NPPR tax: Time divided between owned property & rented property. How PPR determined?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Ursus

Registered User
Messages
20
Hello

Regarding the NPPR tax, if you own a property and divide your time between that property and a rented property, are you expected to be able to PROVE that the owned property is your PPR?

What constitutes proof in this case? Would a bank statement for example constitute proof or would it have to be something stronger like a utility bill or your PPS Number address?

Or does it depend on whose name is on the direct debit for the rented property?

Or indeed the division of occupancy TIME between both properties?
 
the legislation states that you are exempt from NPPR if the property is your "sole or MAIN property" (my bold letters).

- it should not therefore matter that your name is also on the rented property. Lots of people rent a temporary or part-time place in Dublin and don't pay NPPR on their owned property outside the city.

I'm assuming you're not renting out your owned property -that'll make it more difficult to convince anyone it's your main property.

Anyway, whose asking you to prove anything ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks oldnick. I may be putting too much emphasis on actually being expected to live in one's main property and not a rented property, and at some stage down the road having to prove to Local Authority that it is and always has been one's principal residence. Far as I know the bill keeps rolling over every month for years...
 
I've yet to see any sort of formula by which local authorities determine what is your P.R.

If some official in a few years determines that your own property is not your P.Res you could end up paying a few grand in cumulative fines. So your worries are well-founded.

On the one hand you could pay the 200 p.a. and avoid the worry; most people would.
However, if your utility bills and perhaps other key mail(banks etc) are sent to your own property then you should be O.K.
But if you rent out your own property,regardless as to whether it gets your mail then you're probably screwed. And if you are working full-time in ABC then it may be difficult to prove that your own property in XYZ is your main residence.
 
No, the property that's registered in my name is not rented as such. My mother continues to reside there but I don't charge her rent or anything like that. However she insists on paying the ESB and her phone bills and these utility bills come addressed to her not me. Also, the house I myself am renting is well over 2 KM away, more like 24KM away!
I have old bank statements going back pre 2009, but no really major things like P60s or utility bills with the owned house address. The error I've made is assuming that this tax was only for people who are registered owners of two or more houses, which would exclude me. Going back to 2009 my bill + charges would now be €1300 I'm told!
 
I've read and re-read the relevent legislation and confess I don't know the answer but i wonder if anyone does.

If you stick to the line that you use the rented place for a couple of nights a week -in case of the odd late night at work - then your owned property is your main residence. I see nothing contradicatory in your mum sharing the house and insisting she pays some utility bills, nor in private correspondence like bank statements going to your rented place to avoid prying maternal eyes.

Therefore your owned home is still your PPR. But.....

..does this mean that the rented place , even if only used for a couple of days a week, is another residence on which you pay NPPR ? I can't imagine it is - but if you are claiming rent against tax then this weakens your case.

In any event you must stick to the fact that ,even if things are changing now, you hardly used the rented place and therefore owe nothing from the past. That's what you mean to say ,isn't it ?
 
My argument would be that the owned property was and always has been my own PPR but was not suitable as a house for a family, ie, too small, too isolated etc.

At end of day I suppose it may come down to the arguments put up by Local Authority as to why an owner should pay this tax and how those arguments are countered by the owner. But I do think you're spot on when you say that if property is rented the owner's case is very weak.

Thanks again oldnick.
 
I think the best thing to do is ask the local authority for a ruling, and do your arguing now.
This will guard against arrears accruing.

I did this for a different reason (uninhabitable property) and have an email from the council saying it is not liable. I offered for them to come out and inspect but they said it wasn't necessary.
 
Ursus said:
My argument would be that the owned property was and always has been my own PPR but was not suitable as a house for a family, ie, too small, too isolated etc.

At end of day I suppose it may come down to the arguments put up by Local Authority as to why an owner should pay this tax and how those arguments are countered by the owner. But I do think you're spot on when you say that if property is rented the owner's case is very weak.

Thanks again oldnick.
Click to expand...

Sorry, just want to clarify something here. in your post above you refer to a family home, so are you saying you have a wife and/or children who reside at the rented house?

If so, then arguably that house would have to be regarded as the PPR, particularly considering that with the fact that your official correspondence goes to that address...
 
callybags said:
I think the best thing to do is ask the local authority for a ruling, and do your arguing now.
This will guard against arrears accruing.

I did this for a different reason (uninhabitable property) and have an email from the council saying it is not liable. I offered for them to come out and inspect but they said it wasn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Was thinking of doing the very thing. Clear up the confusion now. Will do that this week if possible and post how I got on.

Thanks to everyone for taking time to reply.
 
