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

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:07pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Anyway. I find it interesting that they need my permission to forcibly take it from me.

They don't.

65.—(1) Where a liable person is in receipt of emoluments and section 66 or 68 applies, the Revenue Commissioners may direct an employer to deduct, in a period specified in the direction, local prop- erty tax payable by the liable person from the net emoluments pay- able to the liable person by the employer.

75.—(1) Without prejudice to any action which may be taken under section 76, where an employer who was liable to remit an amount of local property tax in accordance with Regulation 28 or 29, as the case may be, of the PAYE Regulations, which amount was to be determined in accordance with section 72(4), failed to remit this amount and—
(a) did not notify the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with section 72(5)(b) or send a statement to the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with section 73, or
(b) notified the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with section 72(5)(b), but remitted a lesser amount than the amount specified in the notification,
the Revenue Commissioners may give notice to the employer of the amount which the employer failed to remit.
(2) A notice given to an employer under subsection (1) shall be treated as a demand for payment by the Collector-General under section 960E(2) of the Act of 1997 (as applied by section 120) and subsection (3) of that section 960E shall apply accordingly.

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:09pm

Slick50 wrote: »

Supposing you have a house situated just off the road, in a ten acre field with no out houses or other buildings.

How does that matter? If the field is being used for commercial farming purposes - it's exempt from the LPT, but the house is liable.

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 12:13pm

alastair wrote: »

How does that matter? If the field is being used for commercial farming purposes - it's exempt from the LPT, but the house is liable.

It matters because, there is a residential property on it, you need some defining boundary for valuation purposes, one acre.

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:18pm

Slick50 wrote: »

It matters because, there is a residential property on it, you need some defining boundary for valuation purposes, one acre.

The defining taxable boundary is whether the land is agricultural, or not. If you farm right up to the walls of your house, it's exempt from the LPT, if not, it's considered a garden, and part of your residence - the only criteria at play is that for CGT reasons, the boundaries of your residential property are limited to an acre. In reality though, they impact on the market value of your house, so would be factored in, one way or another.

Banjo String · 13-09-2013 12:18pm

alastair wrote: »

They don't.

I'm wondering what powers they have outside their own jurisdiction?

Like I've stated, I've asked my financial director to come back to me via email and let me know if I'm obliged to consent to this request, as my monies paid from a company not based in the republic.

He's in the process of finding this out for me.

Strange that they've asked for my consent.

brokenarms · 13-09-2013 12:23pm

Ahh it turns out I have been paying it for a while now and I did not notice the deduction .

Will this bring the TV licence evaders into line as well? I know of many people in the countryside not paying for the yearly fee. And never have?

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 12:32pm

alastair wrote: »

The defining taxable boundary is whether the land is agricultural, or not. If you farm right up to the walls of your house, it's exempt from the LPT, if not, it's considered a garden, and part of your residence - the only criteria at play is that for CGT reasons, the boundaries of your residential property are limited to an acre. In reality though, they impact on the market value of your house, so would be factored in, one way or another.

I think that is your interpretation of it, and you have interprated it wrong.
And were does CGT come into it. If it's a field that is not being farmed, what's to define were the boundary is, when there is no physically demarcation?

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:36pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm wondering what powers they have outside their own jurisdiction?

They've got the standard set of powers available domestically, if the country is one that's entered a double taxation agreement with the state.

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 12:39pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm wondering what powers they have outside their own jurisdiction?

Like I've stated, I've asked my financial director to come back to me via email and let me know if I'm obliged to consent to this request, as my monies paid from a company not based in the republic.

He's in the process of finding this out for me.

Strange that they've asked for my consent.

You are right, the revenue have no authority outside this jurisdiction. And as it is not a legal obligation on you within your employers jurisdiction, they have no authority to deduct it without your consent. If you were obliged to give consent, it's not consent, and you wouldn't be being asked.

Godge and alastair conveniently overlooked that your employers are based outside of the country.

