RPZ query

Ray Palmer

4ensic15 wrote: »

Have you ever had a Revenue audit because it doesn't sound like you have? Returns are not proof. They are what you say you owe. They are subject to checking. The revenue select cases for audit. Ownership of assets like investment property is a criterion for selection. If your case is selected then the revenue will obtain information from all kinds of sources, then pay you a visit and look at your books. Any discrepancy between what you told them and what they know from other sources has to be explained.

Yes I have and I know people who work there and discussed the systems they have. I also deal with revenue to pass on client information on a large scale. You are suggesting they have systems more advanced than possible both legally and architecturally

Let's break down what people are saying here.

Revenue obtain RPT information as normal operations This is information is cross referenced to detect fraud Revenue will investigate any small discrepancies If you get less rent than projected they launch a full scale investigation Owning a property means you will be audited

It is nonsense and tin foil hat stuff. How many employees do you think they have? How much time and cost do you think revenue should put into their work. How do you think they consider costs that can vary year to year?

What makes you think any of this stuff? It all sounds made up by someone no experience of actually dealing with revenue

Garibaldi?

A lot of landlords have recently become very wary indeed. And why? Because of the proposed left-wing measures impinging on the rights of property owners. These proposed measures are counter-productive in that they have caused non renewal of leases already.Many people are now stressed out at the prospect of finding new accommodation. A coercion and threats policy is not the way to go.

1874

Garibaldi? wrote: »

You are absolutely right there. However a lot of these discussions tend to polarise people into "landlords" and "tenants" as if they were bound to be at loggerheads. A bit of give and take has solved many world sized problems.

I think a lot of one off/small landlords were potentially ameanable to make arrangements to cater for problems, but its better to be paid the correct rent, but making agreements can cause problems too, both with the tenant and for the landlord with the authoritiesas can be seen now.
I think the same tenants who were gleeful when rents went down in 08/09 are now the same people who demand restrictions on increases. In my opinion, I think the RPZ probably isnt a bad idea for current tenants and landlords probably wouldnt have a problem with it if they were allowed to restore to market rate or closer for a new tenant, but goodwill was not rewarded by legislation hurting those that involved themselves in being nice.

The only way to counter the current problems is to build more property, not introducing half baked ideas. The State cant even get that right when developers build schools, its done incorrectly, trades people arent getting paid.

4ensic15

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes I have and I know people who work there and discussed the systems they have. I also deal with revenue to pass on client information on a large scale. You are suggesting they have systems more advanced than possible both legally and architecturally

Let's break down what people are saying here.

Revenue obtain RPT information as normal operations This is information is cross referenced to detect fraud Revenue will investigate any small discrepancies If you get less rent than projected they launch a full scale investigation Owning a property means you will be audited

It is nonsense and tin foil hat stuff. How many employees do you think they have? How much time and cost do you think revenue should put into their work. How do you think they consider costs that can vary year to year?

What makes you think any of this stuff? It all sounds made up by someone no experience of actually dealing with revenue

You are replying to an argument that has not been made. The revenue can audit any case. they clearly don't have staff to audit every case and query everything. Just because the odds are low doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. The revenue gets returns and gathers information. They carried out several hundred audits last year. They select targets for audit by analysing the data in their possession and looking for pointers in a screening process. They also choose purely random targets. Ownership of property is simply one of the criteria. The chances of being audited or screened increase if property is owned. When carrying out an audit the revenue gathers considerable data about the taxpayer in a variety of ways.
The ops chances of being detected might be low but the possibility can't be completely eliminated. many people were told in the 1980s that the revenue would never query their foreign bank account. One of the features of the digital age is that data is gathered, stored and remains accessible to an infinitely greater degree than before. The revenue are constantly working on algorithms to select audit targets. these algorithms are becoming more sophisticated as time goes on. Profiling of particular sectors gives an insight into methods of dodging tax.

Ray Palmer

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are replying to an argument that has not been made. The revenue can audit any case. they clearly don't have staff to audit every case and query everything. Just because the odds are low doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. The revenue gets returns and gathers information. They carried out several hundred audits last year. They select targets for audit by analysing the data in their possession and looking for pointers in a screening process. They also choose purely random targets. Ownership of property is simply one of the criteria. The chances of being audited or screened increase if property is owned. When carrying out an audit the revenue gathers considerable data about the taxpayer in a variety of ways.
The ops chances of being detected might be low but the possibility can't be completely eliminated. many people were told in the 1980s that the revenue would never query their foreign bank account. One of the features of the digital age is that data is gathered, stored and remains accessible to an infinitely greater degree than before. The revenue are constantly working on algorithms to select audit targets. these algorithms are becoming more sophisticated as time goes on. Profiling of particular sectors gives an insight into methods of dodging tax.

