# LPT: Revenue Property Valuation Guide (The Heatmap) now live



## Brendan Burgess

Their valuation guide is now live

https://lpt.revenue.ie/lpt-web/valuation-guide/index.htm

It's very easy to use. 

It put me in the €500k to €550k bracket which is roughly what I thought. 

Brendan


----------



## Luternau

It is indeed very easy to use. However, unless I missed something, there is no provision for no. of bedrooms, which has a big bearing on value.


----------



## theresa1

Most people will check this and then go with the bracket below.


----------



## Armada

Where I am, its bringing in my house in Band 2.... 

I have a 5 bed detached 3500 sq ft house built before 2000. Its putting it into the same bracket as my Buy to Let 3 bed semi in the same area at 1000sq ft.
So certainly not accurate for me anyway.


----------



## dam099

Its putting me in the €200-250k bracket yet the highest sale per the property price register for my house type (3 bed) in my estate in the last 3 years was €185k. Also as pointed out no provision for no of bedrooms so the 2 bed houses in my terrace will be way overvalued per this (they may just come in under €150k)

I might actually squeak into that band in the end myself as built an extension but the guide doesnt know that.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

From the Revenue website

 Property valuation guidance will be available  from 10 March 2013 and  this will include an on-line guide that will   *provide indicative  property values. *Revenue will not be valuing properties for LPT  purposes.


 The valuation guidance is based on:


The type of property e.g. detached, semi-detached, apartment etc.
The age of the property e.g. built before the year 2000 or after.
The average price of the type of property for the general area.
 *You will need to consider the specifics of your own property when  using Revenue’s valuation guidelines*. If you follow Revenue’s valuation  guidelines honestly, we will accept your property value assessment.  However, if you feel that the guidance is not indicating a reasonable  valuation for your property, you should make your own assessment. You  are responsible for ensuring that you choose the correct value band for    your property. If Revenue has reason to believe that the amount   you  have declared on your Return does not reflect the market value of your  property, we may raise an assessment for a different amount. 
*Other sources*

 You might find the register of residential property sales, published  by the Property Services Regulatory Authority (PSRA) based on Revenue  Stamp Duty data (www.propertypriceregister.ie[broken link removed]), of assistance for valuing your property.


 You may choose to obtain a valuation from a competent professional  valuer. Some valuers are offering a special price for LPT valuations. If  you have purchased your property or obtained a professional valuation  in recent years, you may use this valuation and adjust for any change in  property values in your area since the date of this valuation.


  You should also refer to other sources of information relating to  local properties such as the property section of local newspapers,  information from local estate agents and property websites.


  A copy of the information sources used by the property owner to  inform his or her self-assessment of the value of the property should be  retained as proof of compliance with his or her LPT obligations.


----------



## DerKaiser

Three houses sold in our estate over the last 6 months, all quite similar. One barely crept into the band suggested by the guide whilst the other two were comfortably in the band just below. 

I will have no problem in justifying dropping a band down based on an average of actual sales. Also, from checking out a few valuations of family / friends houses, the valuations do seem to err towards the higher end.


----------



## TravisT

Why does it matter whether before or after year 2000?

I checked the FAQ and guide from revenue site and do not find an answer to this? It seems to be less if pre-2000, not sure why.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> It seems to be less if pre-2000, not sure why.


The few I saw were more if they were pre-2000.

I would have thought that the number of bedrooms, or the size of the property, would be a better indicator.


----------



## norejon

well its telling me that my 2 bedroom apartment that i rent is in the same band as my 4 bed semi...... both built prior to 2000 '

 the apartment to me is now in band 1 not band 2


----------



## Time

I am going to stick down 99K.


----------



## Luternau

Brendan Burgess said:


> From the Revenue
> Property valuation guidance will be available  from 10 March 2013 and  this will include an on-line guide that will  *provide indicative  property values. *Revenue will not be valuing properties for LPT  purposes.



Thats such a cop out by Revenue. The number of bedrooms and size of a house/apt has a huge bearing on value for this tax. It just shows you that despite the huge media campaign during the week, Revenue dont have a clue what people should be paying.


----------



## irishmoss

I looked up the propertprice register and a house sold on our road it seems for 65K more than the asking price! I'm almost certain this is an error


----------



## dam099

Brendan Burgess said:


> From the Revenue website
> 
> Property valuation guidance will be available  from 10 March 2013 and  this will include an on-line guide that will   *provide indicative  property values. *Revenue will not be valuing properties for LPT  purposes.
> 
> .......
> 
> *You will need to consider the specifics of your own property when  using Revenue’s valuation guidelines*. If you follow Revenue’s valuation  guidelines honestly, we will accept your property value assessment.  However, if you feel that the guidance is not indicating a reasonable  valuation for your property, you should make your own assessment. You  are responsible for ensuring that you choose the correct value band for    your property. If Revenue has reason to believe that the amount   you  have declared on your Return does not reflect the market value of your  property, we may raise an assessment for a different amount.



It may only be indicative but assuming the letters follow the same valuations then they are erring on the high side. Through inertia or fear of audit a lot of people will likely accept Revenues indicated valuation and possibly overpay. It surely wouldn't have been that difficult to at least distinguish by area or no of bedrooms but given the property price register doesn't either perhaps it's not surprising. (When using the property price register I have to supplement with a search to find the daft or myhome sales listing to make the price meaningful).


----------



## Brendan Burgess

My gut feeling is that they would have been better not providing a guide as they will just get such criticism for when values will be out. 

However, they may have done some research which shows a higher level of compliance when people get indicative values from them. 

Brendan


----------



## Time

So what happens if you simply value a band below their assertion?


----------



## Time

I has nothing to hide.


----------



## pudds

No category for 'end terrace'  house as usual.


----------



## Dermot

Surely 200 to 250K band for a 1 bed Apt in South Great Georges St. is ridiculous. There does not seem to be a recent sale in the Block that gives me guidance. My own feeling is that it fits in the 100 to 150k bracket.  Would love to get the 150k actually. I suppose if there is a penalty in 3 years time for not having it in their current estimated value I will be thrilled beyond belief to have to pay the penalty. I hope revenue are correct. If only


----------



## vienne86

I bought a property - apartment in Dublin 6 - last year for 195K.  One in the same development went recently for 215K, but it had had a big renovation job done.  The calculator comes up with an estimate of 350-400K!  I think the neighbours were quite cheesed off that I paid what I did, but they might now be quite pleased!


----------



## Dermot

No matter what the neighbours think the market value is somewhere between what you gave for it and what was given for a similar Apt recently. vienne86 you will have no problem if you put yours in 200 to 250k bracket as you can support that declaration.  If the neighbours want to continue the illusion of their Apartments being in the 350 to 400k bracket I am sure Revenue will facilitate this. I presume you are talking about 2 bed Apts.


----------



## truthseeker

The band on the map for my area is grouping fully detached large properties on their own land in with apartments, semi-d's, terraces and bungalows all under the same band which is 3 bands higher than what I would deem my property worth.

Ive checked a few friends places and it seems to be the same, all over valued.


----------



## putsch

I'm buying a house at the moment so you might think the value will be the price I'm paying now. 

But I am doing renovations so that might lead you to think the value will increase.

But the renovations will a) reduce the sq footage and b) reduce the numbers of bedrooms and as a result the resale value will be lower.

A conundrum methinks.


----------



## STEINER

My duplex is correctly in the 100k - 150k band.  I am in an area of Lucan where there are only apartments and terraced housing, all fairly standard enough.


----------



## Dermot

The market value is the determining factor on the 1st of May.  I am puzzled about why you might be spending money on house that will lead to lowering its value. Puzzled. The value on the 1st May will be determine the LPT for next 3 years or so


----------



## truthseeker

sahd said:


> Are you just going by the colours or have you clicked on the area and seen the values in the pop up box? When you click a specific area you can chose o view all property values for that area.



Ah, I didnt see that. Im still overvalued by one property band. The detached houses are still well undervalued.


----------



## putsch

Dermot said:


> The market value is the determining factor on the 1st of May.  I am puzzled about why you might be spending money on house that will lead to lowering its value. Puzzled. The value on the 1st May will be determine the LPT for next 3 years or so



Yes it seems counter-intuitive but I am customising the house for my own needs & that means reducing the number of bedrooms to 2 from 4 and reducing the square footage by demolishing an extension - these are modifications that make sense for me to live in this house - but would reduce the value if I were to sell it.


----------



## callybags

Just my personal opinion based on years of dealing with Revenue.

If you take their valuation and go with it you will be fine unless it is glaringly undervalued. For example if properties were trading at 1.5 times the revenue valuation then you could be in trouble.

