Winter 21/22 Eviction Ban (was: And just like that, FFFG lose 298000 votes))

newmember2

Great, as a LL I'll be taxed less on the 70k rent I didn't get for the last 3 years...

Emblematic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120023757#Comment_120023757

The option is there however. You could buy a property, do it up, rent it out a few years and then evict the tenants and sell on the open market. Chances are it would be an owner occupier as the buyer as these are the majority of buyers. Similarly you could move yourself or a family member in. This is different to business equipment or premises where, if you do sell, it will be to other businesses and other considerations involving family members do not apply. In the private landlord area, therefor, expenses are not purely business expenses as they are in full businesses and therefore should not be written off in the same way, imo.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120023801#Comment_120023801

There is loads of other option there in other businesses to divert funds for personal use. Issues like this discourage LL from doing up properties. Then tenant's complain about condition of those properties. All in case a LL might make a few extra bob

1874

I sigh relief that I got out, to some extent, I saw problems coming in advance but I never really predicted it would get this ridiculous or stupid. In some way I was lucky I dealt with a few successive tenants in different tenancies that encouraged me to get out. I was very understanding of peoples circumstances, No one needs to deal with the stress and hassle of dealing with knowing they are 1 month away from a tenant deciding not to pay for years if they see fit.

There are only a few things that can fix this now. Essentially LL's are investing in a property that saves the State from having to do so, the idea they should only break even or have to wait 20 years to recover some benefit is ridiculous, it also means all small LL's will always seek to get out eventually, what should be encouraged if the State is unwilling or unable to provide accommodation is incentivizing landlords and even new entrants to provide, where previously I thought some scheme where the State reduces their tax take and the landlord passes on that benefit, it doesnt ever seem the powers that be could think of anything that might help them, tenants and landlords.

1. Immediate change/substantial reduction to tax take for rentals, why? Because private investment saves the State implementing higher taxes to provide accommodation on a scale the State doesn't seem to be able or willing to provide anymore. No business can operate month to month without a profit, just breaking even wouldn't be viable, most small LL's dont even break even. Where waiting to potentially turn a profit after X number of years, be it 5 or 10 or 20 encourages the eventual sale of a potential rental property, because no one deems it reasonable a person operating such an enterprise should make a profit month to month.
2. 3 month limit on a)non paying, b) anti social, c) destructive tenants. All non paying or non responding tenants regarding non payment/anti social/property damage, fastracked to the front of RTB of the queue to be dealt with. Where no arrangements have been made after month 2, End of month 3 tenants moved to Hotel type accommodation to make way for a paying tenant to maintain future viability of rentals as a source of rentals to LL's, the State and in effect to good/paying tenants. Where genuine reasons exist, the State should make up the payment shortfall or the individuals treated as bankrupt and have their finances managed as if bankrupt. Within a short space of time mostly only people who genuinely cannot pay will exist as non paying tenants and their shortfall either made up by the state or their finances managed. Any shortfall should be apportioned to all former tenants and be recouped from either their earnings or social welfare.
3. In the case of State payments, should be made directly to landlord, for Schemes such as HAP where currently if the tenant stops paying their share, the Local Authority should have to fund the full amount while investigating the shortfall, if deemed genuine then the tenants needs should be reassessed and either their scheme contribution increased or A bit of out of the box thinking) the local Authority can get monthly tax credits for the landlord that offset the shortfall. If not deemed genuine the Tenants Social Welfare/finances managed like a bankrupt persons finances.
4. Build more properties, If the State can interfere in private ownership to the point their is mass exit of landlords, because of real problems (overholding non paying tenants, anti social/destructive tenants, substituted tenants) then they can interfere where Local Authorities refuse to build housing, the task and responsibility should be removed from too many interests which dont benefit providing suitable accommodations of a suitable size and standard.

Currently there is simply nothing to prevent a rogue tenant/s from playing the system and getting away with paying years of rent, and then just do it all over again (because its unlikely they can even be named or even forced to repay what they owed). While most tenants aren't bad, there is always the knowledge that any tenant could go that way and it's years of messing, stress and ultimately one less accomodation that will be provided in the future. Years of mismanagement of the rental sector by knee jerk reactive legislation in the long run doesn't help tenants, landlords or the state.

thank christ I got out

DownByTheGarden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025905#Comment_120025905

I like your ideas. I used to think maybe something like that was possible, but in the end it will never happen., Im out too. At this point tax any landlord left in the market cant blame anyone for whats about to befall them in the next few years. If they are not out of the game now, they really only have themselves to blame at this point. Just watch what is about to happen with evictions bans. The constant legislation changes will seem very tame compared to whats coming in the next year.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120039981#Comment_120039981

It not that easy often to get out. If you are elderly and sell you are caught by CGT if you have the house a substantially long time. Then at your death the money could be taxed again or if you had a few children the value of the house might not be taxed at all

Even simple things one of the properties I have is in a farm yard. It's not possible to sell by itself. The option in these cases is to leave the property empty however government will tax that after a while as well.

