Any definite answer on whether NPPR fee is tax deductible?

That last paragraph on page one is very waffely. Think revenue are unsure themselves. Remember they did back track on term life insurance a few years ago. Keep your receipts. And ask them in writing if it's deductable yourself.

Thanks for the letter T McG, first concrete letter from revenue on this, I'm going to study it very carefully for loopholes.
 
Whilst it may be the opinion of that tax official that NPPR is not tax deductible any sensible person -and that includes experts such as the Irish Tax Institution to whom the offical's letter is addressed -would regard NPPR as a cost that is deductible.
He is quoting an Act made before the NPPR came into being and I have yet to see any official Revenue advice stating it is not deductible.

I agree with Bronte that Revenue are not certain, but I'm not sure that i'd ask Revenue.
I -along with friends of mine all deduct the cost - and will continue to do so unless there is official advice made to the public that it is not allowable.

Anyway - what's the worst that Revenue will do if they audit you and you have claimed NPPR ? If you have done your accounts honestly and in sincere belief that a cost should be deductible - as I sincerely believe NPPR should be - then at worst they'll disallow it.

I don't say this for the few euro saving but from a strong belief that it is mischievous of Revenue not to allow this due to some literal translation of the Act rather than what is clearly the intention - i.e. that rates are deductible.
However, at my age and with my finances I have no inclination to pick a fight with them . I'll just keeping deducting.
 
Further to my rant....
..the tax official promised in his letter to the tax institute last October that he will soon issue a tax briefing on this matter.

Eight months later and no tax briefing .
 
Bronte said:
That last paragraph on page one is very waffely. Think revenue are unsure themselves. Remember they did back track on term life insurance a few years ago. Keep your receipts. And ask them in writing if it's deductable yourself.

Thanks for the letter T McG, first concrete letter from revenue on this, I'm going to study it very carefully for loopholes.
Click to expand...

I personally don't see it as waffly, nor do I see a loophole!

S.97 says that a rate levied by a local authority is deductible. The NPPR, whilst it is collected by the local authority, is in fact levied under the Tax legislation, therefore is not a rate and not deductible. It seems a fairly straightforward position.

I'm not saying it's right or fair, just that it doesn't appear to be deductible as the legislation stands, and a concession is unlikely to be forthcoming given the state of the govt finances.
 
mandelbrot said:
I personally don't see it as waffly, nor do I see a loophole!
Click to expand...

I only made a cursory reading of the letter yesterday but have had a closer examination last night. The letter is designed as are most civil servant letters to not actually state what the real situation is as the civil servant in question, SW, does not actually know, even though he is probably quite senior. The giveaway is in the last paragraph of page one. 'without forming an opinion'. What he means is that only a court can decide the law on whether the NPPR is a rate or not. He's playing around with words in relation to how or what is 'levying' the charge. When is a charge, cost, bill, a rate?
Tax briefings are only an interpretation of revenue's stance, as is that letter. Those interpretations can and do change over time. They can be wrong.
The Irish Taxation Institute has written to clarify the matter. They seem to have had 2 arguments
1. That is should be allowed under section 97 (1) of the 1997 Act and
2. Somehow it should be allowed outside of the legislation
Tax Institute should write back and ask what is a 'rate' exactly. And what is the difference between the 'charge being 'administered ' and being 'levied' by the local authority. If they do it will drive revenue nuts. They don't like to be specific, especially when on shaky ground.

The above is only my conjecture and opinion. No doubt the tax institute have the very best revenue lawyers working on it, whereas this poster is a mere blogger.

Plus it's fundamentally unfair that a charge is not deducatable. It's a cost to doing business. And that's all it is and so should be deductable. Would be interesting to know does the money collected go into the same account in the local authorities as rates, and presumable spent in the same way.
 
Quite right Bronte. They are confused themselves.

As a honest and conscientous tax payer I refer to the Revenue's own guide (IT70) which clearly states under the section " what expenses can be claimed"...
"rates or levies payable on the property".

I am doing exactly what Revenue has stated in their guide to the public and not in some letter between a taxman and accountancy company.
I know Revenue say their guides are not legal interpretations etc etc - they do that on nearly everything.
It's really quite reasonable for all of us to depend on what Revenue make available to the public and that's what I'm doing.

So, RMCF , deduct NPPR !
 
Bronte said:
I only made a cursory reading of the letter yesterday but have had a closer examination last night. The letter is designed as are most civil servant letters to not actually state what the real situation is as the civil servant in question, SW, does not actually know, even though he is probably quite senior. The giveaway is in the last paragraph of page one. 'without forming an opinion'. What he means is that only a court can decide the law on whether the NPPR is a rate or not. He's playing around with words in relation to how or what is 'levying' the charge. When is a charge, cost, bill, a rate?
Tax briefings are only an interpretation of revenue's stance, as is that letter. Those interpretations can and do change over time. They can be wrong.
The Irish Taxation Institute has written to clarify the matter. They seem to have had 2 arguments
1. That is should be allowed under section 97 (1) of the 1997 Act and
2. Somehow it should be allowed outside of the legislation
Tax Institute should write back and ask what is a 'rate' exactly. And what is the difference between the 'charge being 'administered ' and being 'levied' by the local authority. If they do it will drive revenue nuts. They don't like to be specific, especially when on shaky ground.