The OP needs to pay the NPPR, the house is not their primary residence. Rather than attracting the fine for the sake of €200 s/he should pay the fee and then query it but from what I've read they don't have a case for saying it's their main residence.
 
Ok on topic dereko -my question and I genuinely am baffled- is....


What actually determines whether one has two properties ?

If someone stays in a rented apt for 2/3 days a week is he/she still considered to have two properties,one of which (whether the owned property or the rented one) incurs the NPPR charge ?
Is it the fact that ones pays for the rental full-time whether he/she uses it only occassionally?
What about him renting weekdays in a city and returning to his rural home for weekends - does he/she have two residences ?
If one is sent away for a six-month period from one's home to another place is there NPPR charge?

Obviously, I'm assuming that both properties are always available for the person's use i.e. not rented out.

I'm frankly not sure of any of this ,and I wonder if any council official is 100% certain.
 
Yes but the question you're asking is not the one that the OP is asking, she has not stated that she lives or spends any real time at all in the house that's registered in her name. Her mother lives there and pays the bills etc the OP lives somewhere else so therefore is liable for the NPPR.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc.....

Your query should really be in another thread.
 
oldnick said:
Ok on topic dereko -my question and I genuinely am baffled- is....


What actually determines whether one has two properties ?

If someone stays in a rented apt for 2/3 days a week is he/she still considered to have two properties,one of which (whether the owned property or the rented one) incurs the NPPR charge ? .
Click to expand...

What if you had 7 properties and spend one day a week in each. Or indeed 365 properties and one day in each.
 
As the answer to my question is germane to the OP's query I repeat, and perhaps clarify, my question....

What determines (in the eyes of the law) whether a person has , for the purpose of NPPR charges , two or more residential properties ?

If someone who fully understands the relevent legislation -which I confess I don't - perhaps they could explain whether
1) Is it the act of living in two seperate places that determines NPPR charges
2) or is it actually owning two residential properties.

I am veering towards the latter determination from my uneducated reading of the Act -the actual ownership/possession aspect is paramount. If I'm right then there is no NPPR charge for people renting away from their one and only owned property .
 
Further to my query what actually determines NPPR -is it ownership of two properties, or occupancy of one ,renting or otherwise, whilst owning another:-

Am since advised by really knowledgable source that my suspicion that ownership is a key factor is incorrect.

I withdraw question with apologies for trying to be a smarty-pants.
 
It's reasonably straightforward.

A person can only have one PPR at any given time.
The relevant date for 2011 is 31st March.

If it is established that a person owns(has a property registered in his/her name) that is not their PPR , then they are liable to the tax.

Therefore the only problem is to establish a person's PPR on 31st March, and take it from there.

If there is any doubt about a persons PPR, the people to establish the facts are the relevant local authority.

No amount of speculation here or elsewhere will change that.
 
oldnick said:
What determines (in the eyes of the law) whether a person has , for the purpose of NPPR charges , two or more residential properties ?

If someone who fully understands the relevent legislation -which I confess I don't - perhaps they could explain whether
1) Is it the act of living in two seperate places that determines NPPR charges
2) or is it actually owning two residential properties.
Click to expand...


Hi Nick,

Having (whether owning or renting) 2 or more properties is not really relevant.

NPPR is payable by a person who owns a house that they don't live in.

They could live abroad or with parents or in a rented house, it makes no difference. They could be a person who bought at the peak and lost their job and moved back with parents - they are liable to NPPR on the place they bought and now don't live in. Equally they could be a professional landlord with 50 properties who lives abroad - they are liable to 50 NPPRs.

In the case of a person who owns a house but lives in a different (rented) house closer to work, they are liable for the NPPR in the owned house. If time is split between the 2 houses equally then they could presumably choose which is PPR. If they are claiming rent relief or mortgage interest relief then that would clarify the situation.

Sybil
 
A couple own two properties each property is a summer trade bed & breakfast.
Insurance, business etc requires that each B&B is occupied by one of the owners.
Neither house is subject to rates but water charges apply to both houses.
Is either of these properties required to pay NPPR ?
 
Ursus said:
Hello

Regarding the NPPR tax, if you own a property and divide your time between that property and a rented property, are you expected to be able to PROVE that the owned property is your PPR?

What constitutes proof in this case? Would a bank statement for example constitute proof or would it have to be something stronger like a utility bill or your PPS Number address?

Or does it depend on whose name is on the direct debit for the rented property?

Or indeed the division of occupancy TIME between both properties?
Click to expand...

Council reply to my query say I am not liable for the NPPR charge. So that's that sorted. Thanks to all for contributions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top