Tax breaks for accidental landlords

pc7

Now it's the Indo so I'm not sure I'd believe it's source or validity. If it's true and not kite flying It should have been done long ago.
I can't see this suiting the agenda of landlords are bad and to blame for the housing crisis which seems to be the government policy. But I'd welcome any such reforms, especially deduction of LPT and restoration of 100% deductible interest.
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/tax-breaks-for-accidental-landlords-to-boost-supply-in-fragile-rental-market-35542859.html

lawred2

And how will someone achieve the designation accidental landlord?

pc7

lawred2 wrote: »

And how will someone achieve the designation accidental landlord?

Maybe income below X, or less than x properties. I'm such a landlord and would love to get out, especially with all the interference.

GhostyMcGhost

lawred2 wrote: »

And how will someone achieve the designation accidental landlord?

Calculate based on 50% negative equity

Lumen

pc7 wrote: »

But I'd welcome any such reforms, especially deduction of LPT and restoration of 100% deductible interest.

AFAIK these are both already planned, nothing to do with accidental landlords.

Certainly the deductible interest.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rtenews/status/785817681555369986

pc7

Lumen wrote: »

AFAIK these are both already planned, nothing to do with accidental landlords.

[/url]

Yeah forgot that was in the budget, wonder will they accelerate the process. I'm going to send my accountant the recent article posted here about nppr case taken and in light of that for this year can we just take the chance and deduct lpt.

I don't see how this will increase supply - by definition if they are a landlord the property is already available in the market.

amcalester

Still doesn't address most landlords biggest fear; the overholding tenant.

Pkiernan

I recently got an RTB leaflet explaining tenants rights.
It's a scary document.
A landlord who chooses to rent his or her property now forgoes all rights to that property for 6 years.

What the lefties complaining about their rent don't realise is that 50% of that rent is going to the government.

If the government wany to lower rents that can easily do it by having a progressive taxation on rental income.
<mod snip: let's stick to A&P please>

CIARAN_BOYLE

Tenants have too much power to resist landlords.

This leaves landlords more exposed.

Tenants have to indemnify landlords for that risk by way of increased rents.

I wonder if every landlord in the country would agree to a 15% decrease in rent if the government brought in an easy way of getting rid of over holding tennants with 30 days notice.

Pkiernan

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Tenants have too much power to resist landlords.

This leaves landlords more exposed.

Tenants have to indemnify landlords for that risk by way of increased rents.

I wonder if every landlord in the country would agree to a 15% decrease in rent if the government brought in an easy way of getting rid of over holding tennants with 30 days notice.

I'd happily reduce rent if the tax paid on it was commensurately lowered. That would then leave tenants with more money to spend, which would boost the economy.

Samuel T. Cogley

Pkiernan wrote: »

I recently got an RTB leaflet explaining tenants rights.
It's a scary document.
A landlord who chooses to rent his or her property now forgoes all rights to that property for 6 years.

What the lefties complaining about their rent don't realise is that 50% of that rent is going to the government.

If the government wany to lower rents that can easily do it by having a progressive taxation on rental income.
<mod snip: let's stick to A&P please>

Security of tenure is perfectly reasonable if backed up with reasonable laws to prevent over holding, non-payment of rent and anti-social behaviour. All of this can be dealt with through the RTB if it was fit for purpose. In fact may landlords would welcome a move to a long term, unfurnished model a la Germany. I real bet and forget investment.

About the only tax break I'd be looking for is 100% relief on Mortgage interest, every other business gets 100% interest relief of debts (AFAIK) so why shouldn't rentals? A trade off would be the move away from trackers held under dubious circumstances which would benefit mortgage rates across the board.

Fol20

i would love it If it went the german way.. Give tenants a blank slate where they can put in their own comfortable bed with nice chairs and seats and stop landlords from providing cheap crap that nobody wants. At least that, its a lot simpler so less room for dissagreements at the end of a tenancy as it should be just given back as a blank canvas as well.. Even stuff like microwaves, kettles, fridges etc shouldnt be mandatory.. They can all get their own and simply plug it in.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Security of tenure is perfectly reasonable if backed up with reasonable laws to prevent over holding, non-payment of rent and anti-social behaviour. All of this can be dealt with through the RTB if it was fit for purpose. In fact may landlords would welcome a move to a long term, unfurnished model a la Germany. I real bet and forget investment.