However if you think their valuation is too high and you go in lower, you'd better have plenty of back-up to justify the lower figure. I would say as a start they will look for an independant valuation from a professional and also comparable sales to show that their figure was wrong.


----------



## Bronte

I've checked the values for 2 of the major cities outside of Dublin and one sea side town. The revenue values are too high. 

I had thought that the values would be by estate, but not so, they are taking in large areas encompassing many estates which would not have the same values. 

When I get the form from revenue I will be putting a lower value. I will back this up with 2 recent sales one of which was Allsops and another which I know of and can prove. I will also consult the property price register, recent auctions for that area and daft. All of which I'll print and attach so that they won't even consider auditing me. I do not want to undervalue nor overvalue. 

For the seaside area that I'm following, apartments are selling for less than 100K from 45K to not above 100 depending on size and location but the band is higher in the 100-150. 

I know of one house where the owners once thought it was worth over a million, now thinks it's worth 750K and it's in band 4 detached at 200-250. This is a large newly build house, perfectly finished in an excellent location with a very large garden. A very small 30 year old house literally across the road from it is also in band 4 and there is a world of difference between the two properties.

And revenue could have used other colours rather than similiar different shades of orange.


----------



## seantheman

Would it be ok to go for pre 2000 if the foundation and main structure of the building was in 1999 but fixtures and fittings weren't completed until 2000


----------



## grenzgebiet

*LPT Guide*

On the Revenue Guide to house valuations  I can find a drop-down menu for Location, Year of Build and House Type  (ie bungalow, appartment etc) - but I can't seem to find anything relating to size.    
Where/how  do I enter the size of a property ?
Thank you.


----------



## Bronte

cashier said:


> Why are they asking if your house was built pre or post 2000, does it make a difference in the valuation?


 
I cannot figure this out either, why the distinction?  I think they should have also done something with size, that's very important when it comes to valuations.


----------



## Sumatra

Bronte, I found quite the opposite. The Revenue values are way too low!

I paid to have my property valued by two separate valuers in Oct 2012 and within that profession there was a 21.5% difference in figures.

Looking at Revenue figures for my area the guideline figure they give is 280% below the valuer figures. Using the PSRA is of zero help from a sales comparison approach.

Not an easy project to give a reasonable estimate of the market value of your property when you are not emotionally involved in selling it.


----------



## Bronte

Sumatra I found both below and above values. 

For what it's worth I think a value by an auctioneer is completely pointless.  My own guess is just as good as theirs.


----------



## TarfHead

Can't access it from work (IE8). Page just doesn't load.

Grrr


----------



## mandelbrot

cashier said:


> grenzgebiet - There isn't an option for size, that's what I found the most baffling.


 
I said it on another thread a couple of weeks ago and I'll say it again now - everyone seems to be losing the run of themselves in relation to this tax!

The maps only give a very broad indicator of what Revenue see as average values for an area; it's up to the person who knows most about the property to adjust for the unique features of the property, such as size, number of bedrooms, corner site with bigger garden, end of terrace etc... at the end of the day they've made it a self-assessment tax (maybe they shouldn't have but they did), so people will just have to think for themselves - Revenue have probably done themselves no favours by producing this map.


----------



## demoivre

This guide is about as useful to me in rural Wexford as an ashtray on a motor bike. Every detached house where I am is different, including our own. Bungalows, semi detached and detached have all been put in the €100 to 150k band where we are. Size has been mentioned a few times on this thread. Plenty of big old farmhouses around me that are worth an awful lot less than more recently built, smaller more energy efficient houses. Only one recent sale near us also but we couldn't use it for comparative purpose as it was a small run down cottage. My sister told me at the weekend that she'd give me €50k for my house and at the end of the day it's only worth what someone is prepared to pay you for it!


----------



## net64

My house comes in at band 2(100,000 -150,000).I think it should be in the one above. Same house across the way for sale for 175000.
I have an 2 bed apartment rented out coming in at band 2 also!The house was valued recently at 70000.One sold a few weeks ago for 69000. I will not be paying band 2.Will be sending in the valuation for apt along with the print off from the internet off the one that recently sold! Band 1 for that it is!

Net64


----------



## dereko1969

Mine was, sadly, about right i'd say. €300-350k, spent more than that on it in 2010 and then spent a good bit refurbishing.

Annoying thing yesterday was that it doesn't seem to be very mobile phone friendly which really should be a requisite these days. Trying to squeeze down on the map was impossible, i found.


----------



## Sumatra

Code:
	

For what it's worth I think a value by an auctioneer is completely pointless

 
Not at all, that advice could save some a lot of money so worth quite a bit I'd say.



		Code:
	

Revenue have probably done themselves no favours by producing this map.

 
Is that because the figures on the map help set a reasonable expectation?


----------



## David_Dublin

There is no point in discussing the accuracy of the site at all - it is clearly not accurate except where the house you are in represents what revenue have decided is typical of the area being considered. 

But the areas are so large, in effect "the average" has no meaning. 

Have a cruise around Dublin - looking in Dublin 4 - if you're one side of the railway line, e.g. on Park Avenue, you are in Band 13, if you're on the other side, you're in Band 20.

Just one example, but it demonstrates a couple of things. There is such variance of property value within any area that the onus will be on people using their own initiative to apply an accurate band. The areas are too big, particularly in urban areas where the variance increases.

So what will end up happening? Well, people who have an estimated band that is too low will stick with this. Those that have one that is too high will adjust accordingly. The end result is that Revenue will have more cash in their coffers, and over time will improve their method of offering sample valuations.


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> Revenue have probably done themselves no favours by producing this map.
> 
> 
> Is that because the figures on the map help set a reasonable expectation?


 
(Why do your quotes always come up weird?!?)

No, exactly the opposite actually, it's because anyone who wants to can go and find the anomalies (where it suggests very clear overvaluations / undervaluations, lumping "nice" areas in with undesirable ones etc...), and have a good old moan!

In other words they were on a hiding to nothing - if they were capable of producing a map that no-one could whinge about then the tax wouldn't need to be self-assessment - but they weren't!


----------



## David_Dublin

I'd agree with Mandelbrot, revenue have done themselves no favours.

How likely is it that an owner of a property has no idea of the value of the property? In reality, what this does is probably increase the chance of their total revenue take for this being lower than it could have been. That said, it's hard to release a self assessment tax without some guidelines on how to self assess.


----------



## Dermot

Many people are of the opinion that where there is a significant difference between the Revenue valuation and the owners valuation that if you cannot prove it by recent sales figures (may not be available) that you will have to go to the expense of employing a valuer to prove your valuation correct. I refer to my earlier post where revenue are suggesting that the 1 bed Apt in Sth Great Georges St is in the 200k to 250k after the 61% fall in Dublin Apt prices from peak. If I was getting anywhere between 5-600k for it at the peak I would not own it now. I will be sticking with my own valuation which I know in my heart is the correct value and I cannot see why the onus should be on the owner rather than revenue to prove valuation. This thing of threatening people with Audits in circumstances like my situation is legalising intimidation.  They can hit me with penalties when I am selling in the unlikely event that I deliberately undervalued.

http://www.irishtimes.com/property-prices-indicate-two-tier-market-1.1316341


----------



## David_Dublin

Dermot said:


> I refer to my earlier post where revenue are suggesting that the 1 bed Apt in Sth Great Georges St is in the 200k to 250k after the 61% fall in Dublin Apt prices from peakhttp://www.irishtimes.com/property-prices-indicate-two-tier-market-1.1316341



They are suggesting nothing of the sort. This is a self assessment tax, they are not telling you how much your property is worth. You seem to have an idea what it's worth, so by definition you are in a position to work out how much tax to pay.


----------



## Mizen Head

I think a lot of the discussion about the guided valuation per the map will change when you actually get your letter, with the Revenue estimated tax due.
The interative map,  with the sub-area for my house highlighted shows me a valuation of 400-450k  This is low as there is a  similar house for sale here at at 575k. I estimate my value in the 500-550 band and I intended returning this.
However, I am a ROS customer and last night I checked to see if the Revenue estimate was there. Yes, they are looking for 542 euro, putting me in the 600-650k band.!!  I

So, wait for the letter before getting excited about the Map indication
 being too high or too low!


----------



## Dermot

Going by your experience Mizen Head Revenue should never have put up that map as other posters have suggested. I cannot understand why there was so much effort put into something as useful petrol for putting out a fire. I was looking at their map where I come from in the countryside and it is on the border with another county and the town land in the next county has disappeared and is incorporated into the other town land.