K-9 · 13-09-2013 12:43pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I see from a report this morning that consumers will be obliged to pay vat on their water bills.

Irish water will be a private company, and therefore obliged to charge it.

Nicely done govt. Farm it out to a 'private' company, then reap the rewards via vat receipts.
A tax, in a tax.

Ref the wages being docked, the company I work for (not based in this jurisdiction) have asked me to consent to revenue requesting to take lpt from my salary.

I'm waiting a reply from them, asking if I'm obliged to give that consent.

I'll keep the thread informed.

Where they are based is irrelevant really, the important part is where you do your work. If your based here and normally taxed here you'll be subject to Irish Revenue rules.

Godge · 13-09-2013 12:45pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm wondering what powers they have outside their own jurisdiction?

Like I've stated, I've asked my financial director to come back to me via email and let me know if I'm obliged to consent to this request, as my monies paid from a company not based in the republic.

He's in the process of finding this out for me.

Strange that they've asked for my consent.

Slick50 wrote: »

You are right, the revenue have no authority outside this jurisdiction. And as it is not a legal obligation on you within your employers jurisdiction, they have no authority to deduct it without your consent. If you were obliged to give consent, it's not consent, and you wouldn't be being asked.

Godge and alastair conveniently overlooked that your employers are based outside of the country.

I didn't conveniently overlook that his employer is based outside of the country. I just assumed that he is working in Ireland and his employer and himself are revenue compliant with respect to income tax.

If he is based in Ireland and working here, he is paid under Irish law and is subject to Irish revenue deductions no matter where his employer is based. That means there is no need for consent and the revenue just take the money.

Now, if he is working abroad, no problem, outside the jurisdiction.
However, if he is working in Ireland and being paid offshore, then the LPT is the least of his problems if the Revenue have caught up with him.

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:47pm

Slick50 wrote: »

I think that is your interpretation of it, and you have interprated it wrong.
And were does CGT come into it. If it's a field that is not being farmed, what's to define were the boundary is, when there is no physically demarcation?

CGT comes into play on anything over an acre - as posted already.
My interpretation isn't exactly complex - if the land is being used for commercial purposes, it's not considered residential. If it's not , it is. It doesn't need a fence or other boundary - it just needs to be within your ownership.

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:49pm

Slick50 wrote: »

Godge and alastair conveniently overlooked that your employers are based outside of the country.

It might be worth acquainting yourself with double taxation agreements. They (Revenue) have jurisdiction abroad too - related to foreign-sourced income.

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2013 12:49pm

Godge wrote: »

Now, if he is working abroad, no problem, outside the jurisdiction.

Paid abroad, working abroad but house in Ireland - if the house is rented, I'd say they'll go after it.

If it's sitting vacant, they may just attach the bill and wait for it to be sold/inherited.

Next option on their list after salary is going after your bank accounts, if you have any of those.

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:52pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Paid abroad, working abroad but house in Ireland - if the house is rented, I'd say they'll go after it.

If it's sitting vacant, they may just attach the bill and wait for it to be sold/inherited.

No need tbh - they have ample legal jurisdiction to garnish his foreign-sourced income.

Banjo String · 13-09-2013 12:55pm

I work 50/50 between the two jurisdictions. Bi-weekly.

I have a northern drivers license.
I have a northern address.
Northern Bank account (which is only used as an expense account)
National insurance number. Etc etc.

I also have a southern address, (obviously)
Prsi number
Irish bank account

I could honestly claim tax residency in either jurisdiction, as I work in both, and split my time equally between them.

Just for clarity.

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 12:55pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If it's sitting vacant, they may just attach the bill and wait for it to be sold/inherited.

That doesn't mean, the revenue have the authority to instruct his employers to deduct LPT in another jurisdiction.

alastair · 13-09-2013 12:59pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I work 50/50 between the two jurisdictions. Bi-weekly.

I have a northern drivers license.
I have a northern address.
Northern Bank account (which is only used as an expense account)
National insurance number. Etc etc.