About the only tax break I'd be looking for is 100% relief on Mortgage interest, every other business gets 100% interest relief of debts (AFAIK) so why shouldn't rentals? A trade off would be the move away from trackers held under dubious circumstances which would benefit mortgage rates across the board.

Trackers are given by the banks. Nothing to do with the government. The government must accept the fact that if they want a service provided, whether it is taxis or accommodation, they have to allow the providers make a reasonable return on their investment. Creating eve more convoluted regulations and levying more taxes is a zero sum game.

jetfiremuck

At present there is no real incentive to run it as a small business. Too many rules and regs to an indifferent customer base, where 'entitlement ' culture' thru hap and other gov programs has created a tenant that can do what they want and they do believe me. There should be a country wide standardized enforceable lease with requirements from both parties, and a fast moving due proces court section to deal with the lease violations now that cannot be resolved quickly..... Rent arrears, ongoing parties, anti social, and even worse the hold over. The idea that the gov should be in the rental business is crazy. Look at how the councils ran the waste business ffs

Fol20

Fol20 wrote: »

i would love it If it went the german way.. Give tenants a blank slate where they can put in their own comfortable bed with nice chairs and seats and stop landlords from providing cheap crap that nobody wants. At least that, its a lot simpler so less room for dissagreements at the end of a tenancy as it should be just given back as a blank canvas as well.. Even stuff like microwaves, kettles, fridges etc shouldnt be mandatory.. They can all get their own and simply plug it in.

Despite a few people looking for this type of rental on here there is little appetite for this type of rental in Ireland. People don't want to spend money on a place they don't own and renting is just a stopgap for most.

Something has to be done to reduce taxes for LLs. Tax relief on the full mortgage repayment (including capital), a seperate (low) tax rate for rental income rather than it being tax at the marginal rate as suggested by another poster are options along with plenty others also.

Something has to be done about making it easier to get rid of tenants not paying etc though and forcing them to pay the back rent even if it means deciding it directly from wages (and not rubbish like 2 euro month, proper large deductions. A non paying tenant should be out in the street after at most two months (with the first month being the one they didn't pay initially). Don't pay rent for a month, immediately start eviction proceedings.

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

Trackers are given by the banks. Nothing to do with the government. The government must accept the fact that if they want a service provided, whether it is taxis or accommodation, they have to allow the providers make a reasonable return on their investment. Creating eve more convoluted regulations and levying more taxes is a zero sum game.

Many trackers don't allow the property to be used as a BTL. Removing more trackers from the market stops banks from making the argument that standard varible rate holders have to subsidise trackers. With interest reflief at 100% and high rents there is no reason to continue them.

As for regualtion, more regulation is needed in favour of the LL. It's this and not tax which is at issue for many. True accidental LL's simply want property to break even. The article linked is conflating accidental LLs with investors.

Samuel T. Cogley

Maddison Itchy Vasectomy wrote: »

Despite a few people looking for this type of rental on here there is little appetite for this type of rental in Ireland. People don't want to spend money on a place they don't own and renting is just a stopgap for most.

I have to disgaree. In Dublin especially there is a cohort of people who will likely never be able to buy, at least not within the M50. Furthermore even for those who see it as a stopgap there is no reason for them not to want to buy their own furniture etc. they simply move it when they buy.

If one had to paint and hand back a property in reasonable condidtion it would also stoip this 'living like a guest in one's own home'. Put up shelves, get a cat or dog - why would the LL care, they're getting back a freshly painted and cleaned shell.

I completely take the point that there will be people who want shorter term arrangements and they can be catered for, but I don't agree they're the majority of renters.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Many trackers don't allow the property to be used as a BTL. Removing more trackers from the market stops banks from making the argument that standard varible rate holders have to subsidise trackers. With interest reflief at 100% and high rents there is no reason to continue them.

