Tax Exiles who pay "Voluntary Tax"

Jigga

What are people's opinions on tax exiles that do charitable causes in lieu of paying tax? It has been in the news recently with JP McManus's ProAm event.

Obviously this event raises several million for Limerick charities and the local economy which is great. But McManus is being praised for splashing money around in organising these events, which in truth is only a small fraction of what he should be paying in tax.

I'd prefer if he payed his taxes to be honest, he can still organise these charity events but he shouldn't be allowed claim Irish citizenship in my opinion as he doesn't pay tax here.

ei.sdraob

since when is citizenship based on paying taxes?

with that line of thinking we should revoke passports from half of the workforce and 400K unemployed and give out passports to half of east europe

silverharp

OP needs to look up the meaning of tax avoidance. There is no obligation morally or otherwise to pay a cent more then he legally needs to do.

Liam Byrne

I would reckon that JP does more good by giving the charities money than by giving it to the Government to waste on quangos and expenses.

That said, I did read today that Bertie Ahern was at the Pro-Am, and my opinion of JP has dropped as a result.

He's a great man (JP) but he should distance himself from con-men.

mikemac

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That said, I did read today that Bertie Ahern was at the Pro-Am, and my opinion of JP has dropped as a result.

He's a great man (JP) but he should distance himself from con-men.

It's a charity event.
To be fair he doesn't control who buys tickets and if he knew, he couldn't exactly get event security to bar people who would cause no trouble there.

He is a great man, does a lot for Limerick, I wouldn't let that change my opinion of him.
Realy, he was probably unaware who attended or not, sure most politicians in Limerick would have showed up too.


OP, JP McManus doesn't pay tax he isn't liable for, it's tax avoidance.
Do you write a cheque to revenue for tax you don't owe?

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

OP needs to look up the meaning of tax avoidance. There is no obligation morally or otherwise to pay a cent more then he legally needs to do.

What I find objectionable is that he is not legally required to pay tax.

feelingstressed wrote: »

... To be fair he doesn't control who buys tickets and if he knew, he couldn't exactly get event security to bar people who would cause no trouble there....

My guess is that Bertie didn't have to buy a ticket.

Sleepy

I have a real problem with tax exiles being lauded as "great Irishmen".

Being rich should not be an excuse not to contribute. If someone earning 50k can pay a large proportion of their income in tax, why shouldn't the person earning 5 million?

Sure, our government is incompetent and would no doubt squander the money, however, in terms of systems, there's right and wrong. If we aim to have an equal country where one's rights are the same regardless of one's wealth (and I believe we should), I should be just as entitled to decide where my contribution to society is spent as JP McManus (i.e. we should both only be able to influence this by our vote).

I believe anyone who spends more than 504 hours (a total of 3 weeks) or are present in this country during 60 calender days of the year should be paying their income tax here. Our tax system should not allow people to opt out once they can afford to use midnight flights in their private jet to get back to Monaco or Switzerland when they only have properties there in order to avoid doing their civic duty.

Say what you like about Michael O' Leary, at least he pays his tax here despite having Europe's largest fleet of aircraft at his disposal should he wish to avoid it.

McManus isn't a great man. He's a very rich one who manipulates our tax system to avoid paying his fair share and uses his famous (and influential) friends to greatly highlight his contributions to charity he does make in order to look like the great emperor for giving the table scraps to the serfs.

ressem

Why personalise the issue?

Is it your wish that the government should change the Irish tax law and double taxation agreements with the various countries to be more like the setup of the US?

As I understand it US residents around the world have to file tax returns describing their income regardless of origin, and to pay tax on that income to the US government?
They then apply for tax credits against tax they have already paid in another state to reduce double taxation.

(Try to rope in the Saudis that CJ gave the passports to?)
In Ireland, the law is that non-doms are taxed only on income they bring into the country. So 'should be paying' is incorrect.

Or have you another tax model in mind?

Btw limiting the discussion to JP McManus brings out his many defenders and doesn't advance the discussion.

P. Breathnach

ressem wrote: »

... Is it your wish that the government should change the Irish tax law and double taxation agreements with the various countries to be more like the setup of the US?
...
Or have you another tax model in mind? ...

It used to be the case that anybody who was resident in Ireland in a particular year was liable for tax here. With the application of double taxation agreements, the net effect was generally that the individual paid some tax here, and some in the other jurisdiction(s).

