Good news for tenants in budget 2018

Sleeper12

ted1 wrote:

It’s a business. No other business pays USC on sales or income

You don't understand your business or how it is taxed. Like any other business you only pay tax on the profits. Like everyone else in the country you only pay USC on your income. You do NOT pay it on the income of your business.

If you paid USC on the business income then you would pay it on the whole of the rent but you don't. You pay it only on the profits.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if an accountant did a question & answer thread for landlords. So many landlords don't know the difference between profit and income.

You have two options with revenue. Let them treat it as unearned income or set up a limited company. Ltd company is a business & you can claim all expenses inc vehicle, fuel, phone & much more

Claw Hammer

KevinCavan wrote: »

The government should have started building significantly three years ago, when it was clear there was a housing crisis. The government needs to build houses for middle class people as well as the people on job seeker’s allowance. There is no real vision for housing, just all spin and bullsh1t.

The government can't build. It has no money. The government is not even making good use of the existing housing stock. In some ways it is making supply worse. 100% mortgage relief was being phased in anyway. It is a drop in the ocean.

lawred2

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The government can't build. It has no money. The government is not even making good use of the existing housing stock. In some ways it is making supply worse. 100% mortgage relief was being phased in anyway. It is a drop in the ocean.

the government is building

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/local-authority-housing-scheme-statistics

2017 - 6000 properties were either built or purchased by the state for local authority housing

Plan is for much the same this year

Not building enough maybe but to say they can't build is incorrect

Samuel T. Cogley

I love the way it's always, Landlords shouldn't get special treatment yada, yada; they're a business yada yada, but then we're more than happy to stop them charging market rate and force them to take on the burden of housing people, totally unsuited to the private rental market.

Claw Hammer

lawred2 wrote: »

the government is building

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/local-authority-housing-scheme-statistics

2017 - 6000 properties were either built or purchased by the state for local authority housing

Plan is for much the same this year

Not building enough maybe but to say they can't build is incorrect

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

lawred2

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

that's reasoned

lawred2

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I love the way it's always, Landlords shouldn't get special treatment yada, yada; they're a business yada yada, but then we're more than happy to stop them charging market rate and force them to take on the burden of housing people, totally unsuited to the private rental market.

private landlords are forced to take on tenants?

davindub

davindub wrote: »

The point is that phone / travel expenses arent high enough nor frequent to be bothered about for most, why be bitter that you can claim but only if you count them up properly and maintain the records along with the tax return?

For many expenses its not a case of adding them up for example capital allowances on a car you can generally apportion a percentage of usage and from my experience the percentage can be quite high 50% plus is a very acceptable number even if in reality the usage is not divided in this way (extremely hard thing to prove either way). If I was paying 30 euro a month on a phone contract I'd be looking at claiming at least 50% of it as being business usage.

pwurple wrote: »

Do the next generation now want to leave school or college and buy a 3 bed semi in the same town as our parents? When did this lack of ambition happen, or are these posters solely thinking of their own circumstances instead of society at large?

Many many people do actually want to do this, lack of job distribution around the country is one of the major issues preventing it though. I would consider it very insulting also to describe someone who wants to remain living in their local area as lacking ambition, many people I know never left their home areas (rural areas) and have very successful careers in finance, IT, trades etc. I myself lived in another part of the country for a few years as I had no option to but I am making strong efforts to get work near home and move back home next door to my parents in fact.

Just to say this is not arguing with the fact that I fully agree we need LL's and we should incentivise LL's into the business, I just took issue with the lack of ambition comment.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You have two options with revenue. Let them treat it as unearned income or set up a limited company. Ltd company is a business & you can claim all expenses inc vehicle, fuel, phone & much more

Sole traders in other businesses can also claim all of these and do not need to set up as a limited company.

STB.

lawred2 wrote: »

the government is building

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/local-authority-housing-scheme-statistics

2017 - 6000 properties were either built or purchased by the state for local authority housing

Plan is for much the same this year

Not building enough maybe but to say they can't build is incorrect

BUILT, Building etc. YOUR figures are wrong.

In 2017 ONLY 780 houses were built by local authorities

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/total-of-780-local-authority-houses-built-last-year-1.3473178

lawred2

STB. wrote: »

BUILT, Building etc. YOUR figures are wrong.

In 2017 ONLY 780 houses were built by local authorities

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/total-of-780-local-authority-houses-built-last-year-1.3473178

They ain't my figures.

