Apartment owners may pay less property tax

Caranica

Apartment owners set for property tax discount under new plans

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/apartment-owners-set-for-property-tax-discount-under-new-plans-37018615.html

Can see this being an administration nightmare but a great idea. Paying on the double doesn't sit well with those of us in managed developments.

Ronaldinho

That's not paying on the double. It's paying for two separate things.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

This is a carrot to get you to buy a crappy apartment.

Hitman3000

Caranica wrote:

Apartment owners set for property tax discount under new plans

They are not set for a discount, under proposed legislation from FF they 'could' get a discount.

Sleeper12

Again their figures are miles out. No mention of entire housing estates paying maintenance fees. I'm betting that there are more houses paying maintenance fees than apartments. Pretty much anything built in Dublin in the last 20 years has maintenance fees

Hurrache

Many not living in apartments also pay for management fees. I don't think this was really thought out.

Edit. On RTE someone from FF clarified it's for those living in managed areas, not just apartments.

Bubbaclaus

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's not paying on the double. It's paying for two separate things.

Its the "i already pay for water" argument again.

Berserker

jh82ebkrys7dtm wrote: »

This is a carrot to get you to buy a crappy apartment.

Nail on the head. Some of FF's clan must be having problems shifting their crappy apartments, so they've come up with this proposal to try and shift them.

Graham

Berserker wrote: »

Nail on the head. Some of FF's clan must be having problems shifting their crappy apartments, so they've come up with this proposal to try and shift them.

Struggling to think of anywhere with apartments that are failing to shift.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Again their figures are miles out. No mention of entire housing estates paying maintenance fees. I'm betting that there are more houses paying maintenance fees than apartments. Pretty much anything built in Dublin in the last 20 years has maintenance fees

Everybody should be able to discount maintance fees against tax. Apartments and houses.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Its the "i already pay for water" argument again.

No it’s not. Managed estates manage and pay for stuff that the unmanaged estates do not pay for, which is instead paid for out of general taxation.

This is a slight rebalance.

Sleeper12

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Everybody should be able to discount maintance fees against tax. Apartments and houses.

This mightn't be a bad idea but they should have to pay full property tax like everyone else. If the maintenance company provides lighting it's only for the apartment or housing complex. Property tax pays for lighting & maintenance of public areas.

Bubbaclaus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No it’s not. Managed estates manage and pay for stuff that the unmanaged estates do not pay for, which is instead paid for out of general taxation.

This is a slight rebalance.

In the same way many people currently pay for their own well and water, whilst also paying for other peoples water via general taxation.

Introducing water charges would have been a slight rebalance there also.

I say this as a person living in Dublin that would have been liable to them.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

In the same way many people currently pay for their own well and water, whilst also paying for other peoples water via general taxation.

Introducing water charges would have been a slight rebalance there also.

I say this as a person living in Dublin that would have been liable to them.

Except this isn’t introducing charges, is it? It’s not asking all estates to pony up but a slight concession to those who pay management fees and lpt

Sleeper12

I've been following another thread where a great deal of people in a complex don't pay the fees due. Management won't turn on lights etc as the aren't getting paid. Following on from the government paying people who didn't pay water charges 100 euro I wonder will people who refuse to pay the maintenance fees still get a reduction in property tax?

I think everyone should pay full property tax. As revenue collection this we know that it it will be paid. Perhaps a tax relief for maintenance fees actually paid might work

GingerLily

Could you make management fees tax deductible provided you have paid property tax? Or is it already tax deductible?

ted1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Again their figures are miles out. No mention of entire housing estates paying maintenance fees. I'm betting that there are more houses paying maintenance fees than apartments. Pretty much anything built in Dublin in the last 20 years has maintenance fees

Everybody should be able to discount maintance fees against tax. Apartments and houses.

Mainly fees include bin charges and building insurance. The LPT covers all infrastructure provided by the council so roads , libraries and parks etc

I am failing to see why apartment owners should get a discount.

The_Conductor

The concept- and the inequity- is that people who live in managed estates- are paying for the provision of services and amenities- that people who live next door- in estates that have been 'taken-in-charge' do not have to pay for. This extends to: provision of carparking, lighting, road surfacing, children's play areas, landscaping, and the biggie in most cases- which can be well over 90% of the cost- is public liability insurance. There are a long list of other items- that most management companies supply/provide- that have little in common with provisions provided for by local authorities (down to window washing and other niceties).