What has changed is the criterion for residency. In the past, if a person had a home here, and spent as little as one night in it, he or she was deemed resident for the year. Now our tax exiles can spend far more time here, and some virtually commute between here and a tax haven in their private planes. It's a farce, and one that I dislike greatly. Somebody who has a home here, spends enough time here to run a business, and has enough social contacts here to hit the gossip pages of the papers, should be considered to be living here and liable for tax here.

btard

JP is too rich and powerful to pay tax. There will always be an elite who are above the normal rules that govern the rest of us. In fact, they make the rules. The 'charity' events and political contributions enable him to buy goodwill and carry on making his billions off us. You will never hear a bad word said about him by a politician or in the general media. Don't let it bother you too much, it's the way of the world.

boodlesdoodles

I'm from Limerick and I have absolutely no problem with JP paying only what he owes, he's following the letter of the law. That said, he has done so much for the local community you'd have been waiting 100 years for the government to do it. Every single penny from the Pro-am went to local charities, all the workers gave their time for free and the uplift it gave to the city and county this week has been incredible. Fair play to him I say and long may he be a generous man.

Sleepy

So long as you understand that his actions make your taxes higher / the budget deficit higher / public service provision lower, you're entitled to your opinion.

I'd rather live in a country where the elected government can decide whether it's more important to pay for an extra cancer consultant than for some kids from south hill to get a free ride through UL than leave their rich mates.

Nijmegen

In Ireland, charities have often stepped in to do the work that the state has failed to provision for since the very foundation. So in that sense, I think we need to maintain a strong charitable sector, because our government's sure don't seem to be much smarter than they used to be.

On the other front, he pays as much tax as he is obligated to, and not a penny more or less. The same as the rest of us. Even then, the richest pay more than their fair share in taxes in general.

P. Breathnach

Nijmegen wrote: »

... Even then, the richest pay more than their fair share in taxes in general.

There is room to argue about what amounts to a fair share.

Some of the really wealthy pay almost no tax.

Fighting Irish

feelingstressed wrote: »

It's a charity event.
To be fair he doesn't control who buys tickets and if he knew, he couldn't exactly get event security to bar people who would cause no trouble there.

He is a great man, does a lot for Limerick, I wouldn't let that change my opinion of him.
Realy, he was probably unaware who attended or not, sure most politicians in Limerick would have showed up too.


OP, JP McManus doesn't pay tax he isn't liable for, it's tax avoidance.
Do you write a cheque to revenue for tax you don't owe?

bang on

Fighting Irish

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is room to argue about what amounts to a fair share.

Some of the really wealthy pay almost no tax.

here we go

Nijmegen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is room to argue about what amounts to a fair share.

Some of the really wealthy pay almost no tax.

It's a fact of life. The really rich can afford to just move elsewhere if they feel like it. But having them around brings in investment in jobs and other benefits.

The uber-rich cannot be taxed fully without sending them away, and that is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What has changed is the criterion for residency. In the past, if a person had a home here, and spent as little as one night in it, he or she was deemed resident for the year. .

Sorry can you back this part up with some reference please as it doesn't make sense

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is room to argue about what amounts to a fair share.

Some of the really wealthy pay almost no tax.

When you are poor you work for money

When you are rich money works for you

its that simple

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry can you back this part up with some reference please as it doesn't make sense

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Forty years ago, if you had a home here and spent even one night in it, you were deemed resident for tax purposes in that year.

I can't find a convenient citation (it was pre-internet, after all) but I know it from experience.

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

...
When you are rich money works for you ...

It might be better, in this context, to say that if you are rich politicians work for you.

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It might be better, in this context, to say that if you are rich politicians work for you.

You missed what the saying really gets at

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Forty years ago, if you had a home here and spent even one night in it, you were deemed resident for tax purposes in that year.

I can't find a convenient citation (it was pre-internet, after all) but I know it from experience.

sorry I'm not calling you a liar or anything like that i just don't think the tax residency law was ever that strict - ever but I could be wrong which is why I asked for back up

The reason is that I have plenty of relatives who have owned Irish properties for many many years whilst living in UK and they never paid Irish tax simply because they stayed in these properties. If memory service me right i think it went from 80 nights per annum to 182 nights per annum

I do know that the residency law was relaxed a bit but as far as i am aware it is still fairly standard with how most countries implement their tax residency (apart from US)

RichardAnd

One thing I find highly distasteful is the socialist attitude that the masses are somehow entitled to a slice of our most wealthy citizens' money. Just last week, I heard a pair of guys moaning in the pub about how Bono should be made pay super high rates of taxes because he earns millions. What Bono has is his and no one is entitled to a penny of his wealth save himself, it's his.