What is the situation with unfinished estates that were exempted from the household charge. I thought that there was going to be an exemption from the LPT for them as well.


----------



## Sumatra

"(and why are you so cantankerous?!?)"


Over time they will build up meaningful statistics that will make such a map useful but until such time they should probably withdraw it.

I can calculate the rebuild cost of my property very easily. But not the market value and that map doesn't help. If anything it encourages dishonesty. 

Dermot, I agree with you I too will be putting my hand on my heart and paying what I think is correct. I really don't mind paying this tax but what I do mind is the uncertainty of whether I'm under estimating or over estimating it and if I ever sell will they penalise me if I got it wrong or refund me if I erred on the side of caution. I just want to pay it and get on with the other things in life.


----------



## Mizen Head

Hi Shad,  I know the Revenue have no idea what the house is worth. I am just posting that the Mapping Tool is very different (at least, in my case ) from the individual estimate on ROS. I will not be going with their estimate, and will be returning what I feel is the correct figure ( with my neighbours For Sale price as my support evidence, if necessary.   
I am in Dun-Laoghaire Rathdown, I wont give the exact Electoral District)


----------



## mandelbrot

Dermot said:


> Many people are of the opinion that where there is a significant difference between the Revenue valuation and the owners valuation that if you cannot prove it by recent sales figures (may not be available) that you will have to go to the expense of employing a valuer to prove your valuation correct. I refer to my earlier post where revenue are suggesting that the 1 bed Apt in Sth Great Georges St is in the 200k to 250k after the 61% fall in Dublin Apt prices from peak. If I was getting anywhere between 5-600k for it at the peak I would not own it now. I will be sticking with my own valuation which I know in my heart is the correct value and I cannot see why the onus should be on the owner rather than revenue to prove valuation. This thing of threatening people with Audits in circumstances like my situation is legalising intimidation. They can hit me with penalties when I am selling in the unlikely event that I deliberately undervalued.


 
Sigh... this is exactly what I was talking about when I said people are losing the run of themselves over this thing. Read the first couple of sentences on the front page of the valuation guide: "_This service provides a guide to average market values of properties in a given locality and offers an indicative valuation band for properties depending on type, age and location. *It does not provide market values for individual properties. *The guidance is primarily based on the market value of properties sold since the year 2010 in the area, adjusted for average price movements in the interim. This guidance will be *helpful* in the majority of cases but there are always properties in an area that differ from the average._" So clearly Revenue know that what they have in that map is general averages from a largely inactive market, intended to be HELPFUL, not definitive or prescriptive.

How exactly is suggesting that Revenue might audit a self-assessment tax return "legalising intimidation"?! An audit of LPT would simply be Revenue asking, "why did you value it at band 3", and you saying "I valued at Band 3 because..." and they either accept it and go away or they raise an assessment on you for the perceived shortfall as they see it, and you can appeal it. That's due process, not intimidation IMHO.


----------



## seantheman

Mizen Head said:


> the sub-area for my house highlighted shows me a valuation of 400-450k This is low as there is a similar house for sale here at at 575k. I estimate my value in the 500-550 band and I intended returning this.


 
Just because your neighbours have their house on the market for €575k doesn't mean it's worth that. At the end of the day it's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, I could go to their EA and offer €475k and they might snap my hand off for it.


----------



## Dermot

Like Sumatra. I accept paying the tax but I have an issue with having to prove or in the absence of proof having to engage a valuer at my expense. Ok if revenue would accept the side that has the wrong valuation pays the neutral valuer. You would imagine that where there is a dispute about valuation the onus would be on revenue to prove valuation not the other way around.
Is there a transcript of Pat Kenny's interview with the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners last week


----------



## dereko1969

Dermot said:


> Like Sumatra. I accept paying the tax but I have an issue with having to prove or in the absence of proof having to engage a valuer at my expense. Ok if revenue would accept the side that has the wrong valuation pays the neutral valuer. You would imagine that where there is a dispute about valuation the onus would be on revenue to prove valuation not the other way around.
> Is there a transcript of Pat Kenny's interview with the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners last week


 
Did you actually read what mandlebrot wrote?


----------



## Mizen Head

Hi Sean. Of course, they might snap your hand off. The point I was making was that in my individual case, my self assessment of my house is in the 500-550 Band.  The neighbouring For Sale sign shows the absolute max valuation ( before any negotiating or offers) and I can use this if Revenue dispute my self assessment.  (it does show that the Revenue estimate on my RoS of 600-650 is off the mark, though)


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> "(and why are you so cantankerous?!?)"


 I'm not, I'm simply pointing out an oddity!



Sumatra said:


> Over time they will build up meaningful statistics that will make such a map useful but until such time they should probably withdraw it.
> 
> I can calculate the rebuild cost of my property very easily. But not the market value and that map doesn't help. If anything it encourages dishonesty.


 
So you agree with me, and yet you quizzed me when I suggested the map was a bad idea out of Revenue... who's cantankerous now?!



Sumatra said:


> Dermot, I agree with you I too will be putting my hand on my heart and paying what I think is correct.


So in other words, you'll be doing what they've asked.



Sumatra said:


> I really don't mind paying this tax but what I do mind is the uncertainty of whether I'm under estimating or over estimating it and if I ever sell will they penalise me if I got it wrong or refund me if I erred on the side of caution. I just want to pay it and get on with the other things in life.


The FAQs on the Revenue website, as well as any of the press releases / radio show appearances I've heard, all say the same thing - "LPT is a self-assessed tax. If you follow Revenue’s valuation guidelines honestly, Revenue will accept your property value assessment".
You haven't even seen the Guideline document yet, so how can you talk about such "uncertainty" - if following the guidance that's in it results in the same / lesser valuation than your hand on heart figure you'll be fine, so that is the only uncertainty you have for now.


----------



## mandelbrot

Dermot said:


> Like Sumatra. I accept paying the tax but I have an issue with having to prove or in the absence of proof having to engage a valuer at my expense. Ok if revenue would accept the side that has the wrong valuation pays the neutral valuer. You would imagine that where there is a dispute about valuation the onus would be on revenue to prove valuation not the other way around.
> Is there a transcript of Pat Kenny's interview with the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners last week


 
Read my last post. They have published guidelines for arriving at a valuation. I haven't seen them, nor does it affect me as I'm a renter. But I can't understand what you're all in a tizzy about until you actually get your letter and guideline document and do your calculation, and see how you're fixed!?


----------



## Sumatra

Don't forget a person could buy an agricultural business for €2,000,000 but the residential property on it might only be worth €450,000. So tax is on the €450,000.

In January of this year we were told by the Minister for Finance that he was satisfied that Revenue have sufficient staff to undertake the commitment to value properties for the property tax. If this map is a result of this commitment and if you use it to form the basis of your self assessment then hoew can they fault you?

I get the feeling that this all just a stop gap until 2016 and they just want to get us all on board first.

Mandle sorry just saw your reply now. I accept the oddity in both of us  Of course I'll be doing what they ask, I just like certainty. 'LPT is a self-assessed tax' self-assess the value of your home in an uncertain market is not easy to do and through the boom and the bust I've not met anyone who got it right but now ordinary Mr & Ms Joe Soaps have to do it.


----------



## Guns N Roses

Does anyone know when they'll be releasing the list of Unfinished Housing Estates that will qualify for a waiver from the LPT?


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> Don't forget a person could buy an agricultural business for €2,000,000 but the residential property on it might only be worth €450,000. So tax is on the €450,000.
> 
> In January of this year we were told by the Minister for Finance that he was satisfied that Revenue have sufficient staff to undertake the commitment to value properties for the property tax. If this map is a result of this commitment and if you use it to form the basis of your self assessment then hoew can they fault you?
> 
> I get the feeling that this all just a stop gap until 2016 and they just want to get us all on board first.


 
It's a self assessment tax - it's up to Joe Public to value their property - Revenue will administer, collect, and where necessary enforce the tax.


----------



## Dermot

Mandelbrot. I have no wish to fight with you as I have found you most helpful but I heard a tax official on radio stating that people who have a different valuation than the revenue for the LPT would leave themselves open to an Audit. That is not the type of word that is used by the ordinary person where a difference in property value is an issue. I've bought and sold property over the years and never used the word "Audit" in the negotiations. To the ordinary person the use of the term "Audit" is a threat. That is where I believe the use of word "audit" is inappropriate and disproportionate in the context of a genuinely held difference of opinion on price.