Sleeper12

Javier Fancy Graphite wrote:

For many expenses its not a case of adding them up for example capital allowances on a car you can generally apportion a percentage of usage and from my experience the percentage can be quite high 50% plus is a very acceptable number even if in reality the usage is not divided in this way (extremely hard thing to prove either way). If I was paying 30 euro a month on a phone contract I'd be looking at claiming at least 50% of it as being business usage.

Here's the thing. Revenue don't treat single rentals as a business. This has pros and cons. The main advantage of this setup is that you don't file annual returns. No accountant fees. This pretty much offsets any advantages of getting phone & fuel. I doubt it very much if revenue would allow half of the phone bills when you are only talking a half dozen calls per month on average.

If you want to offset all of your expenses then you can set up a business. A proper company & revenue will treat it as a business. Revenue will never let you have it both ways. It's either unearned income or its a proper business.

Why all the moaning and giving out when it's in your power to be treated as a real business?

I know I quoted you. I'm not saying that you are moaning. Just a handful of single let landlords.

Pkiernan

When will petrol stations have price increase caps in place?

L1011

Pkiernan wrote: »

When will petrol stations have price increase caps in place?

They frequently have had in the past. Most recent cost controls brought in on consumer goods were pub prices in ~2003 or so.

Grumpypants

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I love the way it's always, Landlords shouldn't get special treatment yada, yada; they're a business yada yada, but then we're more than happy to stop them charging market rate and force them to take on the burden of housing people, totally unsuited to the private rental market.

Spot on. You always see the same voices moaning on about a housing crisis, but dare mention giving an incentive to those who are providing that much needed housing and the same people kick up about why should landlords get special treatment!

Amirani

Miya Poor Stud wrote: »

Sole traders in other businesses can also claim all of these and do not need to set up as a limited company.

They can't expense transport costs for getting to and from their place of business, so I see no reason why landlords should be allowed to expense their fuel either.

Sleeper12

Amirani wrote:

They can't expense transport costs for getting to and from their place of business, so I see no reason why landlords should be allowed to expense their fuel either.

Totally true.
Also Private car insurance couldn't be used if it was treated as a proper business.

Grumpypants

Grumpypants wrote: »

Spot on. You always see the same voices moaning on about a housing crisis, but dare mention giving an incentive to those who are providing that much needed housing and the same people kick up about why should landlords get special treatment!

Providing housing? Landlords do not provide housing. People who build houses provide housing.

Let's imagine a single village containing ten families and ten houses. Daddy in one lucky family inherits a lot of money and buys all the houses in the village. His family live in one and he lets the other 9 out to the other 9 families.

Would you say that the landlord in this case is 'providing housing'? Do you think it makes sense to make it easier for him to buy these houses and make more money from them? Should the government get involved to help this poor chap?

More importantly, if he left the market and sold up, and the other 9 families got a home of their own - did we lose something?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here's the thing. Revenue don't treat single rentals as a business. This has pros and cons. The main advantage of this setup is that you don't file annual returns. No accountant fees. This pretty much offsets any advantages of getting phone & fuel.

Of course LL's have to file annual returns. How on earth would they not as they are taking in non-paye income. They many not need an accountant but if they want to ensure their accounts are properly in order and ensure that they are claiming all the expenses they can etc they should have an account initially at least.

Amirani wrote: »

They can't expense transport costs for getting to and from their place of business, so I see no reason why landlords should be allowed to expense their fuel either.

They could still depreciate their car, claim for travelling to their rental from anywhere but their home etc. Also the rental is not their primary place of business in the same sense as a contractor driving from home to the same site everyday is so I'd be interested to see if it would actually prevent you claiming fuel costs.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Totally true.
Also Private car insurance couldn't be used if it was treated as a proper business.

Yes it can, you just need to add on class 3 usage which costs very little maybe 50 euro extra on your premium per year.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grumpypants wrote: »

Spot on. You always see the same voices moaning on about a housing crisis, but dare mention giving an incentive to those who are providing that much needed housing and the same people kick up about why should landlords get special treatment!

Landlords don’t build houses.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

Providing housing? Landlords do not provide housing. People who build houses provide housing....

Then the solution isn't anything to do with private landlords is it.

marieholmfan

beauf wrote: »

Then the solution isn't anything to do with private landlords is it.

Correct - it is a complicated problem and private landlords (like me) are only incidental to the solution.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Then the solution isn't anything to do with private landlords is it.

Not really no.

That's why the government shouldn't be propping them up with tax breaks, which is where this thread started.

Grumpypants

Deleted User wrote: »

Providing housing? Landlords do not provide housing. People who build houses provide housing.

