# I rented out my home without notifying the bank or the Revenue



## sandal

I know this is discussed in a few places but I am just wondering if anyone else is in the same position as myself?

I own an apartment and rented it out some time ago without letting my bank nor revenue know.  I know I should have but I just can't afford an increase in my mortgage and also cannot afford losing the TRS. 

I am starting to feel very worried that I will be 'found out' and I fear what may happen. Am I thinking about it too much or what do others advise?

Are other people in the 'same boat' as me?  

Any advice welcome.


----------



## serotoninsid

sandal said:


> I know this is discussed in a few places but I am just wondering if anyone else is in the same position as myself?


Yes - it has - and within the last couple of weeks, a previous thread exactly on this subject springs to mind.  It would be worth your while to run a search.



sandal said:


> I own an apartment and rented it out some time ago without letting my bank nor revenue know.  I know I should have but I just can't afford an increase in my mortgage and also cannot afford losing the TRS.


Few would blame you!  I know if I was in this position (and there are a set of circumstances that could bring this about for me too at some point) - I would do the same.

From what I understand, the points of weakness could be PRTB registration - it's a judgement call - but I would say, don't do it!  The other would be insurance documentation.  I'm not sure what lender your with - but mine insist on getting a copy of the insurance policy each year (if I have changed insurance provider....which invariably I do - in order to get the best deal).  What's stated on that policy could indicate the status of your property - so some thought needs to go into that.




sandal said:


> Are other people in the 'same boat' as me?


Purely speculative on my part ...but I would be inclined to think there are a LOT of folks in the 'same boat' as you in this regard.


----------



## oldnick

Many people ,even those like me  who are doing everything correctly at great expence, will understand  your position. Some will wish they had the nerve to do what you are doing.

The same people, including me, will feel annoyed that they are jumping through all the hoops, constantly paying money and filling in forms -whilst you get off scot-free and are saving money,  in effect, at our expence.

So what are you asking ? For people "in the same boat"  i.e. fellow tax-cheats  to tell you how they are getting on ?  How to continue getting away with it ? Or what?

You must know that if you come clean you'll pay a penaltywith revenue/PRTB etc. The longer you leave it the greater the penalty. But on the other hand you may get away with it for ever . 

In the meantime I and the rest of us continue to pay,pay and pay.


----------



## mandelbrot

Well the likelihood is that you will be found out at some stage.

You may be caught for the NPPR, which will flag the fact that you have a  property you don't live in, which would then flag the fact that you  haven't got a PRTB reg, and that you haven't returned any rental income to Revenue...

You may feel that you don't have any choice other than to do what you're doing, but you need to be aware that if / when you get caught out, it'll cost you a substantial amount of money.


----------



## shesells

serotoninsid said:


> Yes - it has - and within the last couple of weeks, a previous thread exactly on this subject springs to mind.  It would be worth your while to run a search.
> 
> Few would blame you!  I know if I was in this position (and there are a set of circumstances that could bring this about for me too at some point) - I would do the same.
> 
> From what I understand, the points of weakness could be PRTB registration - it's a judgement call - but I would say, don't do it!  The other would be insurance documentation.  I'm not sure what lender your with - but mine insist on getting a copy of the insurance policy each year (if I have changed insurance provider....which invariably I do - in order to get the best deal).  What's stated on that policy could indicate the status of your property - so some thought needs to go into that.
> 
> 
> 
> Purely speculative on my part ...but I would be inclined to think there are a LOT of folks in the 'same boat' as you in this regard.



What you are suggesting is breaking the law, fraud and tax evasion. While I understand the OP's position is tough, why should the rest of us who are already struggling be the ones to pay?


----------



## serotoninsid

shesells said:


> What you are suggesting is breaking the law, fraud and tax evasion.


It's the OP's query and it's the OP who makes his/her own decision on that - not me.



shesells said:


> While I understand the OP's position is tough, why should the rest of us who are already struggling be the ones to pay?


 I wouldn't presume to know the extent and specifics of the OP's situation.  However, your both quite right.  The right thing to do is to ensure tax compliance _regardless_ of the circumstances.


