FAO those Paying Property Tax

Cee-Jay-Cee

I'm paying the tax in the next day or so however the value as indicated on the form from Revenue undervalues the house. They have it in the 100-150k group whereas it should be in the next group. I'm still undecided on whether just to pay the amount given by Revenue or pay the higher amount. What are those in similar situations doing?

This is not a property tax discussion, it's more a moral thing and I just want to see what the majority are doing.

MagicMarker

I'm not falling for that one OP!

seamus

It's your call. If revenue value your home lower than you do, I see no moral issue in paying the revenue valuation. Assessing property value is half fact, half opinion, so you can't say for certain that revenue are wrong, unless they're undervalued it by €500k or something.

Guill

OP is not a revenue officer...

Ficheall

CJC999 wrote: »

it's more a moral thing

EH?

Corkbah

if they have undervalued it - pay the undervalued price - its gonne be at that value in a year or two anyway.

(you are supposed to pay the current market value you believe it to be at - so if their assessment is wrong you are supposed to correct it ..... its just another way of discovering how lazy civil servants are - we are too lazy to actually do proper calculations so we'll send out a generic bill to everyone and tell them if they underpay they'll get in trouble.)

A friend of mine got a letter from revenue saying his home is in the 100-150K bracket - so the amount due by him is €90 (or something like that) ... he purchased his house 2yrs ago for over €600K and other houses near him are selling for around that price.

I dont own a home - was not earning enough to get a mortgage in the good days !!

Uriel.

Why not just pay double what the Revenue have you down for? Just to be sure like. And for the Craic also.

seamus

You could actually argue that there's a touch of the Heisenberg principle in it.

Let's say you value your property at €170k, but revenue value it in the 100-150k bracket.

You could very reasonably argue that by publishing (via their website) a valuation of 100k to 150k for your home, they have effectively devalued it - any buyer will check the website before putting in an offer - so even if you previously would have honestly valued your property at €170k, you now believe that the property tax has caused the value to drop.

Though you couldn't really play that card for the €600k example given above.

Kylo Ren

seamus wrote: »

You could actually argue that there's a touch of the Heisenberg principle in it.

Are you saying Op is a meth dealer?

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

It's your call.

Yes. It's self-assessment. You are expected to submit an honest valuation.

If revenue value your home lower than you do, I see no moral issue in paying the revenue valuation....

Revenue don't value your house; they make a suggestion.

Frank Black

It's up to you, but I would (and have) paid the revenue estimate figure.
I'm pretty certain my property is worth more than estimate, but I'm not an expert and have used the info revenue has provided.

Antar Bolaeisk

Out of curiosity, hands up all those who have received an accurate valuation. Mine was two tiers above the actual price despite it only being bought recently, you can even pull up the price online.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Out of curiosity, hands up all those who have received an accurate valuation. Mine was two tiers above the actual price despite it only being bought recently, you can even pull up the price online.

My valuation is one group out. I honestly can't afford to pay the higher amount at the moment and so am veering towards the amount suggested by revenue.

Will they perform spot checks or actual valuations on houses in the future and actually fine those who undervalued their homes initially?

OP, unless you intend selling the house in the next few years, I'd go with their valuation.

Go with the lower valuation, obvz

OU812

Check the national property price register. This was instigated by the government two years ago & gives the actual price paid for property in your area.

Find out what properties have sold for & then pay it based on that.

It's a true valuation & the site is an official government one, so no reason not to go by it & for them to argue against it.

Banjo String

I'm going with the 'taken by force' option.

FG stated that a recurring property tax was unfair in their manifesto that they published just before getting voted into govt.

Labour had a site valued tax in their manifesto, but it contained various exemptions for those in negative equity, stamp duty paid etc.

We got the tax, but none of the exemptions, even the number of unfinished/ghost estates was slashed by 90% post hhc data phishing exercise.

Make up your own mind which party blatantly lied.


I don't want to hear the morals and merits of my decision, but that's what I'm doing.

kneemos

SamHall wrote: »

I'm going with the 'taken by force' option.