Let's imagine a single village containing ten families and ten houses. Daddy in one lucky family inherits a lot of money and buys all the houses in the village. His family live in one and he lets the other 9 out to the other 9 families.

Would you say that the landlord in this case is 'providing housing'? Do you think it makes sense to make it easier for him to buy these houses and make more money from them? Should the government get involved to help this poor chap?

More importantly, if he left the market and sold up, and the other 9 families got a home of their own - did we lose something?

What a legend, he used his own money to provide housing for the entire village.

They should build a statue, never mind give him a measly tax break.

Browney7

Miya Poor Stud wrote: »

For many expenses its not a case of adding them up for example capital allowances on a car you can generally apportion a percentage of usage and from my experience the percentage can be quite high 50% plus is a very acceptable number even if in reality the usage is not divided in this way (extremely hard thing to prove either way). If I was paying 30 euro a month on a phone contract I'd be looking at claiming at least 50% of it as being business usage.



Many many people do actually want to do this, lack of job distribution around the country is one of the major issues preventing it though. I would consider it very insulting also to describe someone who wants to remain living in their local area as lacking ambition, many people I know never left their home areas (rural areas) and have very successful careers in finance, IT, trades etc. I myself lived in another part of the country for a few years as I had no option to but I am making strong efforts to get work near home and move back home next door to my parents in fact.

Just to say this is not arguing with the fact that I fully agree we need LL's and we should incentivise LL's into the business, I just took issue with the lack of ambition comment.



Sole traders in other businesses can also claim all of these and do not need to set up as a limited company.

50% allowance of the use of a car and phone for the 2 visits a year to inspect the property and if you change tenant once a year, another visit? So maybe 300 Kms on average per LL out of 10000 Kms a year a person drives. Revenue would be better off providing a driver for the landlord than letting him offset 50% car usage costs.

I've seen my landlord at the property three times in 2 years and had him ring me once. 1% of phone use is more reasonable (ie pennies).

None of this will ever happen anyway so it's all academic.

Grumpypants

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Landlords don’t build houses.

Sometimes they do but generally no they don't physically build them. That is a team of builders and subcontractors and professionals. But landlords so buy them and then provide those houses to people in need of housing.

Sleeper12

Javier Fancy Graphite wrote:

Of course LL's have to file annual returns. How on earth would they not as they are taking in non-paye income. They many not need an accountant but if they want to ensure their accounts are properly in order and ensure that they are claiming all the expenses they can etc they should have an account initially at least.

Single rental landlords don't have to file actual accounts. If they did they would understand basic profits and loss & the difference between profits and income. One poster believes he pays USC on the his rent.

When you say landlord files are return you are talking about your personal tax return. These aren't accounts. They are nothing like accounts. Technically everyone is supposed to file an tax return. Revenue just turn a blind eye to non self employed.

Why don't you just set up a company & avail of the same tax breaks as the rest of us?

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Providing housing? Landlords do not provide housing. People who build houses provide housing.

Let's imagine a single village containing ten families and ten houses. Daddy in one lucky family inherits a lot of money and buys all the houses in the village. His family live in one and he lets the other 9 out to the other 9 families.

Would you say that the landlord in this case is 'providing housing'? Do you think it makes sense to make it easier for him to buy these houses and make more money from them? Should the government get involved to help this poor chap?

More importantly, if he left the market and sold up, and the other 9 families got a home of their own - did we lose something?

You've lost 9 rental units that given a functioning market are not occupied by the same people who owner occupy.

It would probably be better if we lived in a fairy land where everyone could a) afford and b) be capable of owning their own home, sadly we do not.

marieholmfan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It would probably be better if we lived in a fairy land where everyone could a) afford and b) be capable of owning their own home, sadly we do not.

Just build the houses and never give them away. That's what they do in Denmark and Sweden.

Samuel T. Cogley

marieholmfan wrote: »

Just build the houses and never give them away. That's what they do in Denmark and Sweden.

Sorry could you clarify - do you mean build social housing and never sell them on, that doesn't work so well when you herd them into 100% council owned estates.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You've lost 9 rental units that given a functioning market are not occupied by the same people who owner occupy.

It would probably be better if we lived in a fairy land where everyone could a) afford and b) be capable of owning their own home, sadly we do not.

Are you actually not capable of understanding that the existence of buy-to-let landlords makes it less likely that people are able to afford their own home?

This is a genuine question. Do you understand that prices are a function of a) supply and b) demand and that buy-to-let investors contribute to b) and as a result drive up prices - particularly when for whatever reason supply is restricted?

It's over 20 years since I did my economics degree but I probably have a few old textbooks I can dig out if you need to borrow them.