It depends on the development- but the public liability insurance aspect of an estate being taken in charge or not- alone- is a minimum of EUR180 for a property in a large estate- up to over EUR800 in a small estate (obviously this depends on a long list of factors- including the history of claims in the development etc etc)

Its not really fair to equate the provision of water to a rural property- with the Management charges that are mandatory for multi unit dwellings- aside from anything else- it is not the case that you would have a property next door absolved from any charges- purely by virtue of its planning permission having been granted a week prior to the planning for the second development (to say nothing of the staggering cost of supplying services to rural one-off properties- which is met out of general taxation).

The provision of services, facilities and amenities in managed estates- nominally comes out of the Local Property tax- which in theory are collected locally to be expended locally. Of course- theory and practice are a fine thing- and the facts on the ground are that large urban areas (esp. Dublin) provide massive subsidisation for the provision of local services elsewhere (however- at the cost of insisting that apartment and other dwellers pay for services that others get included in their LPT).

It is an inequity- certainly- however- it is also playing to the masses- and is a measure to try and placate an increasingly vocal cohort of local people who are for the first time ever refusing to keep quiet (esp. as management charges are increasing substantially nationally- though the lack of a register makes the extent of these price increases hard to determine).

Yes- there should be some measure of offsetting allowed- however, to what extent?
It would gall people in small estates who run the estate themselves- if a large luxury estate next door were able to offset the bells and whistles of a luxury development against their LPT obligations- whereas a small estate who busted their guts to try and make their living space as accommodating as possible- saw little/no benefit from such measures.

In the context of a LPT of perhaps EUR500 per unit in a Dublin apartment (I've deliberately stated this higher than average)- perhaps a rebalancing formula- where up to 1/3 or 1/2 of a management charge could be offset against the LPT would be reasonable?

It doesn't matter how they try to structure this- there are going to be unhappy people- ideally- it would be fairest if the whole concept of public liability insurance, lighting and basic landscaping was simply included everywhere- and everyone just got on with things- but its not an ideal world..........

I support a rebalancing effort- I'm just not sure how it could be made work.

April 73

The administration of this could be cumbersome. Potentially it could be an additional section on the LPT form where people who pay management charges enter their yearly charge & receive a calculated discount on their LPT.
But...
Should people provide receipts for their management charge to prove they have paid it? Very few OMC financial years run from Jan 1 to Dec 31st.
What about people who don’t pay their charge - will they be able to claim relief?
What if you pay monthly rather than in a lump sum - will that still count?
What if you live in a development which is managed by a residents association & not an OMC?
There are a lot of what ifs and buts...and no doubt it will leave a section of people feeling hard done by.

The_Conductor

April 73 wrote: »

The administration of this could be cumbersome. Potentially it could be an additional section on the LPT form where people who pay management charges enter their yearly charge & receive a calculated discount on their LPT.
But...
Should people provide receipts for their management charge to prove they have paid it? Very few OMC financial years run from Jan 1 to Dec 31st.
What about people who don’t pay their charge - will they be able to claim relief?
What if you pay monthly rather than in a lump sum - will that still count?
What if you live in a development which is managed by a residents association & not an OMC?
There are a lot of what ifs and buts...and no doubt it will leave a section of people feeling hard done by.

If Revenue were able to do a short year to move over to a calendar year model (which they were)- simply mandate that all OMCs do the same (most are on the old Revenue model- April to March- simply do a 9 month year- April to December- and then off you go again on a formal calendar year). All OMCs issue receipts- aside from any other reason- if a property was let out a landlord would need one for tax purposes.

The filing deadline for your 2017 tax return (ignoring provisional returns) is in September of the following year- so if people are paying monthly- it wouldn't make any difference.

A residents association- is not an OMC- an OMC- is a vehicle in which all the property in the development reside- and the owners have a share in the OMC- and a leasehold on the property- not freehold. Its not terribly unusual for their to be both an OMC and a Residents Association (I'm personally familiar with at least 2 cases). If a residents association decide to beautify their estate- do landscaping or whatever- great- fair play to them. Local Tidy Towns- do the same- and for years- it was the bread and butter of the local community employment schemes when unemployment was an issue. An OMC- is a particular structure- designed to take new developments out of the opertional sphere of local authorities and to minimise their outgoings on upkeep- which was popularised in the early 90s- and was a specific requirement in the planning for developments since then.