FG stated that a recurring property tax was unfair in their manifesto that they published just before getting voted into govt.

Labour had a site valued tax in their manifesto, but it contained various exemptions for those in negative equity, stamp duty paid etc.

We got the tax, but none of the exemptions, even the number of unfinished/ghost estates was slashed by 90% post hhc data phishing exercise.

Make up your own mind which party blatantly lied.


I don't want to hear the morals and merits of my decision, but that's what I'm doing.

A good chance you'll end up paying more.

anncoates

CJC999 wrote: »

it's more a moral thing .

lol

anncoates

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Out of curiosity, hands up all those who have received an accurate valuation. Mine was two tiers above the actual price despite it only being bought recently, you can even pull up the price online.

Mine was one tier above despite the fact that a larger house on my street sold just before Christmas for an amount within the tier below so they can whistle for the amount they want.

DoesNotCompute

CJC999 wrote: »

I'm paying the tax in the next day or so however the value as indicated on the form from Revenue undervalues the house. They have it in the 100-150k group whereas it should be in the next group. I'm still undecided on whether just to pay the amount given by Revenue or pay the higher amount. What are those in similar situations doing?

This is not a property tax discussion, it's more a moral thing and I just want to see what the majority are doing.

First off, the Notice of Estimate is meaningless. It is simply a number that Revenue can enforce against you, if you decide not to register your property.

Second, it's impossible for us to be able to provide advice without knowing finer details about your house - is it a standalone property with nothing else around for miles, like a farmhouse? Is it in an estate with similar properties? If so, does it have any unique features that sets it apart from those properties? Do you have a sunning room, granny flat, porch, etc, that the other houses don't have? Do you have a side entrance or a bigger garden than your neighbours? Is your attic or garage converted? Have any similar properties in your area sold on the Property Price Register since Jan 2010? Are there any houses currently for sale in your area? If so, did/do these properties have any features that set them apart from yours?

All of these things need to be taken into account when deciding whether or not the Revenue's Notice of Estimate is a fair representation of how much tax you think you should pay.

Also be aware that (assuming you live on an estate) if every other neighbour on your road values their houses signifigcantly higher than yours, then Revenue may seek an explanation as to why you valued your house so low. Keep copies of all supporting evidence to back up your case.

Banjo String

kneemos wrote: »

A good chance you'll end up paying more.

That's fine by me, it seems to be fine by over 50% of others ignoring revenue and the govt bullying tactics, as of last week.

DoesNotCompute

SamHall wrote: »

FG stated that a recurring property tax was unfair in their manifesto that they published just before getting voted into govt.

Labour had a site valued tax in their manifesto, but it contained various exemptions for those in negative equity, stamp duty paid etc.

..........

Make up your own mind which party blatantly lied.

Individual parties' election manifestoes go out the window once two parties decide to form a coalition. They negotiate a Programme For Government, which becomes the mandated manifesto.

Neither "blatantly lied" - they both came to a compromise.

SamHall

SamHall wrote: »

That's fine by me, it seems to be fine by over 50% of others ignoring revenue and the govt bullying tactics, as of last week.

Have you a link to that, Sam? 50% registered with 6 weeks to go is good.

Cee-Jay-Cee

The house is a stand alone house built in 2008. We bought it 2010 for significantly less than its original asking price of 399. It's still worth 200k and for arguments sakes i'll value it at €199,999. We bought it for slightly more than that but nothing is selling for those prices here in donegal anymore and so it probably has dropped in value on the housing market. To what level I don't know. It's our family home and we will probably never sell it and see out our days here so market value is if little importance to us at this stage. However if we were to sell then it may be the case we'd get 150k or less for it.

RustyNut

Revenues guess is as valid as yours OP, its not like there is a price tag on it.

Tax and morals in the same sentence, I laughed.

Banjo String

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you a link to that, Sam? 50% registered with 6 weeks to go is good.