----------



## shesells

serotoninsid said:


> It's the OP's query and it's the OP who makes his/her own decision on that - not me.



True but you did suggest non registration with the PRTB?


----------



## mandelbrot

shesells said:


> What you are suggesting is breaking the law, fraud and tax evasion. While I understand the OP's position is tough, why should the rest of us who are already struggling be the ones to pay?



It's easy to be on the moral high ground, but sometimes circumstances dictate people's decisions.

If you were in the same situation as the OP you might well find yourself making decisions you'd always have believed unthinkable.

As long as the OP is prepared to accept the consequences if / when they get caught, who are you or I to judge.


----------



## serotoninsid

shesells said:


> True but you did suggest non registration with the PRTB?


What mandelbrot said.


----------



## shesells

mandelbrot said:


> It's easy to be on the moral high ground, but sometimes circumstances dictate people's decisions.
> 
> If you were in the same situation as the OP you might well find yourself making decisions you'd always have believed unthinkable.
> 
> As long as the OP is prepared to accept the consequences if / when they get caught, who are you or I to judge.



Because I am someone who never planned to be a landlord but ended up as one. We make major sacrifices to do everything above board with our former home. It costs us money to rent that house out, but it is something we have to do. And so I feel strongly about people evading tax and not registering the property as rented as the OP has done. Why should those of us who do things by the book shoulder the burden (and the bad reputation) for those who don't?


----------



## mandelbrot

You may be making sacrifices, but I presume you're keeping your head above water. There is no question that there are people who, if they did everything by the book, would simply end up in default and out on their ear.

If people make the choice to shirk their responsibilities as a lifestyle choice, because it would mean they couldn't have their foreign holiday or upgrade the car, that's a very different kettle of fish.

What I'm saying is unless you know all the circumstances don't rush to judgement.


----------



## ClubMan

I presume that this is the main question?


sandal said:


> I am starting to feel very worried that I will be 'found out' and I fear what may happen. Am I thinking about it too much or what do others advise?


The prudent thing here would be to come clean and regularise your situation with regard to the rental property in my view. Ignoring unresolved tax (e.g. evading tax on rental income and fraudulently claiming _TRS_) issues simply compounds the risks involved in eventually being "found out" - which I presume are already high (e.g. as soon as tenants claim the rent tax credit etc.). Not much more to be said about it as far as I can see.


----------



## pink_cloud

I found myself unexpectedly in that situation. I've been trying to sell for 3 years when an agent said he had an excellent person who wished to buy but needed to rent first. I was an extremely reluctant landlord. However, I changed my insurance for the house to a Landlord's Insurance policy. Last year things had got so bad I couldn't even afford my usual accountant but I did manage to do an online tax return in October for the tax year April 2010 to April 2011. Guess what? I got a tax refund!!! Get help, get advice, and take the action. Peace of mind is priceless.


----------



## mandelbrot

Well, as I said previously, if decisions are being made to facilitate maintaining a particular level of lifestyle, there's only one bit of advice you're likely to get here OP - register and pay what you owe.

If for no other reason than that it will cost you money in the long run if you don't. If you don't register with the PRTB, you lose any deduction for interest against rental income - so when Revenue catch up with you, you will owe them 41% income tax plus PRSI and Income levy / USC, on the total amount of rent received. Plus you'll owe interest and penalties on top. Interest is about 11% p.a., and the penalty could be anywhere from 15% - 100% of the tax not returned / paid.

So, as it is with you now, you're sitting on a financial timebomb... it's going to go off, but you don't know when, or at what cost. At this stage (assuming you're getting €750 - €1k p.m. in rent since mid-'09) you probably owe over €10k already, and it's accruing at about €500 p.m... if you had done things correctly, your interest deduction would probably cover most of the rent, so you would owe very little tax on rental income. Essentially you may only be worse off to the tune of the TRS lost, and possibly a different interest rate, but at least you wouldn't be looking over your shoulder waiting for the inevitable.


----------



## ClubMan

Good point - owner occupier _TRS _pales in comparison to the ability to write off 75% of mortgage interest against rental income when situations such as this are handled above board.