DownByTheGarden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043439#Comment_120043439

For the farm yard one apply for planning to Airbnb it and see what happens. Maybe talk to a financial advisor about your own situation. If its not easy to exit already then I dont believe its going to get any easier as time passes.

ingo1984

Latest figures released today state that homelessness figures and those in emergency accommodation rose for the 5th month in a row to a new record high, that despite the introduction of the eviction moratorium.

If current trend continues over the coming months it's hard not to see the moratorium being extended.

DubCount

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074531#Comment_120074531

The only way to reduce homelessness is more housing supply. The eviction ban does not add to housing supply (in fact it may take some supply out of the system with an incentive to leave property vacant), so it doesn't solve the problem. Sadly though, I think the ban will be extended - even if its not actually helping.

SwimClub

What they need to do is make it more attractive for rental units to stay in:

• A cap of three months on non-payment of rent either by enforcing evictions or a government guarantee scheme to pay the rent if they want to house people for free at that point. Private landlords should not be providing free housing for the government, enforced through intentional government incompetence and delays in evicting non-paying tenants. It's daylight robbery by the state on private landlords.
• A clause in the RPZ where the rent can be increased by more than the 2% cap if the rent is much less than market rent, e.g. a max 4% increase becomes allowable in those cases until rent hits 95% of market value. There should be some mechanism for this where a landlord over the period of their investment can get the rent back in line with market rent, without having unreasonable sudden rises for tenants.
• An option to reset the rent between tenants to 95% of market rent - this means rent can be kept low for good tenants to keep them long term without having to worry about the low rent decimating the property value.
• Getting market rents down is a matter of supply, the rent controls don't work, they are reducing supply (and therefore increasing market rent on new lettings and lettings taken off the market or refurbed before being relisted at high market rent).
• Reduced income tax in return for committing to a longer term lease where you agree not to sell or transfer tenancy to a family member etc. for the duration of that lease (not indefinitely as this will scare small landlords out of the market).

The government is pocketing 52% of profits from small landlords, they can use some of that (by not collecting it) to secure longer term leases for tenants.

Trying to take what isn't yours, instead of negotiating, is never going to end well.

Instead of trying to steal people's property rights off of them you treat them fairly to get the rental unit supply that is much needed.

herbalplants

What they need to do is build blocks with small units where single people can have their own door, not sharing and their utilities in common areas for washing facilities,cooking area, tv lounge area, even some storage.

They should go by small units, bedroom /small bathroom.

These units should be rented at very reasonable price. (approx 600 /month) in Dublin.

State should be able to build them.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120023262#Comment_120023262

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120023757#Comment_120023757

Your capital improvement will go against your cost basis for the purposes of CGT so it is accurate to say that it is not allowable for tax purposes. It might not be allowed as an expense against income but that is fully consistent as it is not an expense.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076555#Comment_120076555

In any other business area capital improvements are deprecated over a number of years againt incomes received as I pointet out in the second post you quoted. You did not need to repeat what I already pointed out.

You are blathering again about a business you do not understand and are letting personal petty hatred get in the way of rational analysis

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074904#Comment_120074904

A better solution to immediately end all rent supplements and HAP etc going to private property. There will still be the same number of houses and the same number of tenants and the tenants will be able to pay something, so let the market find it's actual level rather than being propped up by the State. You wouldn't need rent caps then!

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076602#Comment_120076602

How many years can you depreciate land over if you are a regular private individual farmer and decide to expand and buy the field across the hedge? That is a capital improvement as much as putting on an extension is

You are some man for rambling and ranting Bass. I'll give you that. You don't like being corrected though

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076618#Comment_120076618

You cannot deprecate land similar to a house. But as I explained you can deprecate IMPROVEMENTS which we were talking about. As well farm sheds can be totally deprecated over eight year.

You are waffling and blathering again.

jo187

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119994846#Comment_119994846

Yes people haven't been waiting on the housing list for years. It's really that easy.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076656#Comment_120076656

It is the same principle Bass. The reason you cannot depreciate land is because it is a capital asset which you own. The same as you owning a house. It is your asset. It exists apart from any trade or business activity. (Someone else living in your house is not a trade or business activity. It would be different argument if you were running a hotel for example)

It is consistent. And I am only highlighting it. Residential property is not unique, despite what you read on here.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076690#Comment_120076690

I am not on about deprecating the first day value of a house but of what are considered improvement by revenue. IMPROVEMENTS, remember that IMPROVEMENTS. Do I have to repeat it again IMPROVEMENTS just like any other business.

I can deprecate land improvement, business's can deprecate IMPROVEMENTS to business premises and warehouses ( even complete warehouses) but you cannot deprecate some maintenance that is considered IMPROVEMENTS or many upgrades you carry out on houses that you rent

IMPROVEMENTS is what I am talking about deprecating just like any other business.

So stop blathering and waffling and going off at a tangent as you usually do.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076736#Comment_120076736

The reason you cannot do what you want to do is that it would be a loophole for easy tax avoidance.