Revenue said that with just two weeks to go until the online registration deadline - A total of 845,000 people have now filed for the tax.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/separated-couples-both-liable-for-property-tax-594648.html

That was last week, there is now only ten days left to register.

Depending on whose figures you believe, there is close to a million homeowners ignoring revenue as of that article.

500,000 per week to register?

mynameismud

I Inherited my house back in 2006 and had it valued at 650,000 (band 12).Now with roughly a 50% fall in prices since then it should only be worth 325,000 (band 6).However the letter I received from revenue they have it valued at 370,000 (band 7)

Now the thing is I plan to sell it within the next 7-10 years and will be hoping to get as much as possible for it,therefore I'll value it at probably at 500,001 - 550,000 (band 10) to keep the price inflated

bgrizzley

mynameismud wrote: »

I Inherited my house back in 2006 and had it valued at 650,000 (band 12).Now with roughly a 50% fall in prices since then it should only be worth 325,000 (band 6).However the letter I received from revenue they have it valued at 370,000 (band 7)

Now the thing is I plan to sell it within the next 7-10 years and will be hoping to get as much as possible for it,therefore I'll value it at probably at 500,001 - 550,000 (band 10) to keep the price inflated

that's mad, Ted...

kylith

They've done the opposite to the OP to my house. Houses on my side of the street have been valued at 100-150K, while the ones on the other side of the road, literally 5 metres away, are valued at 0-100K. I'm waiting to hear back from them on why that is. I'll only be paying the cheaper rate though.

bgrizzley

Deleted User wrote: »

OP, unless you intend selling the house in the next few years, I'd go with their valuation.

if you are encouraging him to go with an incorrect lower valuation you are encouraging him to break the law by tax evasion

its interesting to see the mindest of people who are actually paying this tax.

kneemos

bgrizzley wrote: »

if you are encouraging him to go with an incorrect lower valuation you are encouraging him to break the law by tax evasion

its interesting to see the mindest of people who are actually paying this tax.

When it comes to tax most people are lawbreakers given a hint of a chance.

Cee-Jay-Cee

bgrizzley wrote: »

if you are encouraging him to go with an incorrect lower valuation you are encouraging him to break the law by tax evasion

its interesting to see the mindest of people who are actually paying this tax.

I basically can't afford the higher amount, things are tight and I'm trying to justifiably save myself some money.

I don't think the revenue have as many homeowners registered as they had hoped. I registered for HHC and was in the process of sending my property tax info on, when I received a weird request letter from my local revenue office.

I am setup for section 23 rural renewal relief but the letter asked me to provide builders costs, conformity letter from dept of environment and a few other items and to return by 30th May. I gave them a call as I couldn't find one of the items and the woman in the revenue section that issued the letter told me that they have all this info on file already. She had no idea why her manager would have requested them again, years later.

Are they sending these out to many households? Has anyone else received one? Is this a scare tactic, eg: if you don't pay your property tax you will no longer receive your tax relief?

DoesNotCompute

CJC999 wrote: »

I basically can't afford the higher amount, things are tight and I'm trying to justifiably save myself some money.

If you can't afford it, can you apply for a deferral?

TwoShedsJackson

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Individual parties' election manifestoes go out the window once two parties decide to form a coalition. They negotiate a Programme For Government, which becomes the mandated manifesto.

Neither "blatantly lied" - they both came to a compromise.

Election manifestos go out the window as soon as a party gets into power. They serve one purpose: to get into power. Once in, they do what they like anyway.

mynameismud wrote: »

I Inherited my house back in 2006 and had it valued at 650,000 (band 12).Now with roughly a 50% fall in prices since then it should only be worth 325,000 (band 6).However the letter I received from revenue they have it valued at 370,000 (band 7)

Now the thing is I plan to sell it within the next 7-10 years and will be hoping to get as much as possible for it,therefore I'll value it at probably at 500,001 - 550,000 (band 10) to keep the price inflated

Yeah that'll work alright.

