# paying 2006 tax - was not registered with PRTB!



## plus one75 (18 Oct 2007)

Can anyone help me?. I rented a house out in 2006 for 6 months (was doing it up for the other 6 months) and didn't register with the PRTB (I now have! - I didn't even know it existed). Is there anyway that I can deduct the interest on mortgage at this stage?

Thanks


----------



## ClubMan (18 Oct 2007)

I don't think so but maybe get a professional opinion?


----------



## Stifster (18 Oct 2007)

from the PRTB website



> *7. Are landlords eligible for tax relief on interest paid on borrowing to purchase investment properties?*
> Landlords should be aware that the Finance Acts have been amended to explicitly provide that compliance with the registration provisions contained in the Residential Tenancies Act registration provisions is a condition of eligibility for mortgage interest relief on residential properties. It is a matter for individuals to satisfy themselves that they are in compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act. The PRTB will not routinely provide letters confirming exemption from the Act. The PRTB propose to supply the Revenue Commissioners with information on unregistered tenancies of which it becomes aware so that, as well as facing criminal prosecution, the landlords in question will lose any mortgage interest relief relating to the dwelling.
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## Trustmeh (19 Oct 2007)

Just register your tenancy in 2006 now - pointless i know but then you can feel covered. it will only cost you 140 euro to register late. cheaper then not claiming your interest back.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Oct 2007)

Can you do it retrospectively? And does this satisfy the _Revenue _requirements for registration and claiming tax relief?


----------



## z106 (19 Oct 2007)

yankinlk said:


> Just register your tenancy in 2006 now - pointless i know but then you can feel covered. it will only cost you 140 euro to register late. cheaper then not claiming your interest back.


 
Hmm - that's an interesting proposal actually.

WOuld be curious as to whether this is satisfactory.

If it is then it's a very simple way around the problem.


----------



## Trustmeh (20 Oct 2007)

This isnt the first post I have made on the PRTB and its connection with investors claiming interest relief.  I dont hide the fact that i dont agree with the requirement...however its here to stay - so might as well comply.

I dont think you will find anywhere on the PRTB's un-professionally designed website any mention of reporting Landlords for not registering old tenancies - however they do threaten to report lanlords that dont bother to register at all the assumption being that if they dont take RA and dont register PRTB they probably arent declaring tax either.


----------



## Skyscout (21 Oct 2007)

Know this guy who has 00's of properties. He got audited recently and was not registered with PRTB. Deducted mortgage int and revenue auditor said there was nothing he could do. But don't take just my word for it, get a professional opinion. In my own case I did register my tenancies and when I had a problem with one tenant moving half of Nigeria into the apartment and messing with the rent the PRTB were worse than useless. In fact 10 months later I managed to get the tenant out and the PRTB have still not got back to me with a hearing date.


----------



## Bronte (22 Oct 2007)

You can't register a tenancy that has ended with the PRTB.  

Based on my simply dealings with the PRTB I'd be amazed that such an incompetent organisation could inform the revenue of non registered landlords.


----------



## ubiquitous (22 Oct 2007)

Bronte said:


> You can't register a tenancy that has ended with the PRTB.



Not doubting you for a second, but I'm just wondering have you any evidence or legislative reference for this? Thanks


----------



## Bronte (22 Oct 2007)

I rang the PRTB to ask this question but they told me you can not register a tenancy that has ended.  Of course they could be incorrect and they were most unhelpful and downright rude.  I've not read the legislation so I have no definitive proof.  

Actually thinking about it the PRTB are inconsistent.  If you have a tenant in your property say from Jan 1 2007 and today you send off the form for late registeration and Nov 1 the tenant leaves, it takes 6 months for the PRTB to register you tenant, say March 2008 - they will be actually registering a tenancy that's ended.  Not sure what would happen if you sent in the new tenant registration on Nov 1, would it cross with the late registration tenancy etc.  What is amazing to me is that it takes 6 months to type about 6 lines (names & address & PRSI numbers) into an excel sheet.


----------



## ubiquitous (22 Oct 2007)

Bronte said:


> I rang the PRTB to ask this question but they told me you can not register a tenancy that has ended.