As for regualtion, more regulation is needed in favour of the LL. It's this and not tax which is at issue for many. True accidental LL's simply want property to break even. The article linked is conflating accidental LLs with investors.

The reason for continuing them is that the people who have them have a contractual right to them. Enforcing conditions regarding BTLs is a matter for the banks, not the government. Banks can charge what they like on variable mortgages, and they do. The government does not want to stop them.
landlords are landlords whether they arrived into it by accident or design.
Some are fed up of the RTB. Others are fed up of taxes. More are fed up of tenants.

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

The reason for continuing them is that the people who have them have a contractual right to them. Enforcing conditions regarding BTLs is a matter for the banks, not the government. Banks can charge what they like on variable mortgages, and they do. The government does not want to stop them.
landlords are landlords whether they arrived into it by accident or design.
Some are fed up of the RTB. Others are fed up of taxes. More are fed up of tenants.

They don't have a contractual right, once outwith the terms of their contract. We can argue about this all day, a holistic approach is required.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They don't have a contractual right, once outwith the terms of their contract. We can argue about this all day, a holistic approach is required.

The government can't go re-writing mortgage agreements, something any prospective lawyer should know.

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

The government can't go re-writing mortgage agreements, something any prospective lawyer should know.

What are you talking about? I've suggested the exact opposite of a re-write or interference. I've suggested that the terms of the contract as written should be enforced.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What are you talking about?

The same thing you are, tracker mortgage agreements.

jsd1004

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I have to disgaree. In Dublin especially there is a cohort of people who will likely never be able to buy, at least not within the M50. Furthermore even for those who see it as a stopgap there is no reason for them not to want to buy their own furniture etc. they simply move it when they buy.

If one had to paint and hand back a property in reasonable condidtion it would also stoip this 'living like a guest in one's own home'. Put up shelves, get a cat or dog - why would the LL care, they're getting back a freshly painted and cleaned shell.

I completely take the point that there will be people who want shorter term arrangements and they can be catered for, but I don't agree they're the majority of renters.

Im a professional landlord with 3 properties coming on the market in the next few months. All will be Airbnb or rent a room (licence) in shared accommodation with a weekly cleaner. (gets around prtb regs). Anyone renting into the residential market is either very brave or stupid with tenant rights

Samuel T. Cogley

jsd1004 wrote: »

Im a professional landlord with 3 properties coming on the market in the next few months. All will be Airbnb or rent a room (licence) in shared accommodation with a weekly cleaner. (gets around prtb regs). Anyone renting into the residential market is either very brave or stupid with tenant rights

AirBnB is fine, but be careful of trying to create licensee agreements, you'd want to be very sure a lease isn't there in practice. I completely agree on the contention that it has swung way too far in favour of tenants, that above all needs to be addressed to create supply.

jsd1004

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

AirBnB is fine, but be careful of trying to create licensee agreements, you'd want to be very sure a lease isn't there in practice. I completely agree on the contention that it has swung way too far in favour of tenants, that above all needs to be addressed to create supply.

Im very sure. I use the Airbnb model to create a licence ;-)

Samuel T. Cogley

jsd1004 wrote: »

Im very sure. I use the Airbnb model to create a licence ;-)

That's fine but RAR requires a PPR. Something people seem to try and play about with.

jsd1004

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's fine but RAR requires a PPR. Something people seem to try and play about with.

No It does not. The RTB state a tenant requires an exclusive use of a property to constitute a tenancy. RAR does not give you exclusive use of the common areas.

Samuel T. Cogley

jsd1004 wrote: »

No It does not. The RTB state a tenant requires an exclusive use of a property to constitute a tenancy. RAR does not give you exclusive use of the common areas.

Not as careful as you think you're being it seems.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/rent_a_room_scheme.html

jsd1004

jsd1004 wrote: »

No It does not. The RTB state a tenant requires an exclusive use of a property to constitute a tenancy. RAR does not give you exclusive use of the common areas.