The above is only my conjecture and opinion. No doubt the tax institute have the very best revenue lawyers working on it, whereas this poster is a mere blogger.

Plus it's fundamentally unfair that a charge is not deducatable. It's a cost to doing business. And that's all it is and so should be deductable. Would be interesting to know does the money collected go into the same account in the local authorities as rates, and presumable spent in the same way.
Click to expand...

I think you've completely missed the point of that "waffly" paragraph.

The point is that the Inspector doesn't NEED to form an opinion on whether or not the NPPR charge is or is not a rate, because only a rate LEVIED BY a local authority is deductible under S.97.

The NPPR (whether it is a rate or otherwise) is not a charge levied by the local authority, it is a charge that arises under a specific piece of legislation (I don't actually know what Act, but it's irrelevant in this context). Collection of the charge has been delegated to the individual local authorities, but they are not the ones who are levying it on the property owner, therefore they are administering it. This is why he is able to form an opinion on that aspect, without needing (or as you may be correct in pointing out, without being allowed) to form an opinion as to whether or not the NPPR is legally a "rate".

Bronte said:
I only made a cursory reading of the letter yesterday but have had a closer examination last night. The letter is designed as are most civil servant letters to not actually state what the real situation is as the civil servant in question, SW, does not actually know, even though he is probably quite senior.
Click to expand...

The letter is exactly as specific as it needs to be; it identifies the relevant Section in the Tax Acts, assesses whether or not the NPPR falls within the classification necessary to be a deduction, and gives a clearly stated decision. It is indeed most likely written by one of the most senior Revenue officials, who knows exactly what "the real situation is". And that situation is that a strict interpretation of S.97 does not allow the NPPR to be a deduction in computing a rental profit or loss.
 
yes, mandelbrot, the taxman's letter was quite clear but it does not mean he is right.

He believes that because the 1997 Act mentions " any rate levied by a local authority" then this must mean a rate levied by the national authority ( NPPR ) is NOT allowable.
I'd argue this is patent nonsense. There was no national rate(nppr) in 1997 - not for ten years, so obviously it could not be mentioned in the Act.
However, I (as well as the experts in the Irish tax ation Institution) may be wrong .

Where I am not wrong is that Revenue specifically state in their detailed guide that allowable expenses include " RATES AND LEVIES" -no mention of local or national.

Furthermore, when it comes to the section "what expenses can NOT be claimed for" there is no mention of NPPR.
Surely, any reasonable person with a NPR could deduce that Revenue IS allowing the charge to be tax-deductible.
 
My accountant has told me that it is not deductible but after reading this I think I will argue with him about that this year. has anyone had accounts done by an accountant who has included the nppr as an allowable expense?
 
My accountant has also told me that it is n't tax deductible but that this is currently being challenged... by exactly who, I don't know.
 
oldnick said:
He believes that because the 1997 Act mentions " any rate levied by a local authority" then this must mean a rate levied by the national authority ( NPPR ) is NOT allowable.
I'd argue this is patent nonsense. There was no national rate(nppr) in 1997 - not for ten years, so obviously it could not be mentioned in the Act.
However, I (as well as the experts in the Irish tax ation Institution) may be wrong .
Click to expand...

This is a self defeating argument; it confirms that the wording of the 1997 Act needs to be changed if it is Government's intention that the NPPR is to be tax deductible. If you read the two letters linked in post 2 you will see that this exactly what the ITI meant when they asked for the concessional treatment to allow deductibility pending the necessary change in legislation.

oldnick said:
Where I am not wrong is that Revenue specifically state in their detailed guide that allowable expenses include " RATES AND LEVIES" -no mention of local or national.
Click to expand...

You're dead right that that's what it says, but that doesn't mean it's right, any more so than a letter by a high ranking official! The reason IT70 doesn't mention local or national is because there is no such thing as a national rate. It is only being called a rate on here. As far as the legislation ([broken link removed]) is concerned, it is a charge on particular properties, the word rate isn't mentioned (if it was intended by the legislators to be considered a rate, one would imagine it would be referred to as such in the legislation...).

From a very preliminary bit of reading around the area it appears to me, that the charge is indeed quite unlike a rate as levied by the local authorities (where the amount to be charged is determined under different legislation). In fact it would appear that a fundamental characteristic of a rate is the fact that the amount charged to individual property owners is determined by the rating authority (which is a local authority), and is a proportion of the total amount intended to be raised by the levying of the rates, which will vary from property to property, rather than a flat amount.

I'm no expert in the area of rates, but maybe you (or someone else on here!) could explain to me how you feel the NPPR does equate to a rate?

oldnick said:
Furthermore, when it comes to the section "what expenses can NOT be claimed for" there is no mention of NPPR.
Surely, any reasonable person with a NPPR could deduce that Revenue IS allowing the charge to be tax-deductible.
Click to expand...