Thanks. Fwiw, I would be very reluctant to take such a statement at face value. It would be interesting to see if they could produce a legislative reference  to settle the issue once and for all.


----------



## webtax (22 Oct 2007)

Bronte said:


> You can't register a tenancy that has ended with the PRTB.



What about a situation where the tenant is still in place but you hadn't registered them in 2006? Can you register the tenant for last year retrospectively?

Your tax return requires you to declare that you are in compliance with the residential tenancies act, and would registering late mean that techically you are still meeting your requirerements?


----------



## Stifster (22 Oct 2007)

webtax said:


> What about a situation where the tenant is still in place but you hadn't registered them in 2006? Can you register the tenant for last year retrospectively?
> 
> Your tax return requires you to declare that you are in compliance with the residential tenancies act, and would registering late mean that techically you are still meeting your requirerements?


 
I would guardedly say that as long as you register within the time allowed then you are in compliance. For example if the tenancy started on the 24th of December 2006 and you registered on the 1st of January 2007 then technically you would not have been in compliance in 2006.

As many people have intimated they are sometimes helpful but mostly incompetent and the system just is not working.


----------



## webtax (22 Oct 2007)

was thinking more along the lines of a person about to submit a tax return for 2006 in the next few weeks (i.e. late registering for 2006 in Oct 07)


----------



## Stifster (22 Oct 2007)

webtax said:


> was thinking more along the lines of a person about to submit a tax return for 2006 in the next few weeks (i.e. late registering for 2006 in Oct 07)


 
The person may as well try and register the tenancy now, submit tax return and wait and see what the PRTB say. If you see where i am going.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Oct 2007)

I would be more inclined to suggest that they get professional advice on where they stand rather than just submitting a potentially flawed return/payment which could land them in hot water. Chancing one's arm or pleading ignorance will cut no ice with _Revenue _if there are mistakes.


----------



## Bronte (22 Oct 2007)

I've just had a quick look at the revenue site.  It says you have to register within one month, I can honestly say none of mine were registered within one month except the ones I did for 2004.  I wonder what percentage of registrations are late.  I now realise that some tenancies I registered in 2004 (deemed date of 1/9/2004) will be four years next year.  It seems I will have to register them again and pay another fee.


----------



## Stifster (22 Oct 2007)

Bronte said:


> I've just had a quick look at the revenue site. It says you have to register within one month, I can honestly say none of mine were registered within one month except the ones I did for 2004. I wonder what percentage of registrations are late. I now realise that some tenancies I registered in 2004 (deemed date of 1/9/2004) will be four years next year. It seems I will have to register them again and pay another fee.


 
Fee for what he asks rhetorically...

It's a bit ridiculous, because you are dependent on the tenants providing you with their details. We had a brief tenancy last year where the tenants never returned the PRTB form to us so it was never registered.

In addition the PRTB lets you register last for an increased fee. does the Revenue not deem that to be registration?


----------



## Howitzer (22 Oct 2007)

Stifster said:


> It's a bit ridiculous, because you are dependent on the tenants providing you with their details. We had a brief tenancy last year where the tenants never returned the PRTB form to us so it was never registered.


 
This is a terrible attitude. If I ran a company with this lack of comman sense I'd be out of business within a year. "Arrah shure I sent the bill to my clients but dey never replied, what could I do?".

It's a business. It's not a hobby. If your tenants don't return a form to you get down to the house and get it off them. It's YOUR responsibility. YOU'RE the one who'll end up in court. Would you show the same frivilous attitude if they didn't pay the rent?


----------



## ubiquitous (22 Oct 2007)

Howitzer said:


> It's a business. It's not a hobby. If your tenants don't return a form to you get down to the house and get it off them. It's YOUR responsibility. YOU'RE the one who'll end up in court. Would you show the same frivilous attitude if they didn't pay the rent?



What do you propose the landlord should do, if a tenant refuses to provide their PPS or to sign the form? Kick them out? Send round the local 'RA? I know of at least one case where a (decent & long-term) tenant has flatly refused to give their landlord their PPS on the basis of "privacy". Seeing as we don't officially live (as yet) in a police state, I would have thought that the tenant's wishes/fears should be respected.