----------



## T McGibney

The banning of interest deductions for non-PRTB registered properties is having the effect of criminalising and financially ruining people for the sort of relatively minor tax offence that used to be easily resolved by retrospectively filling a few tax returns.  The ruinous penalties attaching to non-compliance are utterly disproportionate to the offence. It should be repealed.


----------



## ClubMan

But in the meantime the original poster would probably be best advised to work within the existing rules?


----------



## T McGibney

They are in a genuine catch-22. They have no choice but to try to retrospectively register for PRTB (which will alert their lender) and file tax returns, but it is a mess and they probably need proper legal/tax advice before they do anything.


----------



## ClubMan

T McGibney said:


> it is a mess


Of their own making.


----------



## T McGibney

ClubMan said:


> Of their own making.



and what is the relevance of that? I'm only trying to help them, not lecture or judge them.


----------



## mandelbrot

OK, so can we agree the consensus would appear to be, the guy needs to go get proper advice, with a view to regularising his position as soon as is feasible for him to do so.

If he gets a PRTB registration, it's quite likely his net rental income will be below 3,174 and he won't be required to file under self assessment, so he'll escape interest on the late tax (AFAIK).

The rights or wrongs of the current interest deduction rules don't really come into it.

(Thread closed!)


----------



## T McGibney

mandelbrot said:


> The rights or wrongs of the current interest deduction rules don't really come into it.



I think they do, because in the case we're talking about, if the  person isn't able to retrospectively backdate their PRTB registration,  they are in serious trouble and this is why they may need both legal and  tax advice. I don't want to scare people, but people could end up being financially ruined by this and I genuinely don't think that this was either Brian Cowen's or his officials' intention when they made interest deduction conditional on PRTB registration in order to encourage the latter.


----------



## aido71

Just a recount of my experiences of potential liablity if non PRTB registered. I have a property rented since about 2006 fully compliant with PRTB etc and as a PAYE worker file the appropriate return each October. I have always got a tax rebate ranging from a couple of hundred euro to €1500 one year! (sadly a once off!). Anyhow in 2009 there was a change of tenant (slightly unusual in way it occured) and reregistration with PRTB was required. To make it short after subsequent tax returns i was hit with a tax liability of over €2000 as Revenue claimed we were not PRTB compliant. The matter was resolved quite easily (both Revenue and PRTB were very helpful) and new tax cert changed from above liability to a €250 rebate!.I post this just to illustrate the potential difference in being compliant and not. Also bear in mind this bill was for one year and did not include any backcharges or penalties. It is not for me to judge but i would not like to be in a position where Revenue caught up after a few years of non compliance. I appreciate however the predicament people are now in. However even within being compliant if you are clever with your returns there are a number of ways of legitimately (well almost) claiming against your rental property which helps in some way with the ever increasing costs of being a LL.


----------



## mandelbrot

T McGibney said:


> I think they do, because in the case we're talking about, if the person isn't able to retrospectively backdate their PRTB registration, they are in serious trouble and this is why they may need both legal and tax advice. I don't want to scare people, but people could end up being financially ruined by this and I genuinely don't think that this was either Brian Cowen's or his officials' intention when they made interest deduction conditional on PRTB registration in order to encourage the latter.


 
FWIW I aagree with you that the policy is very draconian, but whether or not the policy, or it's application, is right or wrong is irrelevant.

It simply is how it is at present and people have to act accordingly. Which as you say may merit the OP getting legal & tax advice here.

Discussion about the rights & wrongs of it are for another (worthwhile) thread IMO.


----------



## HMC

I agree with Pink Cloud.  You can't put a price on peace of mind.  My lender is unaware that I'm renting out my property (I emailed to sound them out but got no response, then went ahead anyway) but I did cancel the TRS immediately.  
It's the right thing to do.


----------



## oldnick

Sorry, slightly off topic..

How does Revenue know whether a tenancy complies with PRTB regulations if a tenancy need not be registered with PRTB ?


----------



## mandelbrot

oldnick said:


> Sorry, slightly off topic..
> 
> How does Revenue know whether a tenancy complies with PRTB regulations if a tenancy need not be registered with PRTB ?


