't owe, from their wages, is probably not the best way to inspire cooperation.

    Have you ever rented? How much work have you done for revenue, re: informing them of properties you have rented, and from whom?
    Godge wrote: »
    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.
    That's a ridiculous assumption, and more a reflection on yourself.

    I spoke to one of these people today, they are adamant they informed revenue of a change of address, and revenue didn't update their records. Revenue have stopped the deductions, but as usual, are making them jump through hoops for the refund.


  • #4103
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Slick50 wrote: »
    The only change in circumstances that would make you liable for LPT, is to become a residential property owner. That is not the case.
    Correct. They're not liable for LPT, and will get it back. As I've already said.
    I am not making any such suggestion, but they should have some grounds for deducting a tax.
    Their grounds (presumably) are that they know the person lived in a property, they were never told that person stopped living in the property, they never had any information to indicate that someone else owned the property, and were not aware that the person was renting the property.

    On that basis, it's not unreasonable to assume (until they're told differently) that the person in question is the owner of the property and liable to LPT.

    Now, the fact that they believe the tenant is the owner strongly indicates that the actual owner was defrauding Revenue of the income tax from the rental income, but this aspect doesn't seem to trouble you.
    OK, I don't know what the protocol for electronic payroll is, but according to revenue, they stated they would be notifying employers to make the deductions.
    I don't know why you don't know what the protocol is, because I've told you at least twice. For at least the third time, Revenue notify employers by sending them machine-readable files that are automatically processed by payroll software.
    But not without fuss, and why should they be able to deduct whatever ammount they feel like from someone that is not liable for a tax.
    Because they believe, in good faith, that they are liable. That belief is founded on several people deceiving them, whether through negligence or fraud, which - again - doesn't seem to trouble you.
    Deducting a tax that somebody doesn't owe, from their wages, is probably not the best way to inspire cooperation.
    Isn't it? I know if a lack of co-operation left me short a few quid, I'd be a shedload more co-operative in future.
    Have you ever rented? How much work have you done for revenue, re: informing them of properties you have rented, and from whom?
    I have informed them of the property address, the name, address and PPS number of the landlord, and the amount of the rent.

    I'm not sure why you think the attitude of "tell the bastards nothing" that you seem to be espousing is somehow a laudable one, but the country would be in much better shape if fewer of us had such high regard for tax evaders.
    I spoke to one of these people today, they are adamant they informed revenue of a change of address, and revenue didn't update their records.
    Why wouldn't Revenue update their records? It is categorically not in Revenue's interest ever to not know where people live. Of all the government bureaucracy in this country, it's the one part that actually seems to work quite efficiently.
    Revenue have stopped the deductions, but as usual, are making them jump through hoops for the refund.
    I've never had to jump through any hoops for a Revenue refund. I fill in the relevant forms or call in to the tax office, and a cheque arrives in due course.

    But then, based on your attitude to Revenue as espoused so far in this thread, I'm guessing "jumping through hoops" is any effort beyond having a tax inspector read your mind and arrive at your door five minutes later with cash in a velvet-lined box.


  • #4104
    Ogham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Ogham


    Does everyone realise that if they want to pay 2014 LPT by debit or credit card - they will be expected to pay it before the end of November 2013.
    Just what we all need before Christmas !
    See here - http://www.moneyguideireland.com/property-tax-2014-payment-dates.html


  • #4105
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Ogham wrote: »
    Does everyone realise that if they want to pay 2014 LPT by debit or credit card - they will be expected to pay it before the end of November 2013.
    Just what we all need before Christmas !
    See here - http://www.moneyguideireland.com/property-tax-2014-payment-dates.html


    Is that really the case?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0119.html#sec119

    From the legislation:

    "1) Subject to subsection (2), local property tax contained in a self-assessment or a Revenue assessment or treated as contained in a Revenue assessment under section 49 shall be payable on or before—

    (a) 1 July 2013, in respect of the liability date 1 May 2013, and

    (b) 1 January, in respect of the liability date 1 November in any other year."


  • #4106
    Ogham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Ogham


    Godge wrote: »
    Is that really the case?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/act/pub/0052/sec0119.html#sec119

    From the legislation:

    "1) Subject to subsection (2), local property tax contained in a self-assessment or a Revenue assessment or treated as contained in a Revenue assessment under section 49 shall be payable on or before—

    (a) 1 July 2013, in respect of the liability date 1 May 2013, and

    (b) 1 January, in respect of the liability date 1 November in any other year."