----------



## mandelbrot

Dermot said:


> Mandelbrot. I have no wish to fight with you as I have found you most helpful but I heard a tax official on radio stating that people who have a different valuation than the revenue for the LPT would leave themselves open to an Audit. That is not the type of word that is used by the ordinary person where a difference in property value is an issue. I've bought and sold property over the years and never used the word "Audit" in the negotiations. To the ordinary person the use of the term "Audit" is a threat. That is where I believe the use of word "audit" is inappropriate and disproportionate in the context of a genuinely held difference of opinion on price.


 
The definition of an audit is an examination of records to verify accuracy. So when they said audit, they're talking about audit of the LPT figure.

To infer from the mere use of the word audit (in a conversation which presumably was exclusively about the LPT), that Revenue were threatening comprehensive audits, is IMHO hysterical, and again confirms what I said at the outset a few posts ago - people are losing the run of themselves over this.

Also, Revenue have various criteria for determining how & where to allocate their scarce resources - the Comptroller & Auditor General, and the Public Accounts Committee would have a field day if Revenue rocked up telling them they'd carried out thousands of non-yielding comprehensive audits on PAYE taxpayers, disregarding all other risk factors, because they reckoned they'd underpaid a few hundred quid's worth of LPT...


----------



## T McGibney

mandelbrot said:


> To infer from the mere use of the word audit (in a conversation which presumably was exclusively about the LPT), that Revenue were threatening comprehensive audits, is IMHO hysterical, and again confirms what I said at the outset a few posts ago - people are losing the run of themselves over this.



But such an impression has been given by various Revenue sources in recent months (including AAM if memory serves me correctly), specifically on the effect of LPT non-compliance on a taxpayer's rating within the Revenue's REAP system which selects "high risk" cases for audit.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> But such an impression has been given by various Revenue sources in recent months (including AAM if memory serves me correctly), specifically on the effect of LPT non-compliance on a taxpayer's rating within the Revenue's REAP system which selects "high risk" cases for audit.


 
Are you seriously suggesting that all things being equal, a non-compliance with LPT will shoot an otherwise compliant taxpayer to the top of the REAP system?


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that all things being equal, a non-compliance with LPT will shoot an otherwise compliant taxpayer to the top of the REAP system?



Where did I suggest anything like that?


----------



## Time

That is the scare story being bandied around.


----------



## mandelbrot

T McGibney said:


> But such an impression has been given by various Revenue sources in recent months (including AAM if memory serves me correctly), specifically on the effect of LPT non-compliance on a taxpayer's rating within the Revenue's REAP system which selects "high risk" cases for audit.


 
For starters LPT non-compliance is different from LPT underdeclaration Tommy. Underdeclaration can only be known with certainty when Revenue actually look at the individual case.

Non-compliance (i.e. failure to file/pay) indicates a particular type of behaviour, which logically increases the risk associated with that taxpayer, just like the failure to file any required return does.

So it feeds into the overall risk evaluation, with an appropriate weighting attached to it. I'd be amazed if in isolation it would result in a comprehensive audit.

EDIT: Actually I wouldn't be amazed, I'll eat my hat. (I don't have a hat though, so you'd have to provide the hat.)

2ND EDIT: AFAIK there aren't any Revenue sources on AAM? Apart from Tony Buckley posting on the thread about contractor audits.


----------



## Sumatra

So let your accountant put a valuation on your property.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> But such an impression has been given by various Revenue sources in recent months (including AAM if memory serves me correctly), specifically on the effect of LPT non-compliance on a taxpayer's rating within the Revenue's REAP system which selects "high risk" cases for audit.


 


T McGibney said:


> Where did I suggest anything like that?


 
Well that's how I've read your initial post quoted first above.


----------



## mandelbrot

Time said:


> That is the scare story being bandied around.


 
Being bandied around where? The scariest thing I've heard is that non-LPT compliant people may be refused tax clearance certs, which could hurt some self-employed people.


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> So let your accountant put a valuation on your property.


 
Who's that addressed to? Why would anyone's accountant value their property?


----------



## T McGibney

mandelbrot said:


> So it feeds into the overall risk evaluation, with an appropriate weighting attached to it. I'd be amazed if in isolation it would result in a comprehensive audit.



So would I. But again an impression has been created that LPT non-compliance (in which I personally would count evasive undervaluation) will feed into the REAP system.


----------



## mandelbrot

T McGibney said:


> So would I. But again an impression has been created that LPT non-compliance (in which I personally would count evasive undervaluation) will feed into the REAP system.


 
And rightly so, why shouldn't it?! 

For anyone unfamiliar with it, here's the description of REAP from Revenue's Code of Practice:

*Risk Evaluation Analysis and Profiling – REAP*

REAP is Revenue's risk analysis system. It risk-rates Revenue’s customer base providing coverage across all the main taxes and duties. 'Risk' in this context means the risk posed to Revenue's core business of 'collecting the right tax and duty at the right time'. REAP has been designed to analyse a vast amount of data (including third party data) that Revenue has on tax and duty cases and to attribute scores based on the level of risk they pose. It prioritises cases based on risk, enabling Revenue to target its attention on those who need it most and minimizing contact with compliant customers. It focuses on a customer's track record rather than single returns; it ensures fairness by applying the same rules to all cases.
These rules have been derived from the collective knowledge and experience of Revenue auditors.


----------



## ClubMan

For what it's worth (and your mileage may vary) I've looked at four specific _Dublin _properties of interest to me and the guidelines figure given by the _Revenue _website looks more or less accurate based on my knowledge of the properties/areas, recent market activity and the property price register database. In the case of my own home the guideline figure may be a slight underestimation. I don't know if the individual letters coming out will just restate the guideline figure from the website or will it contain a more specific/individualised estimate?


----------



## T McGibney

mandelbrot said:


> And rightly so, why shouldn't it?!
> 
> For anyone unfamiliar with it, here's the description of REAP from Revenue's Code of Practice:
> 
> *Risk Evaluation Analysis and Profiling – REAP*
> 
> REAP is Revenue's risk analysis system. It risk-rates Revenue’s customer base providing coverage across all the main taxes and duties. 'Risk' in this context means the risk posed to Revenue's core business of 'collecting the right tax and duty at the right time'. REAP has been designed to analyse a vast amount of data (including third party data) that Revenue has on tax and duty cases and to attribute scores based on the level of risk they pose. It prioritises cases based on risk, enabling Revenue to target its attention on those who need it most and minimizing contact with compliant customers. It focuses on a customer's track record rather than single returns; it ensures fairness by applying the same rules to all cases.
> These rules have been derived from the collective knowledge and experience of Revenue auditors.





mandelbrot said:


> To infer from the mere use of the word audit (in a conversation which  presumably was exclusively about the LPT), that Revenue were threatening  comprehensive audits, is IMHO hysterical, and again confirms what I  said at the outset a few posts ago - people are losing the run of  themselves over this.



So LPT non-compliance will or won't increase the chances of a comprehensive audit?


----------



## Sumatra

'Why would anyone's accountant value their property?' 

Would they not give an opinion to their client on the accuracy of the figures submitted to revenue?


----------



## T McGibney

Sumatra said:


> 'Why would anyone's accountant value their property?'
> 
> Would they not give an opinion to their client on the accuracy of the figures submitted to revenue?



Accountants cannot be expected to have expertise on specific property valuations, unless they have appropriate training and/or qualifications. I cannot imagine there are many such accountants out there.


----------



## Sumatra

Tommy, what would be wrong if an accountant offered an opinion on a figure that one of their clients submitted or was about to submit to revenue. Accountants would have the same tools at their disposal as their clients are using.


----------



## mandelbrot

T McGibney said:


> So LPT non-compliance will or won't increase the chances of a comprehensive audit?


 
There's no inconsistency in those 2 quotes, in the context of this thread.

People on here are talking about the perceived risk of a comprehensive revenue audit because they, in good faith (or hand on heart, to paraphrase a couple of posters), value their property lower than the indicative value they receive from Revenue.

In such a case, the worst case scenario I would expect, is that at some point Revenue may seek clarification from them as to the basis of their valuation. If they end up charging the taxpayer a higher rate of LPT, and form the view that the taxpayer was engaged in evasive undervaluation as you put it, then you'd expect this merits a risk flag. But you'd surely have to be talking about several bands in the difference before you get into that category.

Non-compliance with LPT, as in outright refusal to file the return form, will simply result in Revenue using one of the various collection means at their disposal to collect based on their own indicative value, *AND* will increase the risk rating with Revenue, as they have displayed a behaviour consistent with unwillingness to fulfil their tax obligations.

I'm pretty sure Josephine Feehily more or less said in the Pat Kenny interview that Revenue have bigger fish to fry than be out conducting audits for fiddly amounts of money - by any yardstick auditing for €180 of tax per €100k of property value is likely to result in relatively small money. I think in relation to the LPT the horses are spooking themselves...!