Howitzer said:


> This is a terrible attitude. If I ran a company with this lack of common sense I'd be out of business within a year. "Arrah shure I sent the bill to my clients but dey never replied, what could I do?".


 
What if it was a case of "Arrah shure I asked the supplier to send me the bill but he never did, what could I do?"?.


----------



## Stifster (22 Oct 2007)

Howitzer said:


> This is a terrible attitude. If I ran a company with this lack of comman sense I'd be out of business within a year. "Arrah shure I sent the bill to my clients but dey never replied, what could I do?".
> 
> It's a business. It's not a hobby. If your tenants don't return a form to you get down to the house and get it off them. It's YOUR responsibility. YOU'RE the one who'll end up in court. Would you show the same frivilous attitude if they didn't pay the rent?


 
Dum de dum. 

I had to evict them for that and other reasons. 

I have the Act here in front of me and can't find any provision for registering without the tenants details. So what was I supposed to do in the event that they had stayed longer? go to court? what would that get me? I still wouldn't have been registered. I don't think you really get the point.

and there are two o's in common.

and This post will be deleted if not edited immediately if I don't talk with a silly bogger accent either.


----------



## Howitzer (22 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> What do you propose the landlord should do, if a tenant refuses to provide their PPS or to sign the form? Kick them out?


Yes. Protect yourself and your assets. You don't call round with the lease and looking for your deposit 2 months after the tenant has moved in, you do it before you give them the keys.



ubiquitous said:


> What if it was a case of "Arrah shure I asked the supplier to send me the bill but he never did, what could I do?"?.


?

It's pretty clear of what the legalities of non-compliance with the PRTB are. Having an "Array shure ..." attitude with regard to any aspect of running a business isn't what I would recommend as sound business practice. Others may disagree.


----------



## ubiquitous (22 Oct 2007)

Howitzer said:


> Yes. Protect yourself and your assets. You don't call round with the lease and looking for your deposit 2 months after the tenant has moved in, you do it before you give them the keys.


Okay, what do you do if, as happened in this particular case, the tenant had moved into the property a number of years before the Residential Tenancies Act, and the PRTB, existed?



Howitzer said:


> It's pretty clear of what the legalities of non-compliance with the PRTB are.


Yes...but are you 100% sure that the PRTB will reject an application to register where the landlord cannot obtain the tenant's PPS or where the tenant has no PPS (eg foreign national not in the workforce)? I wonder do the PRTB know themselves?



Howitzer said:


> Having an "Array shure ..." attitude with regard to any aspect of running a business isn't what I would recommend as sound business practice.



Dunno where you picked up that daft accent from, but neither is adopting a rigidly inflexible attitude to regulatory compliance, over and above that of doing all in one's power to comply with whatever regulations are in force.


----------



## Howitzer (22 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Okay, what do you do if, as happened in this particular case, the tenant had moved into the property a number of years before the Residential Tenancies Act, and the PRTB, existed?
> 
> Yes...but are you 100% sure that the PRTB will reject an application to register where the landlord cannot obtain the tenant's PPS or where the tenant has no PPS (eg foreign national not in the workforce)? I wonder do the PRTB know themselves?


Send in the form with a note attached stating tenant refused to give PPSN / privacy (I would imagine the PRTB would contact the tenant driectly over the privacy issue.) / didn't have one, and provide the rest of the tenants details. God knows what the PRTB will reply with and how long it will be but at least you then have a paper trail to show that you have made every attempt possible.


----------



## Stifster (22 Oct 2007)

Howitzer said:


> Send in the form with a note attached stating tenant refused to give PPSN / privacy (I would imagine the PRTB would contact the tenant driectly over the privacy issue.) / didn't have one, and provide the rest of the tenants details. God knows what the PRTB will reply with and how long it will be but at least you then have a paper trail to show that you have made every attempt possible.


 
You are still not registered.


----------



## Howitzer (22 Oct 2007)

Stifster said:


> You are still not registered.