Not sure I know exactly what you're asking nick, but:
Well if they see a tenancy that isn't registered they'll probably ask why is this tenancy not registered. You'd then need to show how/why it's a letting to which PRTB requirements don't apply...


----------



## oldnick

Yeah,it was an idle question really. I just wondered after reading aido's post why Revenue said the tenancy was not PRTB compliant without having sent a letter asking for proof that the tenancy was a 35yr lease, whether there was a landlords child living there, or one of the other exemptions.

Actually i'm still unsure how Revenue or PRTB would ever know whether a property was rented if a landlord kept quiet. How could Revenue actually see a tenancy that wasn't on any PRTB list -(if,indeed, they could even understand that rather messy list of PRTB. )


----------



## aido71

Sorry if my post was unclear..... What I meant when I said 'non compliant' I meant from a tax point if view. My understanding is that in order to claim or offset the mortgage interest payable (75%) against income (I.e. rent) one has to be registered with the PRTB. In my case where Revenue initially could not find a record of the tenancy they disallowed this claim hence my liability for tax on profit from rental income. If no claim for this allowance is being made then my understanding is that Revenue would not be aware of rental property unless they find out by other means. Hope that clarifies!


----------



## Ceist Beag

Just to take oldnick's point a bit further tho, how would the PRTB know if you were late registering a tenancy either? All you would need to do is put a recent date (within the last month) as the start date of the tenancy to avoid any penalties no?


----------



## mandelbrot

Ceist Beag said:


> Just to take oldnick's point a bit further tho, how would the PRTB know if you were late registering a tenancy either? All you would need to do is put a recent date (within the last month) as the start date of the tenancy to avoid any penalties no?


 
The tenant has to sign the registration form as well AFAIK, so they'd have to agree to the charade, but if they do then you'll almost certainly be off the hook for the late reg fee.


----------



## T McGibney

mandelbrot said:


> The tenant has to sign the registration form as well AFAIK


No they don't. It can be completed online.


----------



## Ceist Beag

mandelbrot said:


> The tenant has to sign the registration form as well AFAIK, so they'd have to agree to the charade, but if they do then you'll almost certainly be off the hook for the late reg fee.



There's the thing mandelbrot - the tenant does not need to sign this form. All they provide is their PPSN number. So I see no reason why any landlord would ever pay a late registration fee as there is no way to to prove it is ever late! Of course it would mean the landlord couldn't claim tax relief for the rent received during the time the registration was not submitted for, there is that side of it!


----------



## sam h

> There's the thing mandelbrot - the tenant does not need to sign this form. All they provide is their PPSN number. So I see no reason why any landlord would ever pay a late registration fee as there is no way to to prove it is ever late!


 
You are correct, tenants no longer have to sign the form, however, problems may arise if there is a problem with the tenancy. Say the tenant has an issue & brings it to the PRTB and can prove that they have been resident for 3 years & the landlord only registered a year ago. The tenant will almost certainly be able to prove they have been there for 3 years via ESB bills, deposit chq, tenancy agreement etc.

If that is the case, the landlord may then be in trouble with revenue who may disallow interest relief that the landlord has claimed. I reckon this is an area revenue will clamp down upon as it is an easy one for them. 

I agree with T McGibney - this is a very harsh penaly for someone who has not paid up.

I worked with an accountant (office admin) & recall a client who had not registered due to illnesses & lack of awareness (right back when it started up) - they were unable to write of the substanial interest for a year due to not being registered.


----------



## serotoninsid

oldnick said:


> Actually i'm still unsure how Revenue or PRTB would ever know whether a property was rented if a landlord kept quiet. How could Revenue actually see a tenancy that wasn't on any PRTB list -(if,indeed, they could even understand that rather messy list of PRTB. )


Not sure about Revenue - but if a conflict were to arise between LL an tenant, who's to say they wouldn't make a few calls....in fact, they could do this in the case of revenue also.  It's probably unlikely - but from time to time (not sure whether read here or on boards.ie), I've come across posts where a disgruntled tenant is thinking in terms of doing this.