I also have a southern address, (obviously)
Prsi number
Irish bank account

I could honestly claim tax residency in either jurisdiction, as I work in both, and split my time equally between them.

Just for clarity.

That doesn't really help you.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/foi/s16/income-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax/part-42/42-04-57.pdf?download=true

Banjo String · 13-09-2013 1:01pm

Slick50 wrote: »

That doesn't mean, the revenue have the authority to instruct his employers to deduct LPT in another jurisdiction.

Payroll seem to be questioning this also.

alastair · 13-09-2013 1:01pm

Slick50 wrote: »

That doesn't mean, the revenue have the authority to instruct his employers to deduct LPT in another jurisdiction.

They do, but it's nothing to do with vacant properties etc.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/law/double/uk.html

Banjo String · 13-09-2013 1:02pm

alastair wrote: »

That doesn't really help you.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/foi/s16/income-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax/part-42/42-04-57.pdf?download=true

What doesn't?

K-9 · 13-09-2013 1:03pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I work 50/50 between the two jurisdictions. Bi-weekly.

I have a northern drivers license.
I have a northern address.
Northern Bank account (which is only used as an expense account)
National insurance number. Etc etc.

I also have a southern address, (obviously)
Prsi number
Irish bank account

I could honestly claim tax residency in either jurisdiction, as I work in both, and split my time equally between them.

Just for clarity.

Mod:

Now we getting into the realms of tax advice, which isn't what this forum is for, plus you are posting personal enough information. It's best you sort this out with your employer and/or get tax advice.

alastair · 13-09-2013 1:06pm

Banjo String wrote: »

What doesn't?

That you work across two jurisdictions.

With effect from 1 January 2006, as regards the income of a foreign employment, it will be necessary to distinguish:

that part of the income attributable to the performance in the State of duties of such employment, and
that part of the income attributable to the performance outside the State of duties of such employment.
As regards the income at a, irrespective of the residence or domicile position of the employee, such income is now chargeable to Irish tax and within the scope of the PAYE system of deductions at source.

As regards the income at b, whilst such income may be chargeable to Irish tax in the hands of the employee, it is not within the scope of the PAYE system of deductions at source.

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 1:16pm

Godge wrote: »

I didn't conveniently overlook that his employer is based outside of the country. I just assumed that he is working in Ireland and his employer and himself are revenue compliant with respect to income tax.

Why would his employers approach him for consent, if they are obliged by revenue to deduct it.

alastair wrote: »

CGT comes into play on anything over an acre - as posted already.

Have you jumped threads? we are talking about LPT?

alastair wrote: »

My interpretation isn't exactly complex - if the land is being used for commercial purposes, it's not considered residential. If it's not , it is

I never suggested it was, if anything it's over simplifying it.

alastair wrote: »

It doesn't need a fence or other boundary - it just needs to be within your ownership.

But in my suggested scenario, the whole thing is in your ownership, but not all liable to LPT. The one acre is the defining boundary for LPT valuation purposes.

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 1:20pm

alastair wrote: »

They do, but it's nothing to do with vacant properties etc.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/law/double/uk.html

This is not income tax or CGT.

alastair · 13-09-2013 1:22pm

Slick50 wrote: »

Why would his employers approach him for consent, if they are obliged by revenue to deduct it.

They don't have to.

Slick50 wrote: »

Have you jumped threads? we are talking about LPT?

See the minister's response on the rules relating to residential property I posted. CGT applies over 1 acre - that's the technicality that limits the LPT to gardens of an acre.

Slick50 wrote: »

I never suggested it was, if anything it's over simplifying it.

Not according to the Revenues own info I posted already.

3. My house is located in the middle of the farm. What should I take into account when valuing my house for LPT purposes?