Residents Associations- are great- and do good work- but they're not OMCs- they do not have the legal obligations that an OMC has- nor the rights or obligations towards shareholders- as is the case in an OMC.

If people want to have residents associations- let them- but there is nothing obligatory about them- regardless of what the residents associations might like to think themselves.

April 73

It’s all do-able. It’s just a bit more complex than the headline grabbing “people living in managed developments should have an LPT reduction”.
Having lived in two such developments (not apartments) & paid for things that someone living in an older development or one a few km away in another local authority weren’t paying for - I’d be in favour of the proposal, within reason.

I totally get the difference between a residents association & an OMC,having been a committee member on the former & a director of the latter. I’m also aware of residents associations having to pay for the basic upkeep of estates (grass cutting, landscape maintenance, insurance for that work etc) in some local authorities which refuse to take any responsibility for this very basic upkeep - while others living elsewhere have it paid for by their local authority.

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

I am failing to see why apartment owners should get a discount.

They should not. Its a tax that we all should have to pay in full. And when water charges come in eventually everyone should pay something too

I was suggesting if they were to change anything then it would be a better option to give tax relief for money paid today management company if they were to do anything at all.

ted1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

ted1 wrote:

I am failing to see why apartment owners should get a discount.

They should not. Its a tax that we all should have to pay in full. And when water charges come in eventually everyone should pay something too

I was suggesting if they were to change anything then it would be a better option to give tax relief for money paid today management company if they were to do anything at all.

Its actually a tax that tenants should pay.

ted1

The_Conductor wrote: »

The concept- and the inequity- is that people who live in managed estates- are paying for the provision of services and amenities- that people who live next door- in estates that have been 'taken-in-charge' do not have to pay for. This extends to: provision of carparking, lighting, road surfacing, children's play areas, landscaping, and the biggie in most cases- which can be well over 90% of the cost- is public liability insurance. There are a long list of other items- that most management companies supply/provide- that have little in common with provisions provided for by local authorities (down to window washing and other niceties).

It depends on the development- but the public liability insurance aspect of an estate being taken in charge or not- alone- is a minimum of EUR180 for a property in a large estate- up to over EUR800 in a small estate (obviously this depends on a long list of factors- including the history of claims in the development etc etc)

Its not really fair to equate the provision of water to a rural property- with the Management charges that are mandatory for multi unit dwellings- aside from anything else- it is not the case that you would have a property next door absolved from any charges- purely by virtue of its planning permission having been granted a week prior to the planning for the second development (to say nothing of the staggering cost of supplying services to rural one-off properties- which is met out of general taxation).

The provision of services, facilities and amenities in managed estates- nominally comes out of the Local Property tax- which in theory are collected locally to be expended locally. Of course- theory and practice are a fine thing- and the facts on the ground are that large urban areas (esp. Dublin) provide massive subsidisation for the provision of local services elsewhere (however- at the cost of insisting that apartment and other dwellers pay for services that others get included in their LPT).

It is an inequity- certainly- however- it is also playing to the masses- and is a measure to try and placate an increasingly vocal cohort of local people who are for the first time ever refusing to keep quiet (esp. as management charges are increasing substantially nationally- though the lack of a register makes the extent of these price increases hard to determine).

Yes- there should be some measure of offsetting allowed- however, to what extent?
It would gall people in small estates who run the estate themselves- if a large luxury estate next door were able to offset the bells and whistles of a luxury development against their LPT obligations- whereas a small estate who busted their guts to try and make their living space as accommodating as possible- saw little/no benefit from such measures.

In the context of a LPT of perhaps EUR500 per unit in a Dublin apartment (I've deliberately stated this higher than average)- perhaps a rebalancing formula- where up to 1/3 or 1/2 of a management charge could be offset against the LPT would be reasonable?

It doesn't matter how they try to structure this- there are going to be unhappy people- ideally- it would be fairest if the whole concept of public liability insurance, lighting and basic landscaping was simply included everywhere- and everyone just got on with things- but its not an ideal world..........

I support a rebalancing effort- I'm just not sure how it could be made work.

I maintain my own parking spot on my own drive way at my own expense. The council don’t maintain it.

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote: »

Its actually a tax that tenants should pay.

That's a whole different debate but the argument would be that landlords build it into the rent. I can't say if that's the case in reality but it is the argument that would be put forward

Caranica

I'd be very happy with tax relief on management fees, landlords get it but not owner occupiers. But if what's on the table is getting a 1/3 discount on my property tax then every little helps.