You clearly stated they did some of this as standard. You are wrong and exaggerating and have no idea what the audits are like. They do not go hell for leather even when auditing. I have been audit and know exactly what they did. They do not even have rights to look up records without your permission in most cases which you do to prove your case not the other way around like you suggest. Been there done that what you are saying simply isn't true.

I work with government systems and know GDPR and what existed before very well. You are making up these claims.

4ensic15

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You clearly stated they did some of this as standard. You are wrong and exaggerating and have no idea what the audits are like. They do not go hell for leather even when auditing. I have been audit and know exactly what they did. They do not even have rights to look up records without your permission in most cases which you do to prove your case not the other way around like you suggest. Been there done that what you are saying simply isn't true.

I work with government systems and know GDPR and what existed before very well. You are making up these claims.

I never said anything was standard. I am not making anything up. The revenue have rights to gather data and if they catch you telling a lie they will ask if you want to change your story. I know people who have been threatened with jail. You are confusing proof and evidence. You clearly do not understand what you saw happening. The revenue can and do get copies of bank accounts without the knowledge of the taxpayer and if they think they are being told nonsense will some sharpen their claws. If you break the speed limit by a small amount the likelihood is you won't be detected or charged, but you might be. You can file incorrect tax returns and the likelihood is that you will never be audited or caught but you will never know for sure. I know a man who is on his third audit in 10 years.

Ray Palmer

4ensic15 wrote: »

I never said anything was standard. I am not making anything up. The revenue have rights to gather data and if they catch you telling a lie they will ask if you want to change your story. I know people who have been threatened with jail. You are confusing proof and evidence. You clearly do not understand what you saw happening. The revenue can and do get copies of bank accounts without the knowledge of the taxpayer and if they think they are being told nonsense will some sharpen their claws. If you break the speed limit by a small amount the likelihood is you won't be detected or charged, but you might be. You can file incorrect tax returns and the likelihood is that you will never be audited or caught but you will never know for sure. I know a man who is on his third audit in 10 years.

Have you any personal practical experience of this? I have what you are saying is nonsense. Stories down the pub stuff

4ensic15

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Have you any personal practical experience of this? I have what you are saying is nonsense. Stories down the pub stuff

I have plenty of practical experience of this. I have seen what the revenue can do
when they get the bit between their teeth. A lot of the time they are reasonable and don't bother with trifles but on other occasions they are vindictive.

Ray Palmer

4ensic15 wrote: »

I have plenty of practical experience of this. I have seen what the revenue can do
when they get the bit between their teeth. A lot of the time they are reasonable and don't bother with trifles but on other occasions they are vindictive.

You personally have been through a full audit? Why are you getting audited so much?

4ensic15

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You personally have been through a full audit? Why are you getting audited so much?

That's not a matter for comment on a forum like this.

murphaph

Sounds like waffle to me. If Revenue had access to the PRTB declared rent and launched audits when received rent was less then there would have been thousands of audits to do during the downturn as rents plummeted. Revenue don't do this sort of thing. The data is not clean enough to be basing such costly actions on.

Garibaldi?

Many property owners were concerned that Revenue might question the sharp drop in rent which occurred when rent costs hit rock bottom. Many made a note to Revenue concerning this in the yearly tax return. Perhaps that is why there were not more audits. That and the fact that Revenue were aware of the country-wide drop in rents

4ensic15

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds like waffle to me. If Revenue had access to the PRTB declared rent and launched audits when received rent was less then there would have been thousands of audits to do during the downturn as rents plummeted. Revenue don't do this sort of thing. The data is not clean enough to be basing such costly actions on.

The revenue don't do thousands of audits. They do a few hundred annually. They make a selection and add in a few randomers and off they go. During the downturn there was an embargo on recruitment in the public service and that affected the revenue so there was no way audit activity could be ramped up. What often happens a group with some anomaly is identified. All members of that group will be written to and asked for an explanation.