----------



## T McGibney

Sumatra said:


> Tommy, what would be wrong if an accountant offered an opinion on a figure that one of their clients submitted or was about to submit to revenue. Accountants would have the same tools at their disposal as their clients are using.



Nothing wrong with anyone giving an opinion, but the client might be as well off asking their GP or pharmacist. Accountants do have a lot of experience in relation to Revenue compliance and should be well placed to advise and assist clients in completion of forms etc but this wouldn't extend to valuation of properties.  

Where such issues arise in other contexts, eg valuations relevant to CAT or CGT returns, a wise accountant will normally advise their client to obtain such valuations from a reputable, accredited and experienced valuer.


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> Tommy, what would be wrong if an accountant offered an opinion on a figure that one of their clients submitted or was about to submit to revenue. Accountants would have the same tools at their disposal as their clients are using.


 
So, in other words they should come up with the same figure? Except they'll have to be paid to do it...

Some people round here are dying to spend money (auctioneers' valuations, accountants' valuations etc) rather than just follow a fairly simple set of instructions...

EDIT: _... and, God forbid, use their own common sense!_


----------



## Sumatra

But if a client mistake on his/her self assessment generates a revenue audit bet you wouldn't turn away the business.  (not directed at anyone here just a ludicrous triviality) 

Seriously, I understand what you are saying Tommy and thanks for answering my question.


----------



## T McGibney

Sumatra said:


> But if a client mistake on his/her self assessment generates a revenue audit bet you wouldn't turn away the business.  (not directed at anyone here just a ludicrous triviality)



Yes, accountants just looooooove Revenue Audits


----------



## truthseeker

mandelbrot said:


> Being bandied around where? The scariest thing I've heard is that non-LPT compliant people may be refused tax clearance certs, which could hurt some self-employed people.



Clearly you have been reading different newspapers.

Lets see, theres the snitch clause, the [broken link removed] for relevant persons (previously reported as a 100 euro a day fine for homeowners - same link), the pillage your bank account threat, the sheriff, court or attachment orders threat, the financial audit threat, the no tax clearance cert threat......


----------



## mandelbrot

truthseeker said:


> Clearly you have been reading different newspapers.
> 
> Lets see, theres the snitch clause


which doesn't affect the owner, but the buyer





truthseeker said:


> , the [broken link removed] for relevant persons (previously reported as a 100 euro a day fine for homeowners - same link),


which doesn't affect homeowners 





truthseeker said:


> the pillage your bank account threat, the sheriff, court or attachment orders threat,


 these are the same threat surely, and no different than enforcement/collection for any other self-assessment tax 





truthseeker said:


> the financial audit threat


basically says exactly what I said earlier in the thread; that outright non-compliance will feed into a customers risk-rating





truthseeker said:


> the no tax clearance cert threat......


which again is the same "threat" as applies to all self-employed people in relation to any of their other self-assessment taxes

I don't read the newspaper, but thank you for confirming for me that I'm probably right not to..! 

I take Time's point that these supposed news items have been bandied about in such a way as to scare people, but at the end of the day none of the above are "news", with the possible exception of the snitch clause (which doesn't affect the homeowner directly), as all they essentially say is "this is a self-assessment tax, collected and administered in the same way as the rest of the self-assessment tax system". Big deal.

EDIT: To my horror, I find myself starting to agree with WizardDr - maybe there should simply be mandatory tax returns for everyone, like they have in USA / Canada, and that way people wouldn't be freaking out like this... I can only put a large chunk of this hysteria down to fear of the unfamiliarity of self-assessment


----------



## Sumatra

I thought in the event of an undervaluation by the seller the 'snitch clause' could (a) make the seller liable for more tax and (b) would give the buyer an opportunity to drive down the price. Hence potentially the owner could be effected.

USA /Canada -but I bet the local authorities have to account for the way they spend tax payers money. They certainly do in France so when they say almost every country has a property tax they are telling the truth but very few countries are like us with nno accountability. I'm afraid the Irish have never learnt how to use hysteria to its full potential.

"The valuation of your property for LPT purposes on 1 May 2013 will stay the same for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016".

If you make a mistake on your valuation in 2013 can you correct it for 2014,15 and 16?​​


----------



## MrEarl

pudds said:


> No category for 'end terrace'  house as usual.



Hello,

I have the same problem.  If I accept a Semi-D. description, then I find myself in Category 9 ... if I accept a Terraced description, then I find myself in Category 6 - can't wait to see what Revenue have come up with :cry:

To add insult to injury, the house next door to me sold about a year ago, for a price equal to approx Category 5, although granted it's terraced and not an end of terraced house, so there's something extra most likely to be added to my own.

This exercise is more than a little depressing and as for the thought of having to pay a valuer, out of my pocket, to clarify the situation - this only adds insult to injury imho.

Regards

Mr. Earl.


----------



## JAM3114

Hi, also wondering what value band my house is in.  3 bed detached town house.  Built in 2004 with market value of 240k.  In 2010 a better house sold for 214.6k.  Our house is only about 1100 sq ft.  What % has property prices declined since 2010?  Based on revenue calculations we're in Band 3 but I would doubt we'd get anywhere between 150k - 200k for our house if we tried to sell.  Would it be better to stick to Band 3 or argue our case for Band 2?


----------



## partnership

If your house as per revenue site is category 2 100001 to 150000 but houses recently sold for 90000 as per property price register can you put the 100k figure and will revenue accept it without a valuation


----------



## Guns N Roses

partnership said:


> If your house as per revenue site is category 2 100001 to 150000 but houses recently sold for 90000 as per property price register can you put the 100k figure and will revenue accept it without a valuation



Yes. I don't see why Revenue would'nt accept the valuation..


----------



## ClubMan

MrEarl said:


> I have the same problem.  If I accept a Semi-D. description, then I find myself in Category 9 ... if I accept a Terraced description, then I find myself in Category 6 - can't wait to see what Revenue have come up with :cry:
> 
> To add insult to injury, the house next door to me sold about a year ago, for a price equal to approx Category 5, although granted it's terraced and not an end of terraced house, so there's something extra most likely to be added to my own.


Why on earth would you class your house as a semi D if it's a terraced house (even if it is end of terrace)!?


----------



## David_Dublin

ClubMan said:


> Why on earth would you class your house as a semi D if it's a terraced house (even if it is end of terrace)!?



Isn't an end of terrace house = a semi detached house? I always thought it was. Surely a semi detached house is one which has another house stuck to it on one side, and none on the other, which is the case with an end of terrace.


----------



## demoivre

David_Dublin said:


> Isn't an end of terrace house = a semi detached house? I always thought it was. *Surely a semi detached house is one which has another house stuck to it on one side*, and none on the other, which is the case with an end of terrace.



It is but not a *row* of houses stuck to one side !! Have to say it's the first time I've ever heard such a viewpoint.


----------



## tallpaul

demoivre said:


> It is but not a *row* of houses stuck to one side !! Have to say it's the first time I've ever heard such a viewpoint.


 
I would have to agree with this. I think the clue is in the title in this case. In any event, if Revenue have estimated that a terraced house is to be valued less than a semi-d, why would you seek to have it classified as worth more.

I think a lot of people are getting worked up over nothing. In cases where, in one's opinion, a house has been overvalued, you can reduce the value provided you have evidence in the event that Revenue come calling. If the valuation is under, notwithstanding the backside-covering text from Revenue, surely you can hoist Revenue by their own petard with their own documentation.


----------



## David_Dublin

After a little google business I see there seems to be some sort of agreement that a terrace is three or more houses built together, that solves it. Now back to the debate....


----------



## TarfHead

Revenue website has my house at a band lower than the one I calculated using data on property price register.

Difference is €90 (50,000 * 0.0018), €45 this year. Is it worth making a return based on the lower 'valuation' ?

I think it isn't.


----------



## irishmoss

Isn't this the whole problem? Not everyone reads the newspapers or sites like this to explain to people how this is going to work. The system they chose is flawed but they are being very clever because if you mess up they will penalise you.
This should be straightforward system to make it easy for people to understand but no we couln't do that here in dear old Ireland!




sahd said:


> Revenue *haven't* valued your house - they are just showing you what they have calculated to be the average value of houses like yours in your electoral area based on sale prices since 2010.


----------



## ClubMan

David_Dublin said:


> Isn't an end of terrace house = a semi detached house? I always thought it was. Surely a semi detached house is one which has another house stuck to it on one side, and none on the other, which is the case with an end of terrace.