If I had millions, I'd live as a tax exile but I would hand out some help as I saw fit. My own thing would be supporting music and the arts which is lacking here. If, for any reason, I needed to avail of something like hospital treatment or any other service that taxes pay for then I would make a suitable donation as payment. I would not however, share my money to fund the "entitlements" of the masses.

Begrudging the wealthy seems to be a popular pass time these days but let me tell any bitter people something; people who make themselves millions don't do it by whinging over a pint.

Scarab80

RichardAnd wrote: »

One thing I find highly distasteful is the socialist attitude that the masses are somehow entitled to a slice of our most wealthy citizens' money. Just last week, I heard a pair of guys moaning in the pub about how Bono should be made pay super high rates of taxes because he earns millions. What Bono has is his and no one is entitled to a penny of his wealth save himself, it's his.

If I had millions, I'd live as a tax exile but I would hand out some help as I saw fit. My own thing would be supporting music and the arts which is lacking here. If, for any reason, I needed to avail of something like hospital treatment or any other service that taxes pay for then I would make a suitable donation as payment. I would not however, share my money to fund the "entitlements" of the masses.

Begrudging the wealthy seems to be a popular pass time these days but let me tell any bitter people something; people who make themselves millions don't do it by whinging over a pint.

I would never begrudge someone successful their hard earned wealth, however being based here while paying no tax is not an equitable situation. I assume JP drives on our roads, makes use of our justice system, possibly our education system for his children, gets his water provided for, benefits from subsidised food and everything else that people take for granted but must be paid for.

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

sorry I'm not calling you a liar or anything like that i just don't think the tax residency law was ever that strict - ever but I could be wrong which is why I asked for back up

The reason is that I have plenty of relatives who have owned Irish properties for many many years whilst living in UK and they never paid Irish tax simply because they stayed in these properties. If memory service me right i think it went from 80 nights per annum to 182 nights per annum

I do know that the residency law was relaxed a bit but as far as i am aware it is still fairly standard with how most countries implement their tax residency (apart from US)

I suspect that they simply didn't think of telling the Revenue Commissioners about their situation.

P. Breathnach

RichardAnd wrote: »

One thing I find highly distasteful is the socialist attitude that the masses are somehow entitled to a slice of our most wealthy citizens' money. Just last week, I heard a pair of guys moaning in the pub about how Bono should be made pay super high rates of taxes because he earns millions. What Bono has is his and no one is entitled to a penny of his wealth save himself, it's his.

If I had millions, I'd live as a tax exile but I would hand out some help as I saw fit. My own thing would be supporting music and the arts which is lacking here. If, for any reason, I needed to avail of something like hospital treatment or any other service that taxes pay for then I would make a suitable donation as payment. I would not however, share my money to fund the "entitlements" of the masses.

Begrudging the wealthy seems to be a popular pass time these days but let me tell any bitter people something; people who make themselves millions don't do it by whinging over a pint.

You might find distasteful the expectation that the wealthy be taxed: I find it distasteful that some of them pay less tax than I do.

If you make your millions, feel free to run away to a tax haven. But do it decently: stay out of Irish public affairs; do not maintain a house here and pretend that you live elsewhere; just stay away.

And don't expect me to feel grateful (or even impressed) if you sponsor a string quartet.

OMD

RichardAnd wrote: »

One thing I find highly distasteful is the socialist attitude that the masses are somehow entitled to a slice of our most wealthy citizens' money. Just last week, I heard a pair of guys moaning in the pub about how Bono should be made pay super high rates of taxes because he earns millions. What Bono has is his and no one is entitled to a penny of his wealth save himself, it's his.


Begrudging the wealthy seems to be a popular pass time these days but let me tell any bitter people something; people who make themselves millions don't do it by whinging over a pint.

My problem is the praise they get for it. People on this forum have been praising JP for his charity work but it is only a fraction of what his taxes could do. There also seems to be an assumption that he cannot continue his charity work and pay taxes in Ireland.