Fwiw my management fees are 5 times my property tax and this proposal is you get the lower amount (1/3 of property tax or management fees) so it really is a little.

The_Conductor

Caranica wrote: »

I'd be very happy with tax relief on management fees, landlords get it but not owner occupiers. But if what's on the table is getting a 1/3 discount on my property tax then every little helps.

Fwiw my management fees are 5 times my property tax and this proposal is you get the lower amount (1/3 of property tax or management fees) so it really is a little.

Ditto- though my management charges are more like 8 times my LPT.......

They could just take the bull by the horns- and agree to take *all* developments 'in-charge' and manage them the same as they manage any older estates etc- which would make a lot of people even happier..............

ted1

The_Conductor wrote: »

Caranica wrote: »

I'd be very happy with tax relief on management fees, landlords get it but not owner occupiers. But if what's on the table is getting a 1/3 discount on my property tax then every little helps.

Fwiw my management fees are 5 times my property tax and this proposal is you get the lower amount (1/3 of property tax or management fees) so it really is a little.

Ditto- though my management charges are more like 8 times my LPT.......

They could just take the bull by the horns- and agree to take *all* developments 'in-charge' and manage them the same as they manage any older estates etc- which would make a lot of people even happier..............

They would need to remove all gates and potentially all private car park spaces.

Caranica

ted1 wrote: »

They would need to remove all gates and potentially all private car park spaces.

We have no gates and no reserved parking spaces. Fingal county council won't give planning permission for gated communities, regardless of security concerns

The_Conductor

ted1 wrote: »

They would need to remove all gates and potentially all private car park spaces.

Its very much a minority of estates that are gated communities.

Bob24

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This mightn't be a bad idea but they should have to pay full property tax like everyone else. If the maintenance company provides lighting it's only for the apartment or housing complex. Property tax pays for lighting & maintenance of public areas.

Not if the development has public areas.

I know someone’s who’s develoment includes a public square with bars and restaurants adjacent to a LUAS stop. They’re even getting sued by drunk people who have a fall on their way from the pub to the LUAS (50 meters) and seek compensation from the management company because the grounds are part of the complex and they claim it was slippery. If you go there you can’t tell it’s a private ground as it’s a completely open square with no gate or enclosing walls just by a LUAS stop.

ted1

The_Conductor wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

They would need to remove all gates and potentially all private car park spaces.

Its very much a minority of estates that are gated communities.

And what about assigned car spaces in what will be a public road and public car park?

Sleeper12

Bob24 wrote:

I know someone’s who’s develoment includes a public square with bars and restaurants adjacent to a LUAS stop. They’re even getting sued by drunk people who have a fall on their way from the pub to the LUAS (50 meters) and seek compensation from the management company because the grounds are part of the complex and they claim it was slippery. If you go there you can’t tell it’s a private ground as it’s a completely open square with no gate or enclosing walls just by a LUAS stop.

Their solicitor should never have let them sign. Sounds like a nightmare

Gumbo

House owners should benefit also if paying management fees.

All the headlines are fixated on apartments.

Bob24

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Their solicitor should never have let them sign. Sounds like a nightmare

I don’t think there is anything strange about this development a solicitor would spot as a red flag, it’s pretty common for a urban development to have publicslly accessible areas, especially of it includes units for shops and restaurants.

But it goes to show that it is not that stupid to consider LTP discounts for people who are paying management fees as management companies are supporting the cost to provide services and assume legal liabilities for publicslly accessible areas which would orherwise be catered by a local authority.

Ronaldinho

Bob24 wrote: »

Not if the development has public areas.

I know someone’s who’s develoment includes a public square with bars and restaurants adjacent to a LUAS stop. They’re even getting sued by drunk people who have a fall on their way from the pub to the LUAS (50 meters) and seek compensation from the management company because the grounds are part of the complex and they claim it was slippery. If you go there you can’t tell it’s a private ground as it’s a completely open square with no gate or enclosing walls just by a LUAS stop.

But if it's public then has it not been handed over to the relevant local authority and as such is it not the LA who is then liable?

Bob24

Ronaldinho wrote: »

But if it's public then has it not been handed over to the relevant local authority and as such is it not the LA who is then liable?

Good question. I guess the land belongs to the development and the way planning was done it had to deliver a public square. It’s the part of Mayor Square which is North of the LUAS track.