Ray Palmer

4ensic15 wrote: »

The revenue don't do thousands of audits. They do a few hundred annually. They make a selection and add in a few randomers and off they go. During the downturn there was an embargo on recruitment in the public service and that affected the revenue so there was no way audit activity could be ramped up. What often happens a group with some anomaly is identified. All members of that group will be written to and asked for an explanation.

Either explain why you know so much are it will be taken as nonsense.

I work in a government department connected to them. Have experience the process. Nothing you said matches with either my knowledge nor experience.

Some of what you said isn't legal under GDPR rules

4ensic15

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Either explain why you know so much are it will be taken as nonsense.

I work in a government department connected to them. Have experience the process. Nothing you said matches with either my knowledge nor experience.

Some of what you said isn't legal under GDPR rules

I know from a variety of sources and experiences. I am not going to post my CV. As for GDPR, what laws do you say are being broken?

Ray Palmer

4ensic15 wrote: »

I know from a variety of sources and experiences. I am not going to post my CV. As for GDPR, what laws do you say are being broken?

Here is the actual truth. Revenue can check you are registered. If they do more without your permission it is against the law. Your vast variety of sources isn't the truth but what people think happened. Do you really rely on 3rd hand information to base a view.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/historic-material/ebrief/2007/tax-briefing.aspx

4ensic15

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Here is the actual truth. Revenue can check you are registered. If they do more without your permission it is against the law. Your vast variety of sources isn't the truth but what people think happened. Do you really rely on 3rd hand information to base a view.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/historic-material/ebrief/2007/tax-briefing.aspx

Where does it say the Revenue can only check a LL is registered? Revenue have other powers to access documents from 3rd parties. That document you have produced is not a discussion document about Revenue powers. It is a guide for professionals completing returns and advising clients about the acceptable evidence of registration. You should say what law you say is being infringed and not make personal attacks.

Section 902 Taxes Consolidation Act 1997

Allows an officer authorised under this section to issue a notice to a third
party (other than a financial institution) requiring the third party to deliver,
or make available for inspection, such books and records and to furnish such
information and explanations relevant to the tax liability of another person,
as are specified in the notice.
Tax and Duty Manual: Part 38-04-04f

Ray Palmer

Read the link. It tells you what revenue are getting from RTB. They can't ask for more than that.
The registered amount is not mentioned.
RTB are not financial records so revenue cannot request them. The records are in no way connected to tax liability. Hence it would be breach of GDPR. Not relevant to tax liabilities.
I checked, all they get is whether a person is registered exactly what it said on their website

4ensic15

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Read the link. It tells you what revenue are getting from RTB. They can't ask for more than that.
The registered amount is not mentioned.
RTB are not financial records so revenue cannot request them. The records are in no way connected to tax liability. Hence it would be breach of GDPR. Not relevant to tax liabilities.
I checked, all they get is whether a person is registered exactly what it said on their website

I have read the link. It is entirely concerned with the tax relief and the proofs. They have the power to demand any document the RFTB holds if they want under their powers to compel any third party to reveal records. What section of the GDPR reduces the Revenue's powers to obtain records under Third Party disclosure?

handlemaster

OP .. as the saying goes no good deed goes unpunished. Dont do this. Rent for full market rent.

Garibaldi?

If a tenant were in serious difficulty and could not meet the full rent, as declared to the PRTB, and in a rental agreement, it would be legally possible to amend the agreement. As the Revenue have access to all documentation, the landlord would need to have evidence of the new arrangement in the form of receipts, bank statements etc. The landlord may consider a new arrangement preferable to leaving people without a home and also incurring a huge amount of inconvenience himself. Agreements between tenant and landlord have frequently fallen into abeyance in the past, usually when a tenant leaves before the end of the agreement,

UpTheSlashers

Aye Bosun wrote: »

Current tenant has just handed in their notice. I’ve friends who’ve hit hard times and I’d like to assist if I can, I was thinking about letting them rent the place from me for a few years at a reduced rent to let them save and get back on their feet.

So my question is, if the property is currently rented for €1500/m and to help my friend out I’m happy to reduce the rent to €1000/m for the few years they need it, when it comes to renting the property again I am only allowed increase the rent by 4% on the €1000 rent or can I revert back to €1500/m which is market value.

Basically, I don’t want to be penalised in the long the run for doing friends a favour and find the property can only be rented out below market value after the leave!

This is very simple.

If you want to charge your friends €1,000 p/m then do that.

You can then increase the rent in line with the RPZ conditions.