Again, IT70 is only a guide; the legislation ultimately is all that matters. I think you're clutching at straws here - if you claimed the cost of your holiday to Las Vegas, and were subsequently audited, I hardly think "IT70 didn't say I couldn't" is going to get you off the hook for a hefty penalty...

Obviously that's a bit of an extreme example, and I'd expect that in the absence of very well publicised information being disseminated to instruct taxpayers, that people won't be penalised.

(Or who knows, maybe a concession will be forthcoming!)
 
Last edited:
One example that I can think of where revenue changed the way they 'interpret' what is or is not deductable is mortgage term life insurance. For many years it was not allowed and hey presto one day it was. Nearly sure this probably applies to what is or is not capital expenditure as well. Revenue can be 'persuaded' to change the way they interpret things.

My accountant tells me it's not deductable, but that would be based on revenue rules and briefings so I go along with that for now. But I'm thinking of challenging it before 2012 (4 years after it began, due their their 4 year rule), hoping meantime that the tax institute/accountants will manage to persuade revenue to change the interpretation.
 
Bronte said:
One example that I can think of where revenue changed the way they 'interpret' what is or is not deductable is mortgage term life insurance. For many years it was not allowed and hey presto one day it was. Nearly sure this probably applies to what is or is not capital expenditure as well. Revenue can be 'persuaded' to change the way they interpret things.

My accountant tells me it's not deductable, but that would be based on revenue rules and briefings so I go along with that for now. But I'm thinking of challenging it before 2012 (4 years after it began, due their their 4 year rule), hoping meantime that the tax institute/accountants will manage to persuade revenue to change the interpretation.
Click to expand...

That is a much better argument Bronte: there is a logical argument as to how those premiums can be fit into the meaning of 'the cost of ...management of the premises borne by the person chargeable and relating to and constituting an expense of the transaction or transactions under which the rents or receipts were received, not being an expense of a capital nature'.

In fact if it were me, this is the basis I would argue under- that the NPPR is part of the cost of management of the premises, because as I outlined in my earlier posts it is pretty clearly neither 1) a rate, nor 2) levied by the local authority.

Even at that, it would seem to me that it requires more of a concession from Revenue to allow it, than the example you gave. This is because the NPPR is levied equally on people who aren't letting their NPPRs; it isn't wholly or exclusively incurred, you'd still owe it even if you never let the property (although this is also true of the mortgage protection so I think I'm waffling now!).

The bottom line is though Bronte, and we may agree on this, in order for the NPPR to be deductible either Revenue need to make a concession, as in your example with the mortgage protection, OR the legislation needs to be changed, because as the legislation stands the charge isn't deductible...

So landlords need to get organised and get lobbying...!
 
mandelbrot said:
it is pretty clearly (not) levied by the local authority.
Click to expand...

This might be true in theory but certainly not in practice. Some local authorities are very busy at the moment sending demands to property owners for NPPR fee arrears and penalty fines. If this doesn't fall within the scope of 'levying', I don't know what does.

mandelbrot said:
Even at that, it would seem to me that it requires more of a concession from Revenue to allow it, than the example you gave. This is because the NPPR is levied equally on people who aren't letting their NPPRs; it isn't wholly or exclusively incurred, you'd still owe it even if you never let the property (although this is also true of the mortgage protection so I think I'm waffling now!).
Click to expand...
This logic doesn't hold water. Buildings insurance is an allowable deduction but is pretty much essential for the owner to have regardless of whether the property is let, otherwise occupied or vacant.
 
Look - the whole point of this thread is to answer the question is NPPR a deductible expense.

I believe ,along with the Instititue of Taxation and many posters, that it should be.

I feel that I and other posters have raised reasonable points as to why it should be.

I believe that Revenue have in no way made their position clear to landlords, and ,indeed, their own advisory guides can reasonably be interpreted to mean NPPR is included.
Yes, Revenue may have a legal case for excluding NPPR as an expense based on a few words amongst a very long detailed law (though there is an argument to be made on literal intepretation of a law versus the true meaning or intent).

But until Revenue make matters clear to the public I am convinced that when i do include NPPR that the worst that wll happen (in the case of an audit)is that they will disallow it; nothing more.
When -if - that happens then I will appeal it as far as I can go.

In the meantime I keep quiet and just include it.

P.S. This argument is nothing compared to what will happen when NPPR becomes a property tax that may mean a thousand euros or more per property.
 
T McGibney said:
This might be true in theory but certainly not in practice. Some local authorities are very busy at the moment sending demands to property owners for NPPR fee arrears and penalty fines. If this doesn't fall within the scope of 'levying', I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

My understanding of "levy" in this context is the imposition of a charge. AFAIK both the charge and the penalties are given rise to under the Act (linked already above).

T McGibney said:
This logic doesn't hold water. Buildings insurance is an allowable deduction but is pretty much essential for the owner to have regardless of whether the property is let, otherwise occupied or vacant.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're dead right, even I talked myself around on that one!

But my point is that Revenue may be talked into accepting the proposition that the NPPR charge should be deductible, in line with other charges that are required as part of ownership of the property, but not on the basis that it is a rate levied by a local authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top