No.

End of terrace = terraced.
Semi detached = one of a pair of adjoining houses.
Detached = standalone house.

In the spirit of this thread I'm sure that somebody will look for and find some other unusual arrangement of houses that does not fit into these categories but that should cover the vast majority of homes.


----------



## ClubMan

TarfHead said:


> Revenue website has my house at a band lower than the one I calculated using data on property price register.
> 
> Difference is €90 (50,000 * 0.0018), €45 this year. Is it worth making a return based on the lower 'valuation' ?
> 
> I think it isn't.


See what figure they come up with on the letter that they send you. If it's the lower "valuation" (I know I know!) then I would just take it.


----------



## geri

No offence intended, but I think that the suggestion that people should use "their accountant" to offer opinion on the property value being submitted, shows a certain remoteness from the general populace in relation to this issue. I dont have "an accountant" as I am sure many other people dont. If I wanted an accountant to do this one thing for me, I would have to hire one and pay him I'm sure. I don't see the point really.


----------



## David_Dublin

Anyone receive their letter yet? When are we expecting letters to arrive?


----------



## Sumatra

geri, personally I'd like to make my accountant aware of any dealings I have with revenue and if the accountant wishes to offer an opinion I'd appreciate the feed back. I know many don't have an accountant but most self employed do.

I have pointed out earlier how wasteful it was paying for a professional valuation. I paid for two separate valuations and the figures differed by 21%.

No letter received yet.


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> I have pointed out earlier how wasteful it was paying for a professional valuation. I paid for two separate valuations and the figures differed by 21%.


 
Which by the way proves my point that Revenue were on a hiding to nothing producing that map, since it can't be specific enough to cater for individual properties, what hope do they have of keeping people happy, when professional valuers looking at one specific property can't even agree to within a margin of 20%.


----------



## TarfHead

mandelbrot said:


> .. Revenue were on a hiding to nothing producing that map ..


 
+1


----------



## apple1978

I live in the Docklands area. It says that my one bed is worth 250k. A two bed would but not mine, I really wish that was the case, 100k lower. What do I do? Just choose the lower band? Do I have to actually prove it? Do I need to attach some kind of documentation? SIZE MATTERS in some cases!!!!


----------



## ClubMan

You just need to do an honest and accurate (as accurate as is feasible) assessment of the fair market value of your property. The _Revenue _area estimates will definitely be too high or too low for some properties. Wait and see if they come up with something different and more specific when they write to you. Even then consider things like (a) any similar properties sold recently ([broken link removed]) (b) asking prices for similar properties in the area (not ideal but an indicator of what the market value might be - e.g. www.daft.ie, www.myhome.ie, www.property.ie, www.thepropertypin.com, historical sale prices and indexation as mentioned earlier by _Brendan Burgess _etc.) (c) what you think is a realistic/reasonable price to pay or receive for your property. You could always get a valuation but these aren't necessarily any more accurate than other data and it's hardly worth paying (c. €100 or more I presume?) for one. I'd imagine that unless you choose some obviously crazy valuation for your property that _Revenue _will be happy.


----------



## apple1978

Thanks for your advice. I will wait and see if that is actually what they tell me when they write out to me. I had a look at the property register and it showed a huge difference. One beds not easy to sell at the moment. If they want to know why I have chosen that then I guess I can prove it. I feel most sorry for my elderly parents, their house is nothing like the valuation I can see on the estimator, I hope they don't pay this, I think older people will be fearful not to.


----------



## ClubMan

I wouldn't assume that "older people" are necessarily mugs when it comes to tax. Quite a few of them lived through (and some of them availed of) a number of tax amnesties and refused to pay property tax the last time it came in!


----------



## apple1978

True true, but they don't all have the IT skills to do the research and many that I know don't question the tax man because they fear him. ( I would love to say my folks were standing up and refusing to pay but I am afraid they weren't and have always been very honest).


----------



## Bronte

apple1978 said:


> I would love to say my folks were standing up and refusing to pay but I am afraid they weren't and have always been very honest.


 
This I don't get, your parent's are honest, they always pay their taxes and this is a bad thing?  If everybody were more like them maybe we'd all pay less taxes.


----------



## DerKaiser

DerKaiser said:


> Three houses sold in our estate over the last 6 months, all quite similar. One barely crept into the band suggested by the guide whilst the other two were comfortably in the band just below.
> 
> I will have no problem in justifying dropping a band down based on an average of actual sales. Also, from checking out a few valuations of family / friends houses, the valuations do seem to err towards the higher end.


 
Got my actual letter today. The band we've been placed in is one above the one on the website and two above the average house price sold in the estate in the last six months. 

I am not paying €180 per annum above the level suggested by recent house price sales of identical houses!!


----------



## SPUDZ

Don't you find it amusing that the whole country is up in arms about the value of their property now and how to calculate it.However go back to circa 2005 and EVERYONE was an expert on the market value of thier homes and the Jones homes!!and exactly the % increase in value since the day they bought it....% increase since the last month...% increase since they had their breakfast! Oh how times have changed, what short memories we all have!


----------



## Sumatra

Yes who wants a property worth a million thesedays! The vulgarity of herd behavior during the Celtic Tiger years but lets not forget not everyone ran with the herd (perhaps apples parents and for certain my own mother). When people lost the run of themselves dropping down a peg or two was a benefit to society and presently with all that is going on I like to think my glass is still very much half full.


----------



## David_Dublin

DerKaiser said:


> Got my actual letter today. The band we've been placed in is one above the one on the website and two above the average house price sold in the estate in the last six months.
> 
> I am not paying €180 per annum above the level suggested by recent house price sales of identical houses!!




Nor are you expected to. There is no better way to fairly evaluate your house value than to use the sale value of houses similar to your own in your neighbourhood.


----------



## theoneill

David_Dublin said:


> Nor are you expected to. There is no better way to fairly evaluate your house value than to use the sale value of houses similar to your own in your neighbourhood.



I'm not so sure about this. Isn't there some differentiation between market value and actual value? 

You may argue that your neighbours home sold for X. But revenue could counter that the actual value of the home was Y and therefore your home is actually worth Y despite what the market says.


----------



## Bronte

theoneill said:


> You may argue that your neighbours home sold for X. But revenue could counter that the actual value of the home was Y and therefore your home is actually worth Y despite what the market says.


 
Why would revenue do this?  If you can prove that recently a similar property sold for X and you're valuing your house at X there should be no problem.


----------



## David_Dublin

Bronte said:


> Why would revenue do this?  If you can prove that recently a similar property sold for X and you're valuing your house at X there should be no problem.



This is absolutely correct. Some people seem to be going out of their way to over-complicate this. There are very few people in Ireland who dont have a pretty good idea what their property is worth. There are fewer still who wont be able to make an informed guess based on what similar houses sold for. Armed with that information, this really is quite simple. Revenue are not out to get people, and there wont be any issues unless they find that you have elected to apply a value significantly below what it should reasonably have been valued at.


----------



## oldnick

Yes, the ONLY value of a property is what someone is willing to pay/has just paid for it, not sentimental value, not cost of replacing.

I just cannot understand how some people -including my neighbours - keep repeating "how can we value our houses ?-we have no idea".  They're mainly professional, educated people -yet proclaim complete ignorance about valuing their house.

I suspect the real reason for their professed ignorance is that they don't want to pay "too much " and rather low estimates are being bandied about. When I suggested maybe add 100k to the estimate just to be on the safe aside it was as if I said let's kill our first-born. Yet the extra band payment is 180 euros p.a. And there are no impecunious widows where I live.

I'm retired,not rich and I do resent this tax- and the especially stupid timing.  But frankly I'm relieved that it doesn't approach the property taxes being paid in U.K., U.S.A or most other EU states where such charges are several times greater.


----------



## mandelbrot

David_Dublin said:


> This is absolutely correct. Some people seem to be going out of their way to over-complicate this. There are very few people in Ireland who dont have a pretty good idea what their property is worth. There are fewer still who wont be able to make an informed guess based on what similar houses sold for. Armed with that information, this really is quite simple. Revenue are not out to get people, and there wont be any issues unless they find that you have elected to apply a value significantly below what it should reasonably have been valued at.


 
+1 million


----------



## Bronte

oldnick said:


> I just cannot understand how some people -including my neighbours - keep repeating "how can we value our houses ?-we have no idea". They're mainly professional, educated people -yet proclaim complete ignorance about valuing their house.
> 
> .


 
I thought it was a national sport at dinner parties during the Celtic tiger.  Everybody seemed well able to value their houses then.