Bono goes around the world basically saying people should pay more tax, and this money should be used by governments to reduce 3rd world debt. Yet, while he is saying everyone else should pay more tax, he does his best to pay less tax. He moves his money out of a country which was donating a high proportion of its GNP to 3rd world projects when it was decided people like him who were allowed pay very little tax (compared to the rest of us) should pay a little more. This is hipocrosy and should be exposed.

RichardAnd wrote: »

If I had millions, I'd live as a tax exile but I would hand out some help as I saw fit. My own thing would be supporting music and the arts which is lacking here. If, for any reason, I needed to avail of something like hospital treatment or any other service that taxes pay for then I would make a suitable donation as payment. I would not however, share my money to fund the "entitlements" of the masses.

Why should you be entitled to do this because you have millions but not if you only have thousands? Why can't I pay no tax and then decide who gets money. If I get good service in a hospital perhaps I could give them a few quid, donate to the arts as I see fit? How come you feel it is acceptable for rich people to do this but not the rest of us?

Nijmegen

We're forgetting: How much wealth do these people create? Through jobs, enterprise, etc? Funnily enough, the government is probably the least efficient bunch of people you want to be handing large sums of money over to.

Tipp Man

Personally I think the very well off should be paying tax but not an extorniate super tax - the same rates as i am paying would be good

But if the tax rules allow them to live in Bermuda for half the year without paying Irish tax then so be it, them is the rules - they are not breaking any laws or doing anything illegal, if i had the money i'd do the same

what the rules could do is say that for every night you are in Ireland you pay tax - so if JP (as he seems to be affectionately called on here by the Limerick possy) is here at the races for say 73 nights a years, then if his total tax bill for the year was say 10m then he would pay 2m in tax

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect that they simply didn't think of telling the Revenue Commissioners about their situation.

No I suspect they didn't have to for the length of time they were staying in Ireland per annum

You are going to have to back up your arguement about 1 night

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

No I suspect they didn't have to for the length of time they were staying in Ireland per annum

You are going to have to back up your arguement about 1 night

I can't conveniently find an online source. Let's face it: this is stuff from 40 years back, and tax law from about 1970 is not easily googled. I had sources on paper, but got rid of them years ago because I no longer had a use for them.

But I've been there.

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I can't conveniently find an online source. Let's face it: this is stuff from 40 years back, and tax law from about 1970 is not easily googled. I had sources on paper, but got rid of them years ago because I no longer had a use for them.

But I've been there.

Ok fair enough - its a long time ok

I suppose more importantly - do you think that such a tax law would be appropriate in 2011 given that 40 years ago there were far fewer "wealthy" people in the country and given that travel is so much easier nowadays and that there are countries offering these people a place to exile to??

Nijmegen

Tipp Man wrote: »

what the rules could do is say that for every night you are in Ireland you pay tax - so if JP (as he seems to be affectionately called on here by the Limerick possy) is here at the races for say 73 nights a years, then if his total tax bill for the year was say 10m then he would pay 2m in tax

I agree on the idea, but administratively - until we start swiping in and out of countries - it would be impossible:

If I travel to Ireland, or any other country with this sytem, on business or a holiday, I pay Irish tax for those days?

When I leave Ireland for my two weeks holidays during the summer, I stop paying Irish income tax? (This would lose us far more than we net from other sources.)

Etc.

As for road use etc, if he drives a car in Ireland he pays motor tax. Income tax is based on residence, but other taxes - water, property, road, would be based on usage.

RichardAnd

OMD wrote: »

My problem is the praise they get for it. People on this forum have been praising JP for his charity work but it is only a fraction of what his taxes could do. There also seems to be an assumption that he cannot continue his charity work and pay taxes in Ireland.

Bono goes around the world basically saying people should pay more tax, and this money should be used by governments to reduce 3rd world debt. Yet, while he is saying everyone else should pay more tax, he does his best to pay less tax. He moves his money out of a country which was donating a high proportion of its GNP to 3rd world projects when it was decided people like him who were allowed pay very little tax (compared to the rest of us) should pay a little more. This is hipocrosy and should be exposed.



Why should you be entitled to do this because you have millions but not if you only have thousands? Why can't I pay no tax and then decide who gets money. If I get good service in a hospital perhaps I could give them a few quid, donate to the arts as I see fit? How come you feel it is acceptable for rich people to do this but not the rest of us?

