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
Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)
Options
Comments
-
-
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.0 -
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:))0 -
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.0 -
I'll have to ask, but it hasn't been an issue up to now.oscarBravo wrote: »Haven't they informed Revenue of their new addresses? It's generally a good idea.
Why should these people have the hassle of fighting to get their money, that should never have been taken, back.oscarBravo wrote: »If the tax has been deducted incorrectly, it will be refunded.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.
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.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.
That's right, in no way.And in no way the fault of the person themselves, of course............
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Presumably that's because they haven't had to do any form of self-assessment before.I'll have to ask, but it hasn't been an issue up to now.
I really don't understand why you wouldn't inform Revenue of a change of address, though.
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.Why should these people have the hassle of fighting to get their money, that should never have been taken, back.
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.
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.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.
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?0 -
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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% VATDunno 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.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.
You only see the posts of those who suit your disagreementoscarBravo wrote: »You do? I haven't seen any.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
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).0 -
-
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).0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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: »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.
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: »You're missing my point.
So your accountant does that for you?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.
Yes, and rightfully so.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?
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.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?
Why are they doing a 'trawl' of who rented. This tax is on property owners.I find this story very strange.
Revenue are basing their trawl on the latest information they have on who lived in those rental properties.
None of which makes them liable to LPT.(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.
Maybe they have enough to worry about, without looking after other peoples tax affairsI 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.0 -
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.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.
No, my payroll software does it for me.So your accountant does that for you?
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.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.
They're trying to correlate people with addresses. Every process has errors. Once they're set right, it's all good.Why are they doing a 'trawl' of who rented. This tax is on property owners.
So they'll get it back.None of which makes them liable to LPT.
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?Maybe they have enough to worry about, without looking after other peoples tax affairs0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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: »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.
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: »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.
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: »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.
So that justifies deducting tax from anybody and everybody they feel like?oscarBravo wrote: »They're trying to correlate people with addresses. Every process has errors. Once they're set right, it's all good.
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 they'll get it back.
Deducting a tax that somebody doesn't owe, from their wages, is probably not the best way to inspire cooperation.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?
Have you ever rented? How much work have you done for revenue, re: informing them of properties you have rented, and from whom?
That's a ridiculous assumption, and more a reflection on yourself.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.
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.0 -
Correct. They're not liable for LPT, and will get it back. As I've already said.The only change in circumstances that would make you liable for LPT, is to become a residential property owner. That is not the case.
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.I am not making any such suggestion, but they should have some grounds for deducting a tax.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Deducting a tax that somebody doesn't owe, from their wages, is probably not the best way to inspire cooperation.
I have informed them of the property address, the name, address and PPS number of the landlord, and the amount of the rent.Have you ever rented? How much work have you done for revenue, re: informing them of properties you have rented, and from whom?
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.
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.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.
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.Revenue have stopped the deductions, but as usual, are making them jump through hoops for the refund.
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.0 -
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.html0 -
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."0 -
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.0 -
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: »Correct. They're not liable for LPT, and will get it back. As I've already said.
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: »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.
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: »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.
This is nothing to do with the topic being discussed.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.
Because I have no direct experience of it, and in your post you said...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.oscarBravo wrote: »I guess
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: »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.
It's not leaving them short a few quid. It just means they are unnecessarily discommoded to regain what is rightfuly theirsoscarBravo 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.
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 have informed them of the property address, the name, address and PPS number of the landlord, and the amount of the rent.
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: »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.
You would have to address that question to revenue.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.
That is not everybodies experience.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.
You seem to be talking a lot of hocus pocus lately, between revenue using magic and reading minds.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.
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.0 -
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.
0 -
-
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
0
Advertisement