But then you HAVE made every effort possible.

Think about it. 2 years down the line Revenue call you up and say you weren't able to claim mortgage interest for 6 months of 2007 because you the tenancy wasn't registered with the PRTB. You tell them you sent the form to the tenant but they never returned it ?! You might as well tell them the dog ate it.

Send the form to the PRTB with tenants contact details if they refuse to divulge their PPSN.

You do know the tenant can do the exact same thing with regard to claiming Rent Relief. They need the lanlords PPSN but if he refuses to give it to them they can just send the form in regardless with a note attached and the landlords contact details.

As Ubiquitous points out compliance isn't about sticking rigidly to unworkable regulations but making every effort possible.


----------



## ubiquitous (22 Oct 2007)

Howitzer said:


> Send in the form with a note attached stating tenant refused to give PPSN / privacy (I would imagine the PRTB would contact the tenant driectly over the privacy issue.) / didn't have one, and provide the rest of the tenants details. God knows what the PRTB will reply with and how long it will be but at least you then have a paper trail to show that you have made every attempt possible.



I think this is a good suggestion. The paper trail, even if left unprocessed by the PRTB, should protect the individual against any accusation of non-compliance. 

For what its worth, I can't help thinking that it was a big mistake by Brian Cowen to make interest deduction conditional on PRTB registration. The move sounded reasonable in theory but in practice it seems to be riddled with anomalies and pitfalls for the unwary. Anything that makes tax compliance more complicated or awkward for ordinary taxpayers has no place in any Budget or Finance Act.


----------



## webtax (22 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> For what its worth, I can't help thinking that it was a big mistake by Brian Cowen to make interest deduction conditional on PRTB registration. The move sounded reasonable in theory but in practice it seems to be riddled with anomalies and pitfalls for the unwary. Anything that makes tax compliance more complicated or awkward for ordinary taxpayers has no place in any Budget or Finance Act.



Especially since the penalties are so severe. Given its importance to landlords filing return this month it is extraordinary that there is no reference to the requirements of the finance act on the prtb homepage. 
While this is no excuse for non-compliance, more effort should be made to make property investors aware of this.


----------



## Trustmeh (22 Oct 2007)

Excellent. Delighted to see this thread growing legs. I don't think the PRTB will be around in 2 years time if/when you get audited on your tax return.  A useless organization with no teeth that is basically an obstacle to genuine respectable landlords running their business properly.  If I was a landlord with 00's of properties and the revenue tried to pull no PRTB no interest relief on me I would be hiring the best lawyer I could find and take it to the european courts.


Has anyone ever been to the PRTB offices? I picture two old ladies and one PC in a room the size of a closet.


----------



## Stifster (22 Oct 2007)

Howitzer said:


> But then you HAVE made every effort possible.
> 
> Think about it. 2 years down the line Revenue call you up and say you weren't able to claim mortgage interest for 6 months of 2007 because you the tenancy wasn't registered with the PRTB. You tell them you sent the form to the tenant but they never returned it ?! You might as well tell them the dog ate it.
> 
> ...


 
That's fair enough but then how long do you keep it up, how do you get rid of the tenants etc the original point was that _there is no provision dealing with non-compliance by the tenants_ which is perfectly valid and it leaves a landlord in limbo.


----------



## Stifster (22 Oct 2007)

yankinlk said:


> Excellent. Delighted to see this thread growing legs. I don't think the PRTB will be around in 2 years time if/when you get audited on your tax return. A useless organization with no teeth that is basically an obstacle to genuine respectable landlords running their business properly. If I was a landlord with 00's of properties and the revenue tried to pull no PRTB no interest relief on me I would be hiring the best lawyer I could find and take it to the european courts.
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever been to the PRTB offices? I picture two old ladies and one PC in a room the size of a closet.


 
They do have a public desk it appears, a tenant of a client of mine filed judicial review papers on them, then announced that he was off to hospita; and the dispute resolution hearing would have to be adjourned... I got that information from a very helpful staff member.