----------



## Vanilla

Not to mention the NPPR levy- I have a file where a client is buying a property where the NPPR levy was not paid, though it should have been, and the Vendor now has to cough up 2400 in levies and penalties.


----------



## mandelbrot

Vanilla said:


> Not to mention the NPPR levy- I have a file where a client is buying a property where the NPPR levy was not paid, though it should have been, and the Vendor now has to cough up 2400 in levies and penalties.


 
And there's also the possibility of a clawback of First Time Buyer stamp duty relief, potentially the biggest cost of all in this situation...


----------



## T McGibney

shesells said:


> It is precisely people like this that Revenue are targeting in their recent crackdown.



??? If there has been a recent crackdown on undisclosed PPR rentals, that's news to me.


----------



## Bronte

sandal said:


> I am starting to feel very worried that I will be 'found out' and I fear what may happen. Am I thinking about it too much or what do others advise?
> 
> Are other people in the 'same boat' as me?
> 
> Any advice welcome.


 
I think you are absolutely crazy not to sort this out, and you can still sort it out. If you want to sort it out and stop the worry then post back. It is oh so not worth risking what revenue can throw at you. 

Yes you can afford to lose TRS because the landlord mortgage interest relief you are entitled to is worth more. If you have another property and have equity in it all you are doing is building up a backlog of taxes, penalties and interest with revenue and they will take eventually the equity and your savings if you have any. 

Have you done the actual figures on what you can and cannot afford? Why don't you do the money makeover thread and give all the details so you may be given some good advice and help. 

Remember revenue are in no hurry to catch you, revenue have all the time in the world, there is no limit to back taxes. How they catch landlords ?
1. PRTB is sharing data with revenue, revenue are not wasting time looking up the PRTB list of houses
2. Tenant's claim rent tax relief, even if they don't inform the landlord, so revenue have you right there
3. Tenant's claim social welfare rent, even if they don't inform the landlord and social welfare are sharing info with revenue
4. Now with the new property tax being linked to ESB bills, that's going to flush out quite a few landlords
5. Apparently revenue are knocking door to door, not sure if this is true
6. Someone reports you to revenue, an upset neighbour of yours or a neighbour to your rented property who is upset with your tenant etc etc etc

If you don't sort it out, this small worry that you have now will grow and grow. You can decide to do something about it. If you want to. And the numbers will be getting more and more freightening. Believe it or not Revenue are currently being very nice and will come to arrangements.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Folks

Askaboutmoney has a strict privacy policy.  

Where someone's identity may have been compromised, we delete their posts. 

Under the circumstances, I would ask people to address the matters in this thread without referring to other threads.

Thanks


----------



## shesells

In that case and "not knowing" anything else, the best advice anyone on here can give is to go and speak to an accountant with a view to preparing a declaration to Revenue. The OP may not be able to afford to do this and to pay the penalties due, but I would contend that they cannot afford not to...oh and it's the law.


----------



## Favourite

Someone mentioned earlier that by registering with the PTRB this action would somehow inform the lender of the change of status of the property from owner occupied to rented. 

How is this the case?


----------



## 44brendan

Assumption is that the Banks are studiously exmining the PTRP data base to compare against properties held as security. Nothing is impossible, but I see this as being highly improbable!


----------



## Bronte

Favourite said:


> Someone mentioned earlier that by registering with the PTRB this action would somehow inform the lender of the change of status of the property from owner occupied to rented.
> 
> How is this the case?


 
There is absolutely no evidence of this, bankers have better things to do then look up the PRTB website of rented properies, which is quite a mess.  For revenue it is a different matter.


----------



## Favourite

Bronte said:


> There is absolutely no evidence of this, bankers have better things to do then look up the PRTB website of rented properies, which is quite a mess.  For revenue it is a different matter.



This is exactly what I thought. Where would they even start?? 

My personal situation is thus... 

I have been renting my apartment on and off for around three years. I did not file any tax returns or do any of the registrations. The reason for this was that I got the first time buyers allowance which stipulated that I could not rent the apartment for the first 5 years. 