----------



## Dermot

The value of the property is the market value on the 1st May. If you can establish that by way of a recent sale of a similar property you have absolutely nothing to worry about.  BTW in the interview with Pat Kenny put a notional situation to the chairman of revenue that if there were five similar in an roadway and one is sold for a crazy price over the top price because of some "emotional" attachment would this be the price for the others with revenue. She sensibly replied No.


----------



## Marion

I was just chatting to my sis in Canada. She sent me a copy of her property tax form.

Her assessed value is at below the market value of the house.

Her assessed value is $310,000. (Official valuation) (She knows that her house would fetch at least $350,000 based on recent sales in her area.) Her capped value is $230,000 (official valuation) So she pays tax on the lesser amount. Capped value 2 years ago was $214,000. Capped values are placed  in "hot spots" where prices rise quickly on property values.

What does this money pay for?

*Local funding*:
urban general tax - rate of tax to be paid
Transport
Fire Protection (hydrants)
Education
Snow clearing

*Provincial funding*:
Education
Property valuation service
Correction services
Housing authority

Her property tax bill is in the region of $3000 per annum.



So, in her area they don't look for market value of the property. She is delighted, obviously, that this is the case.

Maybe this is what revenue intends for us here in Ireland without spelling it out to us. Do we really want to be spoonfed?

We are all (histrionics, I know) fretting over nothing in relation to the guideline valuations. 

Revenue might be very happy for us to have self-directed valuations based on their guidelines. 

Marion


----------



## Greta

oldnick said:


> I do resent this tax- and the *especially stupid timing*.  But frankly I'm relieved that it doesn't approach the property taxes being paid in U.K., U.S.A or most other EU states where such charges are several times greater.



Does anybody else think the timing is stupid? I have looked through this thread and the discussion seems to be almost entirely about the valuation. But it seems to me the timing is just outrageously stupid - it is certain to leave a lot of people unable to file by the deadline. The Revenue is giving themselves a month to post out the forms, yet expects then that we'll all be able to fill the forms and get it back to them in less than a month! (OK, it gives a "generous" three more weeks to submit online.)

I expect a lot of mess - forms getting posted to wrong addresses, not posted on time, website crashing etc, etc... 

Why create such a rush?! 

Is this a way to hit otherwise-compliant people with penalties? And what are the penalties for being slightly over the deadline? 
Or is it just sheer stupidity on the part of the Revenue?


----------



## Bronte

I fail to see any rush.  I'm sure it will be just as easy to pay this on time.  It was no bother to pay the NPPR or household charge when they first emerged and there were a few teething problems with those too.


----------



## Greta

Bronte, the NPPR and household charge had 3 months to pay, and didn't need to wait for a letter from the Revenue, a letter that can be delayed, posted to the wrong address etc.

This is just my point, why is the window to register so narrow? 

And a large number of people didn't pay the NPPR on time, in some cases for years, because they didn't know about it, especially those who live abroad. I did pay, and on time, but only by being very proactive. However, now the window to submit the return for this new tax is so narrow, even I will struggle. OK, I'll probably make it, just by submitting it online even if I don't get the Revenue estimate on time (it appears to be possible), but my point is a very large number of people will fall behind, and will then be hit with penalties, and harassed with threatening letters, for failing to submit by 7 May (or 28 May, if online). Why is this so early, when the payment is only expected in July? Mid-July for a single direct debit.


----------



## Greta

sahd said:


> WIth forms going out now and over the next 4 weeks - people will have  between 3 and 7 weeks to get the form back. It's only a matter of entering a valuation band and a payment method - it won't take long to fill in.
> The Revenue will need several weeks / months maybe to enter them all on the system.



Three weeks IS very narrow! With the time it takes in the post, it can get even more narrow, especially for those who are abroad. And that's assuming the Revenue get everything right, which I don't have a huge confidence in, after I paid the Household charge on time but was then sent several threatening letters demanding the payment. 

The point I am trying to make is we were given 3 months to register for the NPPR and Household charge, but only 3-7 weeks now, and it will cause more people to miss the deadline. Why the rush? - would it be too unreasonable to expect a more realistic timescale? If the Revenue needs so long to enter our details on the system, maybe the payment dates could have been put back by a months or two? Or is this too much to expect?


----------



## Dermot

Surely now is the time to change the legislation so as the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General have full access to all Local Authority spending. The people ought to demand this as everyone knows there has be some dubious dealings by Local Authorities.


----------



## Sumatra

When you add up all those benefits your sister is getting very good value for her $3,000 pa in Canada. France is similar. Here Mr Noonan has stated he doesn't think there would be any benefits informing the payer of LPT how his/her money was being spent because of the administrative burden involved.


----------



## Marion

One of her colleagues has a house officially assessed at 900,000 and is not in a capped neighbourhood. Her property tax is $10,000 pa. 

Marion


----------



## Sumatra

€7,500 that is pretty steep. How much does he/she have to earn to pay that?


----------



## Marion

Income isn't a factor in relation to the tax per se.

If somebody decides to live in an impressive valuable property they have to pay a price - high property tax. The tax must be paid regardless.

Marion


----------



## Sumatra

Understood Marion. I was wondering how much she would have to earn gross to enable her to pay the $3K (or other case $10k)? Kind regards,


----------



## itsallwrong

Der Kaiser - I will have no problem in justifying dropping a band down based on an average of actual sales. Also, from checking out a few valuations of family / friends houses, the valuations do seem to err towards the higher end. 

Do the Gov ever estimate on the low side ?
Same goes for my house - easily in the band below based on sales in the area.


----------



## Marion

Sumatra, I suppose the best way to answer the question without knowing the specific income ( I wouldn't ask) is to say that the average property tax where she lives is around $2000 give or take. 

She is a double income public sector household.

Those who are on low incomes receive rental properties and so do not pay any property tax.

(As an aside she has never made any issues of paying the property tax. I'm the one who has made an issue of this. Her big issue - without wanting to take this thread off topic is College fees. They are paying $50,000 Per annum, give or take  for 2 children in 2 different undergrad colleges at the moment. This includes living expenses). They were prepared and have had  an investment vehicle in place to pay for this as they did not want their children to start their working lives with a bank loan. I presume this will come down the line in Ireland.)

Marion


----------



## Sumatra

Thanks Marion.


----------



## apple1978

I received my letter. As expected I have been asked to pay more than the actual value. My question is do I have to prove it as I am still confused about that.


----------



## irishmoss

I rang revenue, they advised going to local auctioneer and look at similar properties for sale then send into revenue the copy of the advert along with form so it seems they will be looking for information to back up your counter claim your property is valued less than their estimate


----------



## eamo

*Property tax*

I live in two bed house in my fathers farmyard  he would not allow sale, so what value will I use for lpt.


----------



## Bronte

irishmoss said:


> I rang revenue, they advised going to local auctioneer and look at similar properties for sale then send into revenue the copy of the advert along with form so it seems they will be looking for information to back up your counter claim your property is valued less than their estimate


 
That's very bad advice from revenue as the 'for sale' price may not be any close reflection of selling price.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> That's very bad advice from revenue as the 'for sale' price may not be any close reflection of selling price.


Revenue's interest here, and elsewhere, is to maximise the amounts collected in tax. They have no duty of care in relation to their "customers'" tax minimisation & tax planning.


----------



## mandelbrot

T McGibney said:


> Revenue's interest here, and elsewhere, is to maximise the amounts collected in tax. They have no duty of care in relation to their "customers'" tax minimisation & tax planning.



That's at odds with the commitment given on their website.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/customer-service.html
Our Commitment to Quality Service

Revenue devotes a great deal of time and effort to providing a top quality service to our customers. We have a responsibility to provide clear information and to make dealing with us as easy as possible.
By providing even better customer service and more taxpayer education and help, we aim to help all of our customers pay the right amount of tax and duty at the right time. We want to ensure that our customers know about their entitlements and to make claiming them simple and straightforward.


----------



## dub_nerd

eamo said:


> I live in two bed house in my fathers farmyard he would not allow sale, so what value will I use for lpt.


 
If the house isn't yours you're not liable for the property tax. If it is yours, nobody can stop you selling it.


----------



## Bronte

Looks like Eamo built a property on the fathers land.  Very tricky.  If it cannot be sold separately that it has no value, but it would presumably add value to the main house.


----------



## Sumatra

They may devote a great deal of time and money but we cannot say the result is good service. A commitment statement just tells us why they exist. It isn't proof of efficiency, value or good service.