Doing reclamation or drainage for land is connected with a trade or activity, which I alluded to above. Building an extension onto a private residence is not.

Not all capital expenditure for business is necessarily appreciable against the business tax either.

There is no inconsistency. There is just a line drawn and you don't like where it was drawn.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076807#Comment_120076807

There is huge inconsistencies but waffle on. Tax avoidance is legal if you do anything incorrect it's evasion. If you incorrectly show an invoice it's evasion.

Nobody is talking about building an extension onto a private house. It's a business premises

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076858#Comment_120076858

I never said it would be illegal Bass. I said it would be an easy loophole for tax avoidance.

As I am sure you are well aware, you can offset your paper loses (for example on your farm) against your other tax. If I am a high earner on 500k+ up in the IFSC for example, well why not take advantage of the "Bass loophole"? I can buy a wreck of a cottage somewhere for very little, and build a fabulous house on top of it. I mean I can rent it out all the time or leave it vacant some of the time or whatever. Either way I'll probably be making a paper loss on it given I can now depreciate the capital "improvements". I'll keep repeating the trick over and over again and I'll eventually have a few houses with a cost basis of zero. But I'll have paid no tax on the rental income at least and eliminated a lot of my own personal income tax. I can sell the houses and pay whatever the CGT tax rate is (almost certainly lower than my marginal rate would have been), or maybe leave them to my kids.

The people who make the rules do so for a reason. I am sure there are also other reasons that I can't think of off the top of my head, but there is one at least.

And again, a private residence is not a business. If you want to go back to the land analogy, I am sure you are aware that you can set up a company to buy land in order to save a lot of tax. But if you do that then the company will own the land and not you. You own the company but the company owns the land. So I'd expect you to be aware of the distinction between a person (or sole trader) owning something, and a company owning something. If the company is eventually liquidated, then the money from selling the land is just income for the company for that year and will be taxed accordingly.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076918#Comment_120076918

You are gone off again at a tangent taking a discussion in a different direction with waffle and blathering

I advocated nothing of which you are waffling about on this post.

Again typical of DT deflect into a different area. Blather on about something that was not bought up in the debate

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076945#Comment_120076945

I am simply trying to explain to you what the difference is and why they do not allow what you want. You are accusing me of blathering yet I am the one who understands why they have the rules they have.

If you are allowed to write off any capital expenditure to a private residence (not even getting into someone putting an extension on their own house and getting in a lodger so they can create a paper loss) then my scenario above would be able to take advantage of that whether you advocate for it or not. When rules are made, they apply to everyone. And can have consequences you didn't foresee. If you don't like the example of the IFSC man, then consider the landlord who already has multiple properties who doesn't like paying the top marginal rate of income tax. He could do the same trick.

(I mistyped evasion rather than avoidance but corrected it before your post but you had already quoted it....it is late, but I used avoidance in the original post anyway so there should be no confusion)

While there is a waiting period for social housing the reward is worth it at the end.

Most don't own a home until their 30s now, the majority are joining the social housing lists between the ages of 16 and 18 so the time frames between social and ownership are comparable.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074989#Comment_120074989

What you're describing sounds very similar to the layout of many purpose built student accommodation units which already rent for more than double your suggested €600 per month.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074989#Comment_120074989

UK HMOs basically.

There is a definite need for a replacement product for bedsits. This is effectively it; and they are starting to appear here despite no specific rules for them - large, unextended houses in housing estates near me are being bought and having the max exempted development extension put on.

Specific example nearest me was a 5 bed, and is now in 9 units - multiple reception rooms (one was a converted garage already) and the original kitchen all converted to units; new kitchen in the extension.

The porch has a wall of washers/dryers which you can see if passing when the door is open!

SwimClub

So the latest is the taoiseach is linking the lifting of the eviction ban to homeless numbers:

https://extra.ie/2023/01/13/news/leo-varadkar-eviction-ban

Investors in property in this country are blocked from selling if Irish homeless numbers are 'too high', where the government picks the relevant limit, we seem to be at it with 11,000 out of 5 million.

What does this mean for investment in Irish property going forward, surely it's a new deterrent to investing here?

And shouldn't the government be responsible for homeless numbers rather than private investors?

DownByTheGarden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103107#Comment_120103107

Any investor not out now, may never be able to get out. That was my reason to stop waiting for things to get better and just sell up. Imagine having an investment property that you cant sell when it is no longer a good investment. There is no good to be had from owning a rental property in Ireland. In fact the way it is now it is you investing your money on behalf of the government and working for the government in a crap job that you are not allowed to resign from.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103318#Comment_120103318

But that just isn't sustainable long term. We need rentals unless we are embracing communism.

We need small landlords too for short term supply, there is huge demand for that, there are issues when people want to rent long term and get long term supply and there is only short term supply. That is a huge issue and security of tenure. But there is also huge demand for short term supply (students, people starting out, moving here renting initially etc.) and you don't want people taking up long term units. Also small local landlords will provide rentals in places neither the government nor institutional investors are going to. Does everyone have to move to Dublin to rent? That's a great solution.