If I had officially rented out the place during the first 5 years I would have had to pay 35k. Not an option. I had no work in Ireland so had to move overseas for work so had no choice but to rent out the apartment. Either that or default on my mortgage.  

Anyway all those tenancies went without a hitch. 

In 2012 I will have owned the property for over five years so have decided to go legal.  I have new tenants form the start of Jan, I have registered with the PTRB, paid the house hold charge and will pay the NPPR when it falls due in March. Also at the end of the year I will make a tax return for the year. ( I will have no liability due to the large short fall I suffer each month). 

To be honest I can't see how they can catch me out for those last three years. There is not proof that I had tenants in the place. Unless they look into the ESB. But why would they? If everything is above board this year, why would they delve into the past?? 

My past situation was not ideal but that was the best I could do. Finger crossed from now on everything will run smoothly.


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> There is absolutely no evidence of this, bankers have better things to do then look up the PRTB website of rented properies, which is quite a mess.  For revenue it is a different matter.



A couple of points here.

1. Once a submission is made to the PRTB, the property details are in the public domain. This applies regardless of the poor state of the PRTB website. Who's to say they won't in the future revamp the website or make their database available via other means (perhaps offline) to interested parties?

2. Lenders with tracker mortgages have a direct financial incentive to weasel out of mortgage contract commitments where they can legally do so. If they can prove that mortgage terms and conditions have been broken by the borrower, then they may have grounds to force the borrower onto a variable and/or higher interest rate.  

Like it or not, a due diligence exercise of tracker mortgaged properties using PRTB data could be very profitable for a bank, particularly if initiated by 'Fred the Shred' type characters in senior bank management whose sole motivation is the bank's bottom line and their own 'performance' bonuses and who care nothing about the human and other toll that a 'take no prisoners' approach to trackers would force on borrowers.

I'm not saying that this will ever happen, but it is a possibility.

Personally, I think that the PRTB database is an outrageous invasion of privacy and, like Revenue records, should only be maintained on a strictly confidential basis. Otherwise, the data therein are open to be used and misused by powerful vested interests at the expense of ordinary individuals.


----------



## elcato

> To be honest I can't see how they can catch me out for those last three  years. There is not proof that I had tenants in the place. Unless they  look into the ESB. But why would they? If everything is above board this  year, why would they delve into the past??


No reason except if you come to their attention on another matter and they decide to audit you. They may check bank statements so you may have to come up with reasonable explanations for payments going in for certain periods. If you fail to admit to owning an account then alarm bells will ring.


----------



## Favourite

elcato said:


> No reason except if you come to their attention on another matter and they decide to audit you. They may check bank statements so you may have to come up with reasonable explanations for payments going in for certain periods. If you fail to admit to owning an account then alarm bells will ring.



This business of the revenue "checking bank statements" is pure scare mongering. 

Do you have any idea the lengths that revenue must go to to get access to someones personal bank records?? They cannot just call the bank and ask for them. They do do this when they are chasing the big boys and criminals but the thought of them coming after me with the same venom is not something I am concerned with.


----------



## serotoninsid

In relation to the PRTB, those records are publicly available - and a 12 year old could run a search of the complete list for an address in a couple of minutes.  Of course, most likely this won't be an issue.  However, if any of the banks make a conscious decision to pursue this - then a small team working on this - and checking that list (together with checking the insurance documentation they have on file) would reap dividends for them.  Some banks are more aggressive than others and vary in terms of the policies they implement.  
However, many AAM'ers will be familiar with just how aggressively NIB pursued clients - in trying their damnedest to force them off tracker rates for investment mortgages.

I don't know how manys work - or have an insight into how likely they are to pursue such a policy but I doubt it's outside the realms of possibility?


----------



## mandelbrot

Favourite said:


> This business of the revenue "checking bank statements" is pure scare mongering.
> 
> Do you have any idea the lengths that revenue must go to to get access  to someones personal bank records?? They cannot just call the bank and  ask for them. They do do this when they are chasing the big boys and  criminals but the thought of them coming after me with the same venom is  not something I am concerned with.