Airbnb have it in their t@c as well..An airbnb rental does not constitute a tenancy even if you rent it for over 6 months

jsd1004

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not as careful as you think you're being it seems.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/rent_a_room_scheme.html

You are confusing tax relief with renting in shared accomodation i think..I am not arguing tax relief just what constitutes a tenancy and your subsequent rights

Samuel T. Cogley

jsd1004 wrote: »

Airbnb have it in their t@c as well..An airbnb rental does not constitute a tenancy even if you rent it for over 6 months

As above, AirBnB is fine, you were talking about RAR.

RAR = Rent a room.

jsd1004 wrote: »

You are confusing tax relief with renting in shared accomodation i think..I am not arguing tax relief just what constitutes a tenancy and your subsequent rights

Again you were the one to bring up RAR not me. Care to back track further?

I think what you mean is a non-exclusive house share. I'll defer to others on that but there is a specific section of the RTA dealing with it.

As I say people should be careful playing about with this.

jsd1004

I have spoken to the PRTB. Have you? There is no legislation on rent a room where the common areas are shared and there is no exclusive access.

Samuel T. Cogley

jsd1004 wrote: »

I have spoken to the PRTB. Have you? There is no legislation on rent a room where the common areas are shared and there is no exclusive access.

Okay rent a room is the name for a tax relief, it also refers to where it's someones PPR. You're conflating this it seems with tenancies under Chapter 6 of the RTA 2004 or some other concept which, admittedly, I may not be aware of. That said if you've phrased it like you have in this post I'd be dubious of any advice you have so far.

You don't need to speak to the RTB (They are no longer the PRTB, AFIAK), you need to speak to a solicitor in the area who can advise you about what will happen if a situation arises where an RTB decision is appealed and what application the RTA will have.

You seem a little confused about all of this tbh. I'd stick to AirBnB.

Samuel T. Cogley

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=102561050

The above thread maybe worth a read and incidentally where we should engage on further discussion if there is any to be had.

athtrasna

Mod note

Please take your tit for tat arguments to pm. A number of inappropriate posts have been deleted.

__Alex__

jsd1004 wrote: »

Im a professional landlord with 3 properties coming on the market in the next few months. All will be Airbnb or rent a room (licence) in shared accommodation with a weekly cleaner. (gets around prtb regs). Anyone renting into the residential market is either very brave or stupid with tenant rights

Having a cleaner come around to extinguish tenant rights seems slightly like taking the piss. In a dispute, I could envisage a dim view being taken of it.

Del2005

jsd1004 wrote: »

Airbnb have it in their t@c as well..An airbnb rental does not constitute a tenancy even if you rent it for over 6 months

AirBnB can write whatever they like into their T&cs, they can't over rule our laws and a person can't sign away their rights. I'd like to see what the RTB would think of someone renting on AirBnB for 7 months and getting kicked out.

davindub

jsd1004 wrote: »

I have spoken to the PRTB. Have you? There is no legislation on rent a room where the common areas are shared and there is no exclusive access.

The RTB do not give advice or guidance on specific issues, they only publish information on the act on their website which cannot be relied on either.

The RTB act includes in scope all residential lettings including bedsits and bedrooms in shared residences. What is specifically exempt in scope are rooms rented out in a principle private residence (i.e. you live there, does not include keeping a room for your use, or maintaining access to the property).

But if you were correct and your activities are no longer considered lettings you would need to register & charge vat (Airbnb/ B&B are not lettings) if you expect to breach the service threshold.

pilly

4ensic15 wrote: »

The reason for continuing them is that the people who have them have a contractual right to them. Enforcing conditions regarding BTLs is a matter for the banks, not the government. Banks can charge what they like on variable mortgages, and they do. The government does not want to stop them.
landlords are landlords whether they arrived into it by accident or design.
Some are fed up of the RTB. Others are fed up of taxes. More are fed up of tenants.

In my case, fed up of all three of the above.