----------



## Bronte (23 Oct 2007)

I know from reading about it that you can register without the PRSI number of the tenant in exceptional circumstances, I believe asylum seekers don't have this number etc.  I also know that I registered tenancies circa January 2005 with just the PRSI number and name of the tenants and the tenants never signed the forms but they apparently are more strict now and send back the form if it's incomplete.  

But a more interesting point that has come up here in this discussion is if the landlord fills out the form but does not have a) tenant's signature or b) PRSI number and the the PRTB refuses to register the tenancy is the landlord complying with the revenue then.  It would be against natural justice for the revenue to not allow the interest deduction in these circumstances.   Have we found a loophole to the legislation? 

Best policy nowadays is to get the tenants to sign the PRTB form the day they sign the lease/rent the property.


----------



## plus one75 (23 Oct 2007)

according to the PRTB I am not entitled to register this property in retrospect so therefore cannot deduct the interest.. yikes- this is going to be one expensive lesson!!


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Oct 2007)

plus one75 said:


> according to the PRTB I am not entitled to register this property in retrospect so therefore cannot deduct the interest.. yikes- this is going to be one expensive lesson!!



Do they employ tax advisors? If so, that's news to me. If not, any tax "advice" from them should be treated with extreme suspicion.


----------



## plus one75 (23 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Do they employ tax advisors? If so, that's news to me. If not, any tax "advice" from them should be treated with extreme suspicion.



This morning I rang both the revenue and the PRTB.. between the gigs and the reels (I was transferred, put on hold, told to call back, asked about 15 times to repeat the question!) I was eventually told that the PRTB will not accept any registration in retrospect. The revenue then claimed that I could not deduct the interest!! Not too happy about any of the advice though so I think I might try get a third opinion!!!


----------



## webtax (23 Oct 2007)

try talking to your tax office and explain that you are registered now. worth a try especially seeing how much it would cost you and the inadequate info provided on this by the relevant bodies.

they might just tell you that's the  rules, but you have my sympathies especially when you consider the amount of landlords out there who make no tax returns at all.


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Oct 2007)

No matter what the PRTB or Revenue tell you, it doesn't ultimately matter because Revenue specifically disclaim responsibility for "advice" given by staff in the event of it being later found incorrect.


----------



## Trustmeh (23 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> No matter what the PRTB or Revenue tell you, it doesn't ultimately matter because Revenue specifically disclaim responsibility for "advice" given by staff in the event of it being later found incorrect.



Agree 100%. Can anyone offer the OP the name of a decent tax adviser...preferably one that has experience in this kind of thing.  You arent the first you wont be the last...i highly doubt the PRTB will exist in the same form within two years time.  

The problem is its not like you can ring up joe duffy to complain...you wont get any sympathy from the man on the street. Maybe one of the Sunday business shows on radio or the SBP would fight your corner.


----------



## webtax (24 Oct 2007)

only problem is that with a week to go the OP will have trouble finding a tax advisor and since this is the first year of this rule no clear precedent has been established. in the event that they can't, a phone call to their local tax office explaining situation might be the only option.



ubiquitous said:


> No matter what the PRTB or Revenue tell you, it doesn't ultimately matter because Revenue specifically disclaim responsibility for "advice" given by staff in the event of it being later found incorrect.


 
agreed, but if you go on the advice from your tax office on the first year a rule is in place (and which hadn't been communicated effectively) you would have a defence.

i would have thought that the purpose of the requirement was to ensure that all landlords started to register their properties with the prtb, rather than a revenue generating exercise from unsuspecting landlords in year one.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Oct 2007)

webtax said:


> ... since this is the first year of this rule no clear precedent has been established. in the event that they can't, a phone call to their local tax office explaining situation might be the only option.
> 
> agreed, but if you go on the advice from your tax office on the first year a rule is in place (and which hadn't been communicated effectively) you would have a defence.



Agreed but what does one do if ....


plus one75 said:


> The revenue then claimed that I could not deduct the interest!!





> i would have thought that the purpose of the requirement was to ensure that all landlords started to register their properties with the prtb, rather than a revenue generating exercise from unsuspecting landlords in year one.