Um, I think you need to stall your digger there and re-read Elcato's post... 





elcato said:


> ...if you come to their attention on another  matter and they decide to audit you. They may check bank  statements...



Elcato is talking about a situation where Revenue, for whatever reason,  select you for an audit. In the course of which they would certainly ask  you to produce your bank statements, no question about that.

Yes they have powers under S.902 / S.906A to seek information directly  from third parties, which tend to be invoked in more serious cases,  usually where the taxpayer decides to play silly buggers with producing  their own records.

(So I think you owe Elcato a teeny weeny apology...  )


----------



## RMCF

Bronte said:


> There is absolutely no evidence of this, bankers have better things to do then look up the PRTB website of rented properies, which is quite a mess.  For revenue it is a different matter.



I rented out, registered with PRTB etc, and even had my insurance company say that they would have to inform my lender when my insurance changed from private to landlord, and I still have no tracker with my bank and never heard anything from them.

I hope that there are just happy that someone is paying their mortgage every month to worry about it.


----------



## shesells

Well I hope the checking bank statements thing isn't scaremongering cos I'm sorry but the tax dodgers who have posted on here make my blood boil.

There is a legal requirement to register with the PRTB, there is a legal requirement to pay taxes on income, there is a legal requirement to inform revenue if you rent out a property within the stamp duty claw back time limit.

I understand that people have been struggling and desperate times call for desperate measures but it is a kick in the teeth to all of us who have been compliant and who have had to make sacrifices to do so.

Defaulting on a mortgage has personal implications for the borrower. Defrauding the taxpayer has implications for the rest of us. I know the mods don't like us to reference other posts but a check on your other posts Favourite shows this isn't the only non payment of tax issue you've had.


----------



## Favourite

shesells said:


> Well I hope the checking bank statements thing isn't scaremongering cos I'm sorry but the tax dodgers who have posted on here make my blood boil.
> 
> There is a legal requirement to register with the PRTB, there is a legal requirement to pay taxes on income, there is a legal requirement to inform revenue if you rent out a property within the stamp duty claw back time limit.
> 
> I understand that people have been struggling and desperate times call for desperate measures but it is a kick in the teeth to all of us who have been compliant and who have had to make sacrifices to do so.
> 
> Defaulting on a mortgage has personal implications for the borrower. Defrauding the taxpayer has implications for the rest of us. I know the mods don't like us to reference other posts but a check on your other posts Favourite shows this isn't the only non payment of tax issue you've had.



Can you please tell me what you would have done in my situation? 

If you were me then what would you have done. Left the apartment empty and default on my mortgage? I could have walked away from all that negitive equity and sent the keys to the bank in the post and let you the tax payer pay for it but  I didn't. I take responsibility for I what borrowed and I am repaying it. That would have cost you the tax payer more that if I did not file a tax return. Besides because of the shortfall I would have no tax liability of those years anyway.

Would you have called the tax office to tell them that you were renting out your apartment during the stamp duty claw back time and duly sent them a cheque for 35k when you had the princely sum of 200 euro in your bank account. Please do tell me what you would have done? 

I am doing the right thing now because I am finally in a position to do so, unlike so many many others. I did the best I could in a bad situation I don't lose an ounce of sleep over it. 

And while your commenting on my previous posts I have had a tax accountant file returns for the years I have been away and I had little to no liability. But thanks for nosing around. ( you should get a job with the Revenue!!)


----------



## Bronte

Favourite said:


> This business of the revenue "checking bank statements" is pure scare mongering.
> 
> Do you have any idea the lengths that revenue must go to to get access to someones personal bank records?? They cannot just call the bank and ask for them. They do do this when they are chasing the big boys and criminals but the thought of them coming after me with the same venom is not something I am concerned with.


 
You are so naive I cannot believe it.


----------



## Bronte

shesells said:


> Well I hope the checking bank statements thing isn't scaremongering cos I'm sorry but the tax dodgers who have posted on here make my blood boil.
> 
> I understand that people have been struggling and desperate times call for desperate measures but it is a kick in the teeth to all of us who have been compliant and who have had to make sacrifices to do so.