A residential property is defined in the Local Property Tax (LPT) legislation to include not just the dwelling house itself but also any other buildings or structures and any land that, in a broad sense, belongs with the dwelling house and that are enjoyed as an amenity rather than used for a commercial purpose. These are regarded as an intrinsic part of the dwelling house. Such buildings or structures would include, for example, a garage for the family car but not a shed for the tractor or other farm machinery. Land would include a lawn or flower beds but not a haggard, farmyard or a commercial glasshouse. So in the case of a farmhouse, any land used for farming purposes will not be included in the chargeable value of the farmhouse.

Slick50 wrote: »

But in my suggested scenario, the whole thing is in your ownership, but not all liable to LPT. The one acre is the defining boundary for LPT valuation purposes.

Unless you're using all the land for commercial purposes - which would exempt it from the LPT - only your house would be liable.

alastair · 13-09-2013 1:24pm

Slick50 wrote: »

This is not income tax or CGT.

It's a Revenue tax levied on your income. And falls within the agreement as a consequence - same as the USC etc.

with respect to taxes on income

http://www.irishecho.com.au/2013/03/21/revenue-warns-irish-in-australia-over-property-tax-payments/24224

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 2:26pm

alastair wrote: »

They don't have to.

Not here they don't. But for some reason they did, where they are based. We may as well wait and see, when banjo gets back to us.

alastair wrote: »

See the minister's response on the rules relating to residential property I posted. CGT applies over 1 acre - that's the technicality that limits the LPT to gardens of an acre.

I still don't see why you introduced CGT to the debate. It has no bearing on LPT.

alastair wrote: »

Not according to the Revenues own info I posted already. Unless you're using all the land for commercial purposes - which would exempt it from the LPT - only your house would be liable.

That does not address the scenario I posed. It is clarifying what other buildings and amenities should be considered.

I was talking about a single residential building, on a large plot of land. You could landscape the whole plot, but only one acre is considered for LPT purposes.

alastair wrote: »

It's a Revenue tax levied on your income. And falls within the agreement as a consequence - same as the USC etc.
http://www.irishecho.com.au/2013/03/21/revenue-warns-irish-in-australia-over-property-tax-payments/24224

It is not a tax levied on your income. Wasn't that the arguement for a property tax, not increasing income taxes, because the are to anti employment/work. It is a tax based on your homes value, not your income.

alastair · 13-09-2013 2:33pm

Slick50 wrote: »

It is not a tax levied on your income. Wasn't that the arguement for a property tax, not increasing income taxes, because the are to anti employment/work. It is a tax based on your homes value, not your income.

It's a tax levied on your income if you don't pay it the normal way. Please don't pretend that you don't understand this.

The only reason I introduced CGT into the discussion is because it's the technical reason why LPT is limited to a maximum of an acre residential land. I can keep repeating this, will that help?

I honestly can't help you understand the distinction between commercial land and residential land any further - it's pretty simple stuff.

Supposing you have a house situated just off the road, in a ten acre field with no out houses or other buildings.

Ten acres of farmland - not liable for LPT
Ten acres of garden - an acre technically liable for LPT, but what premium does it add to the market value of your house?

Slick50 · 13-09-2013 3:28pm

alastair wrote: »

It's a tax levied on your income if you don't pay it the normal way. Please don't pretend that you don't understand this.

It may be levied on your income, but it's not an income tax. We'll see how banjo gets on.

alastair wrote: »

The only reason I introduced CGT into the discussion is because it's the technical reason why LPT is limited to a maximum of an acre residential land. I can keep repeating this, will that help?

What is the technicality? That might help.

alastair wrote: »

I honestly can't help you understand the distinction between commercial land and residential land any further - it's pretty simple stuff.

Don't worry, I wasn't depending on you for that, it is simple enough.. It was you who seemed to have a problem understanding how to define an unmarked boundary between the two, for LPT purposes.

alastair wrote: »

Ten acres of garden - an acre technically liable for LPT, but what premium does it add to the market value of your house?

Isn't that the beauty of the one acre limit, you figure out how much more valuable you property is, due to the extensive lands/gardens, and reduce the value of your property by that much for the purpose of LPT evaluation. Who could have dreamt that one up? Who benefits from such a clause?

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

Comments