    If you are paying by credit/debit card they expect you to tell them before Nov 27th and at the same time they will deduct it.


  • #4107
    Slick50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Correct. They're not liable for LPT, and will get it back. As I've already said.
    I wasn't asking if that was correct. It was a response to your assertion that these people were wrongly charged LPT, because they hadn't kept revenue up to date with their changing circumstances.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Their grounds (presumably) are that they know the person lived in a property, they were never told that person stopped living in the property, they never had any information to indicate that someone else owned the property, and were not aware that the person was renting the property.
    Apparently linking a name to an address is not enough, as would be born out by revenues actions as soon as they were informed they are wrong.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    On that basis, it's not unreasonable to assume (until they're told differently) that the person in question is the owner of the property and liable to LPT.
    Having a name and an address is a reasonable basis to assume the person owns the property? I don't think so. It is more a waste of everyones time.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Now, the fact that they believe the tenant is the owner strongly indicates that the actual owner was defrauding Revenue of the income tax from the rental income, but this aspect doesn't seem to trouble you.
    This is nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't know why you don't know what the protocol is, because I've told you at least twice. For at least the third time, Revenue notify employers by sending them machine-readable files that are automatically processed by payroll software.
    Because I have no direct experience of it, and in your post you said...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I guess
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because they believe, in good faith, that they are liable. That belief is founded on several people deceiving them, whether through negligence or fraud, which - again - doesn't seem to trouble you.
    There is no 'good faith', it is an abuse of authority, in order to coerce someone to give information. Information they may not have. Their believing several people are deceiving, is not justification to involve a completely innocent other party.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Isn't it? I know if a lack of co-operation left me short a few quid, I'd be a shedload more co-operative in future.
    It's not leaving them short a few quid. It just means they are unnecessarily discommoded to regain what is rightfuly theirs
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I have informed them of the property address, the name, address and PPS number of the landlord, and the amount of the rent.
    Well done, that's a lot of information, though I don't know why you would have their PPS no. How far back did that go?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you think the attitude of "tell the bastards nothing" that you seem to be espousing is somehow a laudable one, but the country would be in much better shape if fewer of us had such high regard for tax evaders.
    I made the point that revenue have deducted LPT from people, that aren't liable for it. The rest is your inference, and not relevant. The people I am talking about are not tax evaders, they had tax deducted wrongfully.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why wouldn't Revenue update their records? It is categorically not in Revenue's interest ever to not know where people live. Of all the government bureaucracy in this country, it's the one part that actually seems to work quite efficiently.
    You would have to address that question to revenue.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've never had to jump through any hoops for a Revenue refund. I fill in the relevant forms or call in to the tax office, and a cheque arrives in due course.
    That is not everybodies experience.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But then, based on your attitude to Revenue as espoused so far in this thread, I'm guessing "jumping through hoops" is any effort beyond having a tax inspector read your mind and arrive at your door five minutes later with cash in a velvet-lined box.
    You seem to be talking a lot of hocus pocus lately, between revenue using magic and reading minds.

    These people have been deducted tax wrongfully. Revenue have ceded they were wrong. That should be as much effort as these people need to make, their money should be refunded without further question, as easily as it was deducted.


  • #4108
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    There was a rent tax credit until recently, you'd need to put the landlord's PPS no. on the form to get it.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #4109
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    K-9 wrote: »
    There was a rent tax credit until recently, you'd need to put the landlord's PPS no. on the form to get it.

    LOl....... one might have a job getting that. :D


  • #4110
    DoesNotCompute
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭DoesNotCompute


    K-9 wrote: »
    There was a rent tax credit until recently, you'd need to put the landlord's PPS no. on the form to get it.

    You didn't necessarily need to get the landlord's PPSN though. I remember claiming this tax credit back in '06, giving them my landlord's name and address, and leaving out the landlord's PPSN. Revenue granted me the tax credit. Presumably they were able to locate him on their system with just his name & address.


  • Advertisement
  • #4111
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Things have tightened up with rent allowance and the tenancy board. You can't claim interest relief unless registered.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



Advertisement