----------



## T McGibney

mandelbrot said:


> That's at odds with the commitment given on their website.
> 
> http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/customer-service.html
> Our Commitment to Quality Service
> 
> Revenue devotes a great deal of time and effort to providing a top quality service to our customers. We have a responsibility to provide clear information and to make dealing with us as easy as possible.
> By providing even better customer service and more taxpayer education and help, we aim to help all of our customers pay the right amount of tax and duty at the right time. We want to ensure that our customers know about their entitlements and to make claiming them simple and straightforward.



That commitment is all well and good but it does not amount to a duty of care. There are no adverse consequences for Revenue or staff members where a "customer" overpays tax as a result of incorrect or inappropriate advice dispensed by them to the "customer".


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> They may devote a great deal of time and money but we cannot say the result is good service.


 Where did I say any such thing?


Sumatra said:


> A commitment statement just tells us why they exist.


 No, I think you're thinking of a mission statement (The Mission Statement of Revenue is: 'To serve the community by fairly and efficiently collecting taxes and duties and implementing Customs controls.') - a commitment statement is just that, it explicitly states a commitment.


Sumatra said:


> It isn't proof of efficiency, value or good service.


 Again I never suggested it is? That's for the Comptroller & Auditor General to decide surely.


----------



## T McGibney

mandelbrot said:


> Again I never suggested it is? That's for the Comptroller & Auditor General to decide surely.



The same guys who audited Fás? Yeah, right.


----------



## Sumatra

Mandelbrot, the question was on duty of care to which you quoted customer service.


----------



## eamo

*Property tax*

This is a reconstructed cottage,  no main house ,father would not allow anyone else access through yard,no seperate entrance


----------



## seantheman

eamo said:


> This is a reconstructed cottage, no main house ,father would not allow anyone else access through yard,no seperate entrance


 
I'd expect the house still has a value?


----------



## mandelbrot

Sumatra said:


> Mandelbrot, the question was on duty of care to which you quoted customer service.


 
What question are you talking about? I wasn't answering any question.

TMcGibney made a statement


T McGibney said:


> Revenue's interest here, and elsewhere, is to maximise the amounts collected in tax. They have no duty of care in relation to their "customers'" tax minimisation & tax planning.


 
I made a statement


mandelbrot said:


> That's at odds with the commitment given on their website.
> 
> http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/customer-service.html
> Our Commitment to Quality Service
> 
> Revenue devotes a great deal of time and effort to providing a top quality service to our customers. We have a responsibility to provide clear information and to make dealing with us as easy as possible.
> By providing even better customer service and more taxpayer education and help, we aim to help all of our customers pay the right amount of tax and duty at the right time. We want to ensure that our customers know about their entitlements and to make claiming them simple and straightforward.


 
The mission statement is to fairly and efficiently collect taxes - this is consistent with the aim of collecting the right tax at the right time as set out in the customer service statement. There is no agenda of maximisation AFAIK, except to maximise collection of tax that is properly due i.e. the amount due under the tax legislation. It's not as if Revenue staff are on commission!


----------



## Sumatra

So are they the Revenue Commissioners or the revenue commission?


----------



## dub_nerd

eamo said:


> This is a reconstructed cottage, no main house ,father would not allow anyone else access through yard,no seperate entrance


 
Do you legally own the cottage and the land it sits on? If so, you are liable for the tax. However, if it has no right of access from a road, I would say it's probably unsaleable. Since the LPT is based on market value, I presume that would put it in the lowest band for tax. Interesting (and possibly unique) situation. Perhaps you need a valuer to advise.


----------



## rameire

Ghost Estate Local property tax exemption list

http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,32636,en.pdf


----------



## 3CC

I am just waiting for DAFT or MYHOME to introduce a facility where houseowners can publish which band they intend to value their house in. That would give people the confidence that their valuation is supported others around them. 

If they do, it will be a coup. It will generate huge traffic to their sites.


----------



## ClubMan

3CC said:


> If they do, it will be a coo.


Unless some stool pigeon gives the game away...


----------



## 3CC

Well spotted Clubman. I edited my post but I am caught out by those damn quotes.


----------



## WaterWater

Based on the Revenue site my house is valued at €850k. This should put a Property Tax valuation of my property at €765 for this half year (€1530 for the year). The letter I received today is asking for €940 tax for the half year or €1880 for the full year.  That's a difference of €350 per annum. Quite a difference between their own guide and the letter received.


----------



## mandelbrot

WaterWater said:


> Based on the Revenue site my house is valued at €850k. This should put a Property Tax valuation of my property at €765 for this half year (€1530 for the year). The letter I received today is asking for €940 tax for the half year or €1880 for the full year. That's a difference of €350 per annum. Quite a difference between their own guide and the letter received.


 
Firstly, based on the site, your charge this year would either be €742 (801k - 850k band) or €787 (850k - 900k). There is no facility for you to pay / be charged €765.
(http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/liability.html)

The map contains averages for the electoral areas; your letter has a slightly more location-specific estimate, based on Geodirectory information about proximity to amenities etc...

Just to be clear the letter you got today *DOES NOT ASK* for that amount of money from you - it asks you to place a valuation on your house and file a return accordingly. *If, and only if, you fail to file a return* will Revenue then seek to enforce collection of the amount stated on your letter, in the absence of you having provided them with a valuation.

So, the website offers indicative information about average values in your electoral area, and your letter has a slightly more location-specific average figure on it, but neither of them are a valuation of your house - it's up to you to decide on a figure for your specific property.


----------



## WaterWater

mandelbrot said:


> The map contains averages for the electoral areas; your letter has a slightly more location-specific estimate, based on Geodirectory information about proximity to amenities etc...


 
Who compiles the Geodirectory information? Can anyone gain access to this data? I would love to know why my house is valued more than a house 50 yds away from me that is the same size but different style. 

My calculations were based on €850k x .18% rather than band valuation. Thanks for pointing this out. No doubt the bands will be played around with in future years as will the .18% calculation.

My actual demand is for €938. This is a strange figure. It seems to value my property at €1,031,000. Properties valued at over €1m seem to be specific to the value multiplied by .18% and are outside of any band. So I don't even get the benefit of being within a €50k band?


----------



## ClubMan

Post deleted - ignore.


----------



## WaterWater

sahd said:


> Earlier you said it was for €940. This corresponds to a value of €1million .
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/liability.html
> 
> On this calculator €1m = €877.


----------



## Grizzly

WaterWater said:


> .
> 
> My actual demand is for €938. This is a strange figure. It seems to value my property at €1,031,000.


 
WaterWater is correct. Sahd I think that you are basing your calculation on an earlier post of WaterWater before clarification.

Incidentally are there no bands for properties valued at over €1m?


----------



## demoivre

I was valuing my house at €300k in January. Happy days


----------



## David_Dublin

Grizzly said:


> WaterWater is correct. Sahd I think that you are basing your calculation on an earlier post of WaterWater before clarification.
> 
> Incidentally are there no bands for properties valued at over €1m?


No


----------



## David_Dublin

I got my letter. Their figure is well below what I believe would be a fair & honest estimated valuation. Other houses around me, albeit in better condition, have sold in the last year for around the 700k mark, the Revenue letter has mine at mid-point 375k. Decisions, decisions. From a conscience perspective I am happy to use their number, I paid a lot of stamp duty in the hey-day, I can live with a slightly low-balled valuation. I'd be more concerned with what Revenue might think of my behaviour if they came to have a look! Might talk to the neighbours, see what their plan is, we are in a terrace of 4 houses on the road.


----------



## dereko1969

Well then you'd be lying to Revenue and making a false statement in your return, the fact that you want your neighbours to join in the charade is quite childish, well he was doing it too!

When are people going to realise that what Revenue is sending you doesn't really matter in the end, it's your own honestly felt (and provable) estimate of the value of your home that counts?


----------



## David_Dublin

dereko1969 said:


> the fact that you want your neighbours to join in the charade is quite childish, well he was doing it too!



That some leap, to take that meaning from what I posted. Good work! 

I'd say, like an awful lot of people who live in one of a small number of identical houses, I am no different in intending to discuss the valuation I intend to put on my property. 

I certainly dont intend to overvalue my property, and will err on the side of under valuing if I am in doubt. This is not an exact science, I intend to declare the house valuation to be as little as I can possible substantiate it being worth. And I am clear of conscience with this.


----------



## dereko1969

That's a bit different between accepting 375k instead of 700k must be great to have such a flexible conscience.


----------



## David_Dublin

The value I decide to submit will not weigh on my conscience one iota, whether I believe I have undervalued or not. Like most people, I intend to select as low a value as I can substantiate should Mr Revenue come calling, an no more. I dont think 37k is going to work, maybe something around the 500k.


----------