I don't have millions, not yet at least . You're forgetting though that income tax is not the only form of tax. If a tax exile lives here 6 months of the year, he will be paying motor tax for his car, ESB bills, VAT and any other such tax. The only thing tax exile status allows a person to dodge is income tax.

As to why I believe the rich should be allowed to this well I have no good answer for you save that most people would go into tax exile if they could. In an ideal world, no one would pay much tax but the nature of society means that will never happen.

As I said, if I lived that life, I would make a contribution to the state for the services I might use and I'd also help out those in need directly. If I wanted anything, I'd purchase from local businesses and hire locals to do work for me as needed. According to my own conscience, and I am one of the most moral people you could meet, this is perfectly fair.

Tipp Man

Nijmegen wrote: »

I agree on the idea, but administratively - until we start swiping in and out of countries - it would be impossible:

If I travel to Ireland, or any other country with this sytem, on business or a holiday, I pay Irish tax for those days?

When I leave Ireland for my two weeks holidays during the summer, I stop paying Irish income tax? (This would lose us far more than we net from other sources.)

Etc.

As for road use etc, if he drives a car in Ireland he pays motor tax. Income tax is based on residence, but other taxes - water, property, road, would be based on usage.

Well it was just an idea i had so haven't thought the exact details through but perhaps something like this

JP declares himself a non tax resident - he gets a swipe card (part of his passport??) which is swiped every time he enters and leaves the country to track the number of days he is in the country - it could be part of the rules for having an Irish passport but not being tax resident. That way then it is easy to record and calculate his portion of tax

The difference between JP and you is that you would declare yourself an Irish tax resident and as such pay tax for 365 days regardless of where you are in the world with work/holidays etc

I'm just throwing it out there as an idea and i agree that other forms of tax are paid by these people

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

Ok fair enough - its a long time ok

I suppose more importantly - do you think that such a tax law would be appropriate in 2011 given that 40 years ago there were far fewer "wealthy" people in the country and given that travel is so much easier nowadays and that there are countries offering these people a place to exile to??

I was aware of an individual in the 1970s who had a holiday home in Ireland but whose permanent home and whose source of income was in the UK. He was meticulous about compliance with the law, and was treated as double-resident for tax purposes. That's a bit extreme, and I don't see a need for that.

But we have people who have substantial business interests in Ireland, maintain a home here, are in the country quite a lot, and seem to participate a great deal in Irish public life and in social life here. But they manage to be treated as non-resident. To my mind, that's the other extreme, and just as unwelcome. I'd be in favour of tightening the net somewhat.

I don't buy into the argument that these high income people would abandon their business interests in Ireland. Corporation profits are taxed at a low rate here, so the issue is the taxation of their personal incomes (typically, salary and dividends). If they spend 30% of the year here, what is wrong with deeming 30% of their income to be subject to Irish tax?

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I was aware of an individual in the 1970s who had a holiday home in Ireland but whose permanent home and whose source of income was in the UK. He was meticulous about compliance with the law, and was treated as double-resident for tax purposes. That's a bit extreme, and I don't see a need for that.

But we have people who have substantial business interests in Ireland, maintain a home here, are in the country quite a lot, and seem to participate a great deal in Irish public life and in social life here. But they manage to be treated as non-resident. To my mind, that's the other extreme, and just as unwelcome. I'd be in favour of tightening the net somewhat.

I don't buy into the argument that these high income people would abandon their business interests in Ireland. Corporation profits are taxed at a low rate here, so the issue is the taxation of their personal incomes (typically, salary and dividends). If they spend 30% of the year here, what is wrong with deeming 30% of their income to be subject to Irish tax?

I think we are in agreeement, see my earlier post about "clocking in"

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

... JP declares himself a non tax resident - he gets a swipe card (part of his passport??) which is swiped every time he enters and leaves the country to track the number of days he is in the country - it could be part of the rules for having an Irish passport but not being tax resident. That way then it is easy to record and calculate his portion of tax...

I don't know the mechanism, but I understand the Revenue Commissioners do actually keep tabs on the movements of high-income individuals with interests in Ireland.

Nijmegen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't buy into the argument that these high income people would abandon their business interests in Ireland. Corporation profits are taxed at a low rate here, so the issue is the taxation of their personal incomes (typically, salary and dividends). If they spend 30% of the year here, what is wrong with deeming 30% of their income to be subject to Irish tax?

The country they spend 70% of their time in would have to agree, for one.