 
You shouldn't be worried, there are so many landlords who weave and dodge, but as the years go by the worry gets bigger and bigger and the liability higher and higher. The penalites and interest are horrendous, far higher than the actual tax. As I've posted many times, revenue are in no hurry to catch them, as they know whenthey do the payment will be substantial.  There have been quite a few posters on here who are trying to get their affairs in order, mostly because they get older and more worried about the implications.  At least they are trying to be tax complaint.


----------



## Bronte

Favourite said:


> If you were me then what would you have done.
> 
> Besides because of the shortfall I would have no tax liability of those years anyway.
> 
> Would you have called the tax office to tell them that you were renting out your apartment during the stamp duty claw back time and duly sent them a cheque for 35k when you had the princely sum of 200 euro in your bank account. Please do tell me what you would have done?


 
Do you not see why tax compliant tax payers would be annoyed with you?

To answer your questions, you could have sold the apartment, then you would not have been liable for the stamp duty.  You choose not to for whatever reason.  You could have come to an arrangment with the bank to repay the negative equity, or probably legitimately could have gone bankrupt where you were working.

You also chose to rent it out and not declare the rent, and you did this because you knew you would be liable for stamp duty. 

You are incorrect that due to the 'shortfall' you were not liable for tax on rent, not true, but if you had registered with the PRTB you would have been able to offset mortgage interest against rent.  

Nevertheless you are trying to get back on track, and that's good.  But I'd be worried about your bank accounts if I were you.  And there's the little matter of tenants who claim social welfare rent or tax rent relief without informing the landlord.  But you may be lucky and fall thru the net.


----------



## Favourite

Bronte said:


> Do you not see why tax compliant tax payers would be annoyed with you?
> 
> To answer your questions, you could have sold the apartment, then you would not have been liable for the stamp duty.  You choose not to for whatever reason.  You could have come to an arrangment with the bank to repay the negative equity, or probably legitimately could have gone bankrupt where you were working.
> 
> You also chose to rent it out and not declare the rent, and you did this because you knew you would be liable for stamp duty.
> 
> You are incorrect that due to the 'shortfall' you were not liable for tax on rent, not true, but if you had registered with the PRTB you would have been able to offset mortgage interest against rent.
> 
> Nevertheless you are trying to get back on track, and that's good.  But I'd be worried about your bank accounts if I were you.  And there's the little matter of tenants who claim social welfare rent or tax rent relief without informing the landlord.  But you may be lucky and fall thru the net.




I knew my tenants, none of them claimed rent relief. 

Can you please explain how I was being naive in my previous post??


----------



## mandelbrot

Favourite said:


> I knew my tenants, none of them claimed rent relief.
> 
> Can you please explain how I was being naive in my previous post??



You only know what they've told you. They don't need to inform you if they claim it.

I already flagged how you were being naive in my previous post. I could explain a couple of other ways (besides a rent relief claim) by which you could come to Revenue's attention, but I can't be bothered TBH. Yes you are naive if you think you're in the clear though.


----------



## Phil Kent

mandelbrot said:


> OK, so can we agree the consensus would appear to be, the guy needs to go get proper advice, with a view to regularising his position as soon as is feasible for him to do so.
> 
> If he gets a PRTB registration, it's quite likely his net rental income will be below 3,174 and he won't be required to file under self assessment, so he'll escape interest on the late tax (AFAIK).
> 
> The rights or wrongs of the current interest deduction rules don't really come into it.
> 
> (Thread closed!)



sorry mandelbrot, does this mean that if the net rental income I get after mortgage interest, managment fee, expenses etc is 2K I dont pay income tax?


----------



## mandelbrot

Phil Kent said:


> sorry mandelbrot, does this mean that if the net rental income I get after mortgage interest, managment fee, expenses etc is 2K I dont pay income tax?



Of course not! It simply means your return filing obligation changes from a self-assessment form 11, to a less onerous form 12 (tax due can be collected through the PAYE system by reducing your tax credits)... 

Think about it, if the post you quoted meant what you want it to, there'd be a crazy number of people with 3,173 of tax-free income...


----------

