Purchase of Investment Property, never informed Revenue

L

losttheplot

Registered User
Messages
600
In 2013 I purchased an investment property. Reading the thread on declaring the purchase of your PPR on form 11 has made me realise I never noted the purchase of this property on my 2013 tax return.

All rental income has been declared for the property and it appears on ROS under the LPT.

Can I amend my 2013 tax return include it?
 
Doesn't sound like a mega issue, I'd send revenue an email and ask them whether you need to amend the 2013 return.
 
Thanks for the replies. I'm tempted to leave things as they are, but the house would qualify for CGT exemption for a number of years (first 7 years or something, can't remember the exact details but it was in a previous budget). I'm guessing having it on the form with the purchase price would make it easier if the house is sold.

I think I'll drop them a mail anyway.
 
If you paid stamp duty on the purchase and you're the purchaser named, then that's clear evidence of the purchase, which Revenue already have.
 
what harm could it do? I would certainly email them to put your mind at ease.
 
not even an increase, let alone an exponential increase in such a likelihood. the revenue use a risk-based approach to selecting audit samples and they probably wouldn't include in that sample those who have a straightforward transparent profile.
 
jim said:
not even an increase, let alone an exponential increase in such a likelihood. the revenue use a risk-based approach to selecting audit samples and they probably wouldn't include in that sample those who have a straightforward transparent profile.
Click to expand...

If you say so. I would be more circumspect, as I've seen people entangle themselves in endless knots over perfectly innocent but wholly unnecessary interactions with Revenue, but I'm not asking you agree with me.
 
Last edited:
jim said:
what harm could it do? I would certainly email them to put your mind at ease.
Click to expand...

Tommy and I are ad idem on this one.

A wholly unnecessary "mea culpa" interaction such as this would increase the chances of a Revenue audit. That was the basis for my advice.
 
The message is loud and clear. The OP should do nothing. There is at least two accountants and one other expert who have told him so.

Code of practics for correcting tax returns

As an aside, I received in the post in the last week a very nice letter from revenue with a brochure attached on 'reviewing and correcting your Tax Returns'. I was surprised because the wording is very polite and not at all threatening and I'd just like to point out what an improvement in tone I find that. Chap by the name of Michael Walsh sent it out.

That change of tone is much more customer orientated than previously. Personally I think they should change more of their letters which would scare the life out of many people.
 
Well now I know who you are, thanks to Burgess mentioning it the other day I was referring to you in that post as the 'expert' but I didn't want to mention where I think you work. Welcome back. BTW you saw I was correct on NPPR ! Despite not being an expert myself. We had many arguments about that you and I.
 
Probably a case of agreeing to disagree on this one.

There is no evidence that there would be an increase in the likelihood of the OP being audited in fact there would more chance that he wouldn't be audited due to him being transparent and up front with the revenue. He his demonstrating that he has nothing to hide which is apparently the case. If I was him I would contact the revenue for own peace of mind. To not do so, due to an unfounded suspicion of being selected for an audit, is not the right thing to do here and is misguided in my opinion.
 
Bronte said:
Well now I know who you are, thanks to Burgess mentioning it the other day I was referring to you in that post as the 'expert' but I didn't want to mention where I think you work. Welcome back. BTW you saw I was correct on NPPR ! Despite not being an expert myself. We had many arguments about that you and I.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You're correct for now, but it's going onward to the court of appeal, so you mightn't remain correct...! :D
 
jim said:
Probably a case of agreeing to disagree on this one.

There is no evidence that there would be an increase in the likelihood of the OP being audited in fact there would more chance that he wouldn't be audited due to him being transparent and up front with the revenue. He his demonstrating that he has nothing to hide which is apparently the case. If I was him I would contact the revenue for own peace of mind. To not do so, due to an unfounded suspicion of being selected for an audit, is not the right thing to do here and is misguided in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course there is no evidence, as I and others are precluded from divulging the confidential particulars of cases we've encountered in our professional careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top