Agreed but it is also well known that badly drafted and ill-thought out tax legislation can lead to all sorts of anomalies.


----------



## dubinamerica (26 Oct 2007)

I've just phoned PRTB and was told that they cannot register the tenancy without the PPS number and signature of the tenant on the form. Our tenant has still not returned the form to me. I need to go to revenue and my understanding is that I should be able to submit taxes and indicate that the registration is in progress once I've sent in the form. It should be sufficient for me to register as a landlord and for the tenant's details to become available via their own tax returns or when they attempt to claim rent allowance - that they need to register at that point.


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Nov 2007)

Anyone who feels that they have been hard done by as a result of the law making PRTB registration a pre-condition of claiming interest deduction, should consider making a complaint to the Ombudsman if they fail to have the issue dealt with satisfactorily by the PRTB or Revenue.


----------



## z106 (3 Sep 2008)

Ok - just to drag this old chestnut up again - landlords are allowed register late for a penalty of 70 yes?

How late is someone allowed apply?

As in - once they have registered before they make their tax return for the previous year, are they then allowed claim the mortgage as an expense for that tax year?


----------



## Bronte (4 Sep 2008)

I never found a definition of late so it seems it can be any amount of time. But if your tenants have left you cannot register at all. Anyway I now get the tenant's to sign the form immediately but that doesn't mean I get them back from the PRTB quickly. They are really checking the forms now and I had one sent back to me as the tenant had written an incorrect PRSI number, so I now double check this with the tenant. I had another sent back as I'd forgotton to put the expiry date of the credit card, all this took ages and the tenants had actually left but because I had sent the form in in time originally I said nothing to the PRTB, so what was I supposed to do, tell them now the tenants had gone - no way. My attitude now is that if they can't return forms or registrations in a reasonable amount of time it's not me that should be penalised. Have they not heard of the telephone or email. They have moved to new luxurious offices but the PRTB form on their website has the old address. To those of you who think I'm incompetant filling out forms, it's more complicated for me as I'm not in Ireland and I can't do my normal double checking. I wish we could just send the forms by email/scan etc or just be able to register ourselves - what a novel idea, that would be too easy.


----------



## ubiquitous (4 Sep 2008)

Bronte said:


> To those of you who think I'm incompetant filling out forms, it's more complicated for me as I'm not in Ireland and I can't do my normal double checking.



I don't think you should label yourself as incompetent. The registration process is simply too complicated for most people to handle efficiently. People should be able to interact with government and comply with their duties under law without being made to feel that they're dealing with something out of Myles na gCopaleen.


----------



## z106 (4 Sep 2008)

Yes - teh prtb definitely check teh filling of the form.

i forgot to incluse the square footage one time and they sent it back.

What really bugs me though is the draconian penalty for not registering.

I appreciate they want to know who is a landlord - but basically fining someone thousands of euros for not filling up the form, is way OTT in my book.

I have this pictute in my head of a load of civil servamnts sitting around a table getting a rush of blood to the head saying "Right - enough of this - lets fine those landlords thousands of euros for not complying and that will sort it out once and for all !"

i don't know of any other penalty in this land that is so completely disproportionate to the crime.


----------



## Bronte (4 Sep 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I don't think you should label yourself as incompetent. The registration process is simply too complicated for most people to handle efficiently. People should be able to interact with government and comply with their duties under law without being made to feel that they're dealing with something out of Myles na gCopaleen.


 Thanks for that you're making me feel better, I try to prefill out the form as much as I can and then send it to someone else who has to leave it with the tenant, I highlight all the bits to be filled out but somehow something is always missed and it drives me crazy.  They sent me back two forms once (I'd written a cheque for the two) because one was incorrect !  So now I've switched to the laser card.   The two forms were each stamped twice with different dates of 3 weeks apart and then inked out !  I did have though one positive experience with the PRTB, there was a detail missing on one form and an efficient civil servant telephoned, problem solved and it took 10 seconds.  I still can't get over the shock of the civil servant telephoning. Must have been super intelligent to see my telephone number on the telephone number section of the form.


----------