The issue is complication of managing such a system. If there were a global database of people moving around for tax purposes, and a single tax treaty between all those countries, it could be done.

oceanclub

Jigga wrote: »

What are people's opinions on tax exiles that do charitable causes in lieu of paying tax?

What would you opinion be of me if, instead of quietly paying my €20,000+ of tax yearly like most other PAYE workers, I refused to pay it up and instead, gave it to charity in grandiose events making sure my name is plastered all over the papers in association with it?

Quite.

P.

P. Breathnach

Nijmegen wrote: »

The country they spend 70% of their time in would have to agree, for one.

Why?

The issue is complication of managing such a system. If there were a global database of people moving around for tax purposes, and a single tax treaty between all those countries, it could be done.

No. It's much simpler. We require anybody with a residence and business interests here to make a declaration of their income and of of the number of days spent in Ireland in the year.

flutered

when the hse could not afford (or did not want ) to install an mri machine in the regional hospital, mc manus put it in, he had to pay the vat on it as well, so people go and tell all the cancer patients in the mid west that he does not shell out enough, expect a swift and explicit reply, as he has the one of the two helicoptors in ireland that can fly to england his vat on fuel must be kina big, stop splitting hairs and nit picking, go out and torment every politician and wanna be politician in your locatity, with your views as to how this island of ours could be better off, what about that gombeen bono who pays his tax in the netherlands and has the gall to ask us to save africa, how much does he contribute to ireland and africa, that princess diana was all about the people that lost limbs in war thorn places, how much did she leave them in her will (zilch )

Sleepy

Tipp Man wrote: »

But if the tax rules allow them to live in Bermuda for half the year without paying Irish tax then so be it, them is the rules - they are not breaking any laws or doing anything illegal, if i had the money i'd do the same

Now, ask yourself, who changed those rules?

And follow that question up with the next one:

Are those people in any way financially associated with such beneficiaries of the relaxing of those rules as JP McManus?

I don't have the data to hand but I'd be very sure there's more than a few grand in FF's bank account that was donated by the likes of McManus.

Nijmegen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why?



No. It's much simpler. We require anybody with a residence and business interests here to make a declaration of their income and of of the number of days spent in Ireland in the year.

Well, if we taxed them for 30% of their time here, and they were classed as resident by the other country, they would be taxed 100% of their income in that other country unless that other country recognised that the person is being taxed 30% of their earnings/time in Ireland. Otherwise the person is taxed twice, and I can't see other countries agreeing too much towards a model where we take their tax, regardless of where the person is.

P. Breathnach

Nijmegen wrote: »

Well, if we taxed them for 30% of their time here, and they were classed as resident by the other country, they would be taxed 100% of their income in that other country unless that other country recognised that the person is being taxed 30% of their earnings/time in Ireland. Otherwise the person is taxed twice, and I can't see other countries agreeing too much towards a model where we take their tax, regardless of where the person is.

The point is that we are discussing people who reside in tax havens where they pay no income tax or a trivial amount.

In any event, we have double taxation agreements with a large number of states.

ping pong

Pre 1994
The tax rules prior to 1994 stated that if you had a place of abode available in Ireland and visited Ireland at any time in the tax year, then you were Irish tax resident. If you were also tax resident in another country with which Ireland has a Double tax agreement (DTA), say the UK, then you were only deemed to be tax resident in the country that was your "centre of vital interests".
This meant that an Irish person who was working for a long time in the UK and came home to Ireland for holidays would probably only be liable to UK tax but it depended on each person's individual circumstances.
However, if the person had an Irish abode, was working in a country with which Ireland does not have a DTA, say Bermuda, and came to Ireland on holidays, then that person may have an Irish tax liability. As you can imagine, this was practically impossible to enforce but the tax exposure existed in theory.
1994 to date
The position changed completely in 1994. You can own as many houses as you like in Ireland and not be tax resident here, the only thing that matters is the number of days you spend here. The maximum is 183 days in 1 year or 280 between this year and last year. This is a lot of time , an average of 140 days each year. On top of this, if a person gives gifts to the State, then any days spent in Ireland advising on the management of this gift are disregarded.
This means that JP can spend many days in Ireland without being tax resident.
This is a very brief summary of the position as there are always exceptions to rules in tax (those 1104 sections of income tax legislation are hard to summarise in a few paragraphs!) but I thought you might like to know the tax rules.