AK333

I'm on the border of two counties so when I got my property tax letter, they had me down as a multiple property owner - the same property listed twice, in each of the counties and at different amounts !!!

And I'm going to pay a lesser amount than both the listed amounts on the system. My neighbours live in big mansions, I don't but luckily I have a letter from Co Co offering to buy my house for small money, so that will be my proof of valuation.

I have written to Revenue asking them to delete the duplicate entry but that hasn't happened (I have a certificate of posting in case the w*nkers question it) and to lower the amount. I will keep checking up until 27th and then pay.

OP if you ring a local estate agent, describe your house and area, they will give you an appropriate Band number

bgrizzley

CJC999 wrote: »

I basically can't afford the higher amount, things are tight and I'm trying to justifiably save myself some money.

not aimed at you CJC, imo you would be justified not paying this tax at all.

i was just pointing out the irony of someone who considers me a tax evader, encouraging someone else to evade their complete obligation to the same tax...

Steodonn

bgrizzley wrote: »

if you are encouraging him to go with an incorrect lower valuation you are encouraging him to break the law by tax evasion

its interesting to see the mindest of people who are actually paying this tax.

If your going to break the law just don't pay it:cool:

allibastor

As far as I know if you value the house lower, then sell it for higher value or something like that you end up with a bill for the tax you should have paid.

Not 100 percent on that, but I know with my mothers house all the neighbours were asking on it, and were told that if houses in the area all sell for more then the valuations that were put down, the revenue looks for the extra money. again not sure.

seamus

allibastor wrote: »

As far as I know if you value the house lower, then sell it for higher value or something like that you end up with a bill for the tax you should have paid.

No, that's not the way it works, not really.
If Revenue have reason to believe that you have undervalued your property, then they can ask you for supporting documentation as to how you came to your valuation and so forth.

If they agree with your reasoning/evidence for the valuation, then you are not liable to pay back tax, regardless of what you sell the property for.

So if you value your property at €120k and 3 months later sell it for €500k, then that's going to ring alarm bells with revenue who can investigate.

However, if you value it at €100k-150k, with supporting documentation and sell it a year later for €160k, they're unlikely to raise any eyebrows.

Aimeee

House has been valued correctly by revenue in my case.
Just wondering, is there any disadvantage to using the deduction at source option for payment?
Are there extra charges involved?
Thanks.

allibastor

seamus wrote: »

No, that's not the way it works, not really.
If Revenue have reason to believe that you have undervalued your property, then they can ask you for supporting documentation as to how you came to your valuation and so forth.

If they agree with your reasoning/evidence for the valuation, then you are not liable to pay back tax, regardless of what you sell the property for.

So if you value your property at €120k and 3 months later sell it for €500k, then that's going to ring alarm bells with revenue who can investigate.

However, if you value it at €100k-150k, with supporting documentation and sell it a year later for €160k, they're unlikely to raise any eyebrows.

Hi,

Yeah knew there was some catch to it, but I think it also works that if the revenue valuation was lower than then actual price, and you kept to thier declaration of it you can still be liable.

As in i know my mother and her neighbours were all at the verge of the over 200k mark and were all thinking if it was valued lower they would end up paying 202 every six months instead of the 240? i think every six months and was told that if a few of the houses sell then for the higher price it will raise those alarm bells

brick1

Is there any example in case law out there were tax has been applied to something already taxed and challenged.
Cause under the property taxes Ive already paid value added tax in full determined amount, as well as stamp duties.
I've paid my property tax in full.this to me is a double taxation.case histories please?
And for anyone paying are you valuing your property with or without the VAT element in the valuation?

Fr_Dougal

brick1 wrote: »

Is there any example in case law out there were tax has been applied to something already taxed and challenged.
Cause under the property taxes Ive already paid value added tax in full determined amount, as well as stamp duties.
I've paid my property tax in full.this to me is a double taxation.case histories please?
And for anyone paying are you valuing your property with or without the VAT element in the valuation?

Similar to cars, no? You pay VRT